| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: Bird's-eye view
- Reason
- High resolution photograph of an old but well known natural disaster, unique viewpoint, shows damage from earthquake
- Articles this image appears in
- 1906 San Francisco earthquake
- Creator
- US government agency
- Support as nominator — Bleh999 11:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too blurry in full-size, and we don't know if some of the buildings have been razed for re-construction (note the tracks already built), or if it is only due to quake damage. --
Janke |
Talk 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- it was taken in April 1906 the same month as the earthquake, the exact day is not listed Bleh999 11:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, nearly there, but it lacks crispness. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, one of the pictures from that article was already featured ( [2]) and this one is not that good anyway.-- Svetovid 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I actually think this is a great picture showing the beginning of rebuilding... gren グレン 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Marines in Afghanistan
- Reason
- A high-quality PD image taken by the Marine Corps during its operations in Afghanistan. In addition to the artistic value, I like the contrast between the modern serviceman in the foreground and the ancient mud and stone buildings surrounding him.
- Articles this image appears in
- 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines, Camouflage, Hospital Corpsman, MARPAT, Military camouflage, War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
- Creator
- United States Marine Corps (Cpl. James L. Yarboro, USMC)
- Support as nominator — Palm_Dogg 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's free from any technical problems, has good composition, and is certainly encyclopaedic. Nice find. -Panser Born- (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Unfortunately, I'll have to oppose on account of the whole thing is like one of those brain teaser puzzles you might find online. Everything blends together! I didn't even notice there was a man there until I zoomed in to inspect it! It's a good picture, but I don't think there's enough contrast to get its point across as effectively. └ Jared┘┌ t┐ 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Palm dogg... the nom says you created this picture... although it's from the military's website... since your user page says you're a Marine... and maybe you've been to Afghanistan... can you tell us anything about how typical a scene like this might be? Is this how things might often look before searching a house or whatnot? I just want to make sure it represents War in Afghanistan or a Hospital Corpsman on duty well (I don't think it represents the 3rd Battalion well) before I support.
gren
グレン 02:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I thought Creator meant "Uploader". Have fixed that. I wasn't on the Afghan deployment, but the 3rd Battalion Marines I've talked to who were there said that it was a low-intensity deployment (not like Iraq) and that a Corpsman walking around looking for signs of disease would not be unusual. Palm_Dogg 04:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - I'm not sure I can support it due to imperfect focus at full resolution, and how difficult it is to make out what you're looking at. That said, it is a fascinating photo to inspect: look at the ladder in the center leading up to someone's second floor home! Also, the architecture is fascinating, and it's amazing how *clean* the place is -- little or no litter at all. It would also be a good pic for camouflage. -- TotoBaggins 06:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose- Nice pic, but I don't think it illustrates that much in terms of Marines, Corpsmen, or the War in Afghanistan. If it were illustrating camouflage, I'd support it, since he's so hard to spot. Iorek85 07:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral A good composition but there are some technical problems. Ba'Gamnan | Talk 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, now that it illustrates camouflage. Ba'Gamnan, what technical problems are you referring to? Spikebrennan 15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Spikebrennan-- St.daniel Talk 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Spikebrennan. Witty Lama 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support per above. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, certainly not the best Wikipedia offers.-- Svetovid 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Not sure about any technical problems, but I think it is very encyclopedic for camouflage, shame we don't have the relevant architectural articles, perhaps a request to the relevant project is in order? Terri G 09:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Oooo...nice camouflage. I keep forgetting there's a man standing in plain view in the pic. Encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 04:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support As per comments above Booksworm Talk to me! 05:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The top part looks kind of washed out. Spebudmak 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines - Afghanistan.jpg MER-C 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The Yanks mop up on Bougainville
_March_1944.jpg)
- Articles
- Bougainville campaign, M4 Sherman
- Creator
- US Government
- Reason
- One of the few pictures from the Pacific War that clearly shows actual combat operations in the jungles of the South Pacific islands. The soldiers involved are also dramatically silhouetted by the sun shining down through the jungle canopy. The action captured includes one soldier sprinting for cover as another carefully fires his rifle at a target unseen by the viewer.
- Nominated by
- Cla68 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Cla68 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. - Mgm| (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
OpposeNeutralAre there really very few pictures of the pacific war? There seems to be plenty of video footage.And the picture its self is unremarkable with not great composition and very dark shadows. - Fcb981 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)- Fair enough, Given your considerable knowlage on the subject I will trust that you nominated a picture that impressed you and I will trust that you can evalute the rareity better than I can. Thanks - Fcb981 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- The South Pacific theater ( South West Pacific theatre of World War II, Solomon Islands campaign) was way less photographed than the Central Pacific campaigns. And the pictures that do exist are mainly posed, rear-area, airfield personnel, or after-battle shots. Jungle warfare is apparently difficult to photograph or film and the few military and media photographers who were there appear to have been reluctant to expose themselves to enemy fire. I don't agree with you that the picture is unremarkable. I think it captures the drama of close quarters combat very well. The troops in the picture are using the tank as "rolling cover" because the human beings that they are hunting are, judging by the angle of the standing rifleman, probably 50 yards away or less. You can see how the three soldiers are coordinating their cover-and-fire tactics. One covers from a ground position while the other two take turns firing from either side of the tank and then quickly retreat back into cover. I think that the act of men hunting other men is very dramatic as well as being relatively rarely photographed and I think this photo captures the drama of it in a place where a lot of intense combat took place and a lot of people died, but where there isn't much photographic documentation of what actually occurred. Cla68 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
weaksupport v3 I actually rather like this image, composition included, there is a lot of action and the level of activity / detail pulls you in. The inky shadows are unfortunate though. Debivort 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)- Support. I love this photo. The quality may not be the best, but the composition is dramatic (and I don't think the inky shadows detract too much, in any event). It really captures how terrifying this sort of battle was, and how brave the men doing it were. Calliopejen1 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Great composition and the quality may be excused due to its historical value. Mgiganteus1 09:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support version 3
SupportBeing historical, artistic yet informative, all in a rare shot make this one impossible to oppose. J Are you green? 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC) - Support - Wonderful picture Booksworm Talk to me! 17:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I only support Version 1 - no. 3 (especially) has this strange unnatural feel to it.... Booksworm Talk to me! 08:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Whoa. 8thstar 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Version 3
Oppose nominated editThe original is in a bad condition but might be fixable with a good edit. This one is for one not cleaned up and for two blows the highlights even more than the original. I might support a proper edit or a better version if someone can find one. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is another version at Defenselink that shows better detail in the foreground and the tank in the picture. That version, however, cuts off the top of the image thereby reducing the dramatic effect of the sun's rays filtering through the foliage so I chose not to use that version. I don't know of any other versions better than the one I originally listed here.
Cla68 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The unitedstatesveterans.com version I link to shows that the foliage in the background and the tank are in fact not blown out. Sadly the link through leads nowhere, but it means there should be a better version available (which also shows another soldier on the right). ~
trialsanderrors 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The linked version you were looking for is here, thanks to the Internet archive. It's the very same version that is also actually in archives.gov ( ID 531183, "Use War and Conflict Number 1185 when ordering a reproduction or requesting information about this image.", NAIL Control Number: NWDNS-111-SC-189099; search at the ARC for "bougainville" to find it, deep-linking doesn't work). But the online version still isn't really large enough. It's also available at the Library of Congress, but only as a thumbnail. If someone could order it at ARC, I'm sure a better scan could be produced. Lupo 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The unitedstatesveterans.com version I link to shows that the foliage in the background and the tank are in fact not blown out. Sadly the link through leads nowhere, but it means there should be a better version available (which also shows another soldier on the right). ~
trialsanderrors 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose first two. ARC version is too light (and the online version too small), but both versions here are way too dark.
Lupo 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- However, I think the the 3000×2325px version from DVIC ( description) is perfectly fine. They did not crop anything away, it's rather the two versions shown in this nomination that are cropped. The two shown here are just inferior. Lupo 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and please give this poor image a better name. "The Yanks mop up at Bougainville" is so unencyclopedic (even if DVIC and ARC use it), and "Bougainville_WWII_141" is scarcely better.
Lupo 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll support the DVIC version if you upload it. Also, a
for deep research, and of course you can give the image whichever name you think is most encyclopedic. ~
trialsanderrors 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I uploaded the better version. I don't see a "move" tab in Commons so how do I rename the image?
Cla68 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no move option for images. You should add the DVIC version here to be considered for featured status. ~
trialsanderrors 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is here now. It's the top image in this section.
Cla68 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uh no, we don't do it this way. This should be added as a separate image under a different name, preferably by
Lupo who found it, and then added here as an alternative to the two nominated versions. ~
trialsanderrors 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would have been ok with me. But anyway, I uploaded it under a neutral name. May I propose the two others for deletion at the commons?
Lupo 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fine with me as long as it doesn't mess up the link to the article that uses it (
Bougainville campaign).
Cla68 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think I've replaced the darker, cropped versions in all places. BTW, two things: (1) the two originally nominated images are mis-tagged, they should be {{ PD-USGov}}, not {{ PD-US}}. PD-US is used only for images published before 1923. (2) Please do not just copy the highly POV descriptions from U.S. Army (or other official) sites. Try to rephrase! Terms like "Japs" are considered highly offensive, especially at the commons. Lupo 06:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fine with me as long as it doesn't mess up the link to the article that uses it (
Bougainville campaign).
Cla68 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would have been ok with me. But anyway, I uploaded it under a neutral name. May I propose the two others for deletion at the commons?
Lupo 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uh no, we don't do it this way. This should be added as a separate image under a different name, preferably by
Lupo who found it, and then added here as an alternative to the two nominated versions. ~
trialsanderrors 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is here now. It's the top image in this section.
Cla68 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no move option for images. You should add the DVIC version here to be considered for featured status. ~
trialsanderrors 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I uploaded the better version. I don't see a "move" tab in Commons so how do I rename the image?
Cla68 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll support the DVIC version if you upload it. Also, a
Support original from gov. archiveSupport version 3 Softer on the eyes. Uh...little question here. Is that a shell casing hovering in front of the soldier's (the one firing) helmet? That would be awesome if it it was. However, why is the other pic (the first one) missing that shadow? I'm guessing someone tried to clean-up the image and took too much out.
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 05:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Darn, I think you're right. The black blot is in the ARC version, but not in the large DVIC version. What now? Shall I re-add it to the large version? I'm fairly confident I could do it, and in this case the modification would be a restoration, a correction of an overzealous cleanup done at DVIC, so I guess it should be ok from a moral point of view.
Lupo 07:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's unidentifiable, even in close-up. The DVIC version doesn't look cleaned up to me either, so unless we have other evidence that it's a shell casing I wouldn't put it back in. ~ trialsanderrors 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah...I guessing that version 1 and 2 were based on the DVIC version, so the "shell casing" is probably a scanning or printing error.
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 07:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- The DVIC version definitiely has been cloned in the area of the "shell case" (I've uploaded a comparison at approx 200%, above) which is interesting... does this mean the black mark was there on the original print? The first two (smaller) versions are clearly of the same scan; the larger one is a much better scan but is the one with the obvious retouching.. I'm pretty sure the original submission is a high contrast version of the one with the "shell case" in which the mystery object has also been cloned out, only rather more cleverly. I too would be very wary about adding this back in to the bigger version, but I'm fairly sure it is an original detail. If our detectives would like to take the forensic report back to the US govt website, maybe we could uncover an original scan..? Worth a try, I think. mikaul talk 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Darn, I think you're right. The black blot is in the ARC version, but not in the large DVIC version. What now? Shall I re-add it to the large version? I'm fairly confident I could do it, and in this case the modification would be a restoration, a correction of an overzealous cleanup done at DVIC, so I guess it should be ok from a moral point of view.
Lupo 07:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support DVIC version. Lupo 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Version 3 Despite high reproductibility and low historical value. BeefRendang 09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, not unique enough.-- Svetovid 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Suport Version 3. While all are good the last is clearly the superior shot. Theonlyedge 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Support Version 3 – This is the best example of a photo from the jungles of the Second World War I've seen. Centy 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) - SupportV3 very good picture -- St.daniel Talk 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great photo Electricmoose- Electrifying talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Pending news on possible missing detail (see above) I'd like to support version 3, as it's clearly the best scan, but the shading (performed on the scan, I think) is awful. There's no way the soldiers should be silhouetted to a toneless black while the foreground shadows are a 60% grey, it just looks unnatural and wrong. It's a shame, as it just needs a little tweak to put right. Is it too late in the nomination to upload something better? I'd suggest the existing version 3 just be swapped out for a properly shaded one, to save having a version 4, more voting, etc - what d'you think? Just to clarify, I'm not proposing a version anything like as contrasty and heavily shaded as the original nom, just enough to stop the rest of the scene looking flat. mikaul talk 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Version 3, shows retouching, not encyclopedic.
217.132.79.90 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please sign in when voting. J Are you green? 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong!. This is a premature conclusion. If the two are different scans it might just be a piece of dirt on the scanner or film in one version and a cleaner scanjob on the other version. -- Dschwen 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If someone really, really wants a perfectly clean scan, I can go down to the archives and do a 4800dpi one of the slide in the research room.
Noclip 12:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- You have access to a hard copy? How?!? Anyways, I'm fine with the current res of version 3.
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 06:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- The slide is available to the public for scanning through the National Archives.
Noclip 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see an unadulterated scan of the original print to settle the shell casing issue. Please, if it's easy enough for you, I'd realy appreaciate it. Don't worry about dust & scratches, I'll happily do all of that if you upload the raw scan. 3000x2000 pixels is fine. mikaul talk 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- The slide is available to the public for scanning through the National Archives.
Noclip 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Would that happen to be at the same site as the
Buchenwald slide? --
Dschwen 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just discovered
this NARA/ARC mirror. A great resource, and: they do have the original, uncompressed TIFFs! The Bougainville image is
here, with a link to the
3000×2337 TIFF from the NARA (not the DVIC). The Buchenwald image is
here, with the
3000×2424 TIFF here. Both TIFFs show quite a bit of dust that could probably be carefully be removed digitally.
Lupo 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: Both TIFFs are about 7MB each.)
- Awesome, thanks, I'll see if I can get the Buchenwald cleaned up. -- Dschwen 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The TIFF of the Bougainville photo has also lots of scratches that probably cannot be removed easily. In some areas, it is better than the DVIC scan, though. The shooting soldier, for instance, isn't just saturated black. Lupo 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- An already cleaned-up version of the Buchenwald picture is also available at the DIV: 2699×2160px JPG ( description). Lupo 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just discovered
this NARA/ARC mirror. A great resource, and: they do have the original, uncompressed TIFFs! The Bougainville image is
here, with a link to the
3000×2337 TIFF from the NARA (not the DVIC). The Buchenwald image is
here, with the
3000×2424 TIFF here. Both TIFFs show quite a bit of dust that could probably be carefully be removed digitally.
Lupo 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: Both TIFFs are about 7MB each.)
- You have access to a hard copy? How?!? Anyways, I'm fine with the current res of version 3.
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 06:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpg MER-C 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The Milky Way over Death Valley
- Reason
- Very unusual picture, in that they were able to picture both the valley and the milky way in the same shot. Hight resolution, and interesting.
- Articles this image appears in
- Death Valley, Night sky, Milky Way
- Creator
- U.S. National Park Service
- Support as nominator — Chris H 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. While this is a very impressive artistic panoramic shot, I don't think it contributes to the article significantly. The fact that much of the foreground is very out of focus, it is black and white and contains the milky way sky so prominently only confuses understanding of what Death Valley actually is in my opinion. Good image, just sadly not FP material on Wikipedia. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
SupportI think the technical problems are minor for a night shot (although some cropping might be in order). Maybe it should also be added to Milky Way? ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)- The problem is that panoramas are rather unwieldy to have in article. It can be done; see
Along the River During Qingming Festival; but (IMHO) it is best not to have them included unless it contributes something that could not be done by an image with a more balanced aspect ratio.--
Here
T
oHelp 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- For the Milky Way article a crop with a better aspect ratio might work. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawn because of multiple stitching errors. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that panoramas are rather unwieldy to have in article. It can be done; see
Along the River During Qingming Festival; but (IMHO) it is best not to have them included unless it contributes something that could not be done by an image with a more balanced aspect ratio.--
Here
T
oHelp 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. Not a support yet, just a general wow. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 23:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support For sheezy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chickitychina`1`1 ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC). J Are you green? 01:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's a great picture, and although it doesn't contribute much to
Death Valley, it would probably be great for
Night Sky,
Milky Way, and
Light Pollution. Does a featured picture have to contribute strongly to an article to be FP anyway? --
Keflavich 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- My support is for the unedited version --
Keflavich 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I support the original which appears to now be part of Night Sky. I think the panoramic currently in Milky Way does a better job of showing the sky than either version of this, so I say keep this one out of that article. Neither version does much credit to Death Valley as it is written currently. If someone adds a subsection on light pollution or a separate article then the original would be well suited to that. Flendon 01:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- My support is for the unedited version --
Keflavich 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff. Yeah, it's striking and very nice... but, I am not even sure it does a great job of representing night sky, Mily Way, or light pollution... and yes,
WP:FP? #5 states it need to contribute. I interpret as strongly and find "[w]hile effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject" to be especially relevant to this nomination.
gren
グレン 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- How about the factoid that Death Valley has the darkest night sky of all U.S. National Parks [3], and one of the darkest skies in the U.S. proper [4]? I don't think color was chosen for artistical reasons here. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still on the fence about the original, but I have to oppose the edit, that one is way too dark and in no way representative of the actual view the photographer saw. -
Mgm|
(talk) 08:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you think that? I actually darkened it on second go-around (using curves to avoid blown blacks) because I have grave doubts the night sky was grey. To get anything as light as the original you'd have to have the full moon out. (Just to put numbers on it, the background sky is 98% black in the edit, and 88% black in the original.) ~
trialsanderrors 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You might be right but to be honest I can't see any detail whatsoever in the hills anymore. I'm not using a great display at the moment so I'm not going to make definitive statements but if the hills (and that rock in the foreground) are only a few points from absolute black then almost all detail is going to be lost even if you haven't actually blown them. In any case, the sky had to have some light in it or would not have been grey in the first place and assuming a relatively linear exposure curve with no dodging and burning, the brightness of the sky would be relative to the brightness of the landscape and the heavy clouds which look to come pretty close to absolute black in parts. If the sky is brighter than the dark clouds then I suggest that is because it because it wasn't actually as black as you imagine. It looks like a fine haze of cloud illuminated by the starlight is partly to blame.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 09:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are two separate things: 1. The desired level of detail, and 2. the accurate replication of the actual lighting situation. On the residual light in the sky, certainly there are particles in the air that reflect the background glow. But given this is one of the remotest areas in California I have grave doubts that background glow and starlight create enough light to make features visible at night that are dark even during the daytime. The picture strikes me as post-processed simply in order to enhance those features, with some other drawbacks (e.g. the poor contrast in the sky and on the valley floor). I'd say that if anything my edit is even too light for the actual lighting situation, but of course if the goal is to bring out the features of the mountains we should go with the original. Although I'm not sure why not go with a daylight shot in that case. ~
trialsanderrors 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You could be right. As I said though, why are the dark clouds darker than the sky if the sky was virtually pitch black? I think starlight does have the ability to illuminate the foreground if exposed long enough, although I'm not sure that is the case here since there is minimal blurring of the stars. I suspect it was taken with a fast, ultra wide lens with a wide open aperture (in the region of f/1.8 to f/2.8). Just a guess though. As for what the goal is, I would have thought it was to show Death Valley, not the sky which is merely an impressive backdrop. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with many comments above, however, To represent death valley the ENC of the picture is fairly minimal. What it represents well however, is the view of the milky way from earth. To this end, the edit is a vast improvement. Astheticaly, one doesn't want to look at a star image with a gray background and light hills and the edit solved that problem. If this Image was only suposed to represent death valley I'd say it wouldn't deserve to pass on ENC alone and so I think the star angle should be the priority. - Fcb981 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well the sky is certainly not pitch-black (although I doubt it's diffusion from hazy clouds, that would reduce lightness on the ground). The clouds get no light from the stars or the background glow, so they certainly are the darkest feature in the picture. The sky shows the typical gradation that comes from the background glow, but I have strong doubts the background glow is strong enough to light up the upper reaches of the sky in the picture. It just strikes me as the typical night picture where the grey tab of the levels tool is moved to the left in order to lighten up dark grey areas. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are two separate things: 1. The desired level of detail, and 2. the accurate replication of the actual lighting situation. On the residual light in the sky, certainly there are particles in the air that reflect the background glow. But given this is one of the remotest areas in California I have grave doubts that background glow and starlight create enough light to make features visible at night that are dark even during the daytime. The picture strikes me as post-processed simply in order to enhance those features, with some other drawbacks (e.g. the poor contrast in the sky and on the valley floor). I'd say that if anything my edit is even too light for the actual lighting situation, but of course if the goal is to bring out the features of the mountains we should go with the original. Although I'm not sure why not go with a daylight shot in that case. ~
trialsanderrors 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You might be right but to be honest I can't see any detail whatsoever in the hills anymore. I'm not using a great display at the moment so I'm not going to make definitive statements but if the hills (and that rock in the foreground) are only a few points from absolute black then almost all detail is going to be lost even if you haven't actually blown them. In any case, the sky had to have some light in it or would not have been grey in the first place and assuming a relatively linear exposure curve with no dodging and burning, the brightness of the sky would be relative to the brightness of the landscape and the heavy clouds which look to come pretty close to absolute black in parts. If the sky is brighter than the dark clouds then I suggest that is because it because it wasn't actually as black as you imagine. It looks like a fine haze of cloud illuminated by the starlight is partly to blame.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 09:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you think that? I actually darkened it on second go-around (using curves to avoid blown blacks) because I have grave doubts the night sky was grey. To get anything as light as the original you'd have to have the full moon out. (Just to put numbers on it, the background sky is 98% black in the edit, and 88% black in the original.) ~
trialsanderrors 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support The original lighter version does a good job of showing the light pollution (see that eery glow emanating from above the peaks?). It also demonstrates some features of death valley and the playa, such as the barren landscape and cracked earth. !jim 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the edit, Conditionally support the original if someone finds a way to fit it into
Milky Way. I think it does a better job of illustrating the Milky Way, from an Earthly perspective, than any of the current images in that article, but I share the encyclopedicity concerns brought up by Diliff and others.--
ragesoss 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Second this comment !jim 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support for original, oppose edit. I just saw a NZ TV documentary about Death Valley, which is a haven for astronomers and stargazers because of very little light pollution. The time-lapse sky sequence shown in the documentary was very much like this image. Opposers should re-consider if this fact might change their vote - this is a grand image! -- Janke | Talk 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 On the grounds this get incorporated into Milky Way, because it illustrates the Milky Way far better than Death Valley. The stars are far clearer in edit 1, so I would give my support to that picture. Centy 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think edit 1 does a better job of showing the milky way, but a cropped version might be nice - as it stands, there is a lot of valley shown and the MW isn't quite the central focus of the image. -- Keflavich 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support Great picture, really useful on encyclopaedia. Great job! Zouavman Le Zouave ( Talk to me!) 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Support The picture was selected as APOD picture. I trust the guys from NASA, who run APOD know the value and the quality of the picture. The picture is in perfect focus and has a big value. Mbz1 | Talk
- Strong Support. This image is just stunning. Surely one of the best NASA pictures.-- KaragouniS 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support (having clicked on the image to get a closer look while viewing Milky Way, not browsing FPC). I think the image could use a little contrast enhancement, but I prefer the original to the edit, which seems too dark to me. — brighterorange ( talk) 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support; but absolutely prefer the original to the edit. Goodnight mush Talk 04:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Amazing Electricmoose- Electrifying talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per Electricmoose -- St.daniel Talk 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support original, oppose edit — Like brighterorange, I found this picture through the Milky Way article, and was about to nominate it, but it looked like someone beat me to the punch. ♠ SG →Talk 20:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support A really outstanding picture M&NCenarius 08:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A note from the maker of this image. Since it is in the Public Domain, I have no control over subsequent processing. However, the intent of the image was neither to show light pollution nor the Milky Way, per se. It's intent is to reveal the fact that it is still possible to view the visible universe from earth from a place of solitude, beauty, and peace. By the way, the "eerie glow" is NOT light pollution, but the natural airglow (permanent aurora), light pollution is virtually invisible in this image. APOD also made an error in saying it was a mosaic of 30 images, it is actually 60 images stitched together. Stretching on the top makes the stars look like lines, a necessary evil in making panoramas that are rectangular in shape with zero distortion at the horizon. The original image is about 13000 x 4000 pixels, I submitted a downsampled representation in 8 bit monochrome. The original image is 16 bit, with more dynamic range than the human eye can possibly perceive in greyscales. I chose grey because under this level of light the human eye is essentially color blind. I thank the nominator for the honor, and can only flinch at the subsequent image processing. Ngc1972 02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support for the original version. It is a stunning picture. -- Anirban 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Deathvalleysky nps big.jpg MER-C 07:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As a footnote please read that light at night from Las Vegas is affecting stunning imagery like this?
You can see the video describing the problem at California Connected HERE -
http://www.californiaconnected.org/tv/archives/449
Wikipedia has it own pages on light pollution, caused by light at night, HERE -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.155.40.17 (
talk) 11:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
EpcotImagination
- Reason
- An interesting photo of a unique building. It is very high resolution and describes the subject well
- Articles this image appears in
- Epcot, Imagination!, Epcot attraction and entertainment history
- Creator
- User:Reywas92
- Support as nominator — Reywas92 Talk How's my editing? 15:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not "the best Wikipedia has to offer", just a typical snapshot. You need something more to make FP. Sorry to be so blunt, but take a look at existing FPs... -- Janke | Talk 20:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Janke Cacophony 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Janke; not quite there. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheung Tsing Tunnel
- Reason
- Cheung Tsing Tunnel is a dual tube 3-lane tunnel on Tsing Yi Island, Hong Kong. The tunnel itself may look nothing special, but the location where the photo was shot is usually unaccessible. The photographer was invovled in a car accident, so he had the chance to get off the bus on a highway and took the picture. The quality of the picture is good in general. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Cheung Tsing Tunnel
- Creator
- Father vice
- Support as nominator — Jerry Crimson Mann 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nice picture of a no photography sign... -- Dschwen 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a speed camera sign!!! And, oppose, clumsy composition, tunnel isn't straight, building cut off, etc. -- Conor Campbell 15:15, 27 May 2007 (GMT).
- Oppose, nothing particularly outstanding about this photograph. The composition is in fact clumsy. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Phoenix. Cacophony 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, now if you had stood in the middle of traffic and gotten a center-on / straight shot maybe it'd be FP material. Still, a very encyclopedic and useful photo. gren グレン 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Leaning to the right on the left, this is irritating and it can be corrected (but not by me) - Adrian Pingstone 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Strong Oppose As per comments above
Booksworm
Talk to me! 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) - Oppose Poor composition. -- Anirban 05:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above- the composition is nowhere near FP quality. -- Kicking222 12:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Palm Trees in the Sunset
- Reason
- This is a beautiful image of palm trees in the sunset. It has an aura of the tropics and can be used in numerous articles.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mumbai, Arecaceae, sunset, Bandstand Promenade, Bandra, Land's End, Bandra
- Creator
- Zia Gheewalla.
- Support as nominator — Nikkul 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I think it's alright, actually. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice composition, but the horizontal and diagonal lines running through the picture ruin it for me. Cacophony 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support I'm guessing the lines are telephone lines or something...either way, I'm not really bothered by them. It's a very lovely pic, with some encyclopedic value. However, it'll probably be a better FP on Commons. Nevertheless, the pic satisfies all the criteria. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I bet those those lines could be edited out. Maddiekate 03:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Support for photo in it's original form. The telephone lines are irritants at best but the snap is really good. Kalyan 09:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but for me this is just another sunset with palm trees. Like the Guidelines for nominators at Commons says, "almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others." - Wutschwlllm 11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, beautiful shot, I don't really mind the lines. Conor Campbell 15:18, 27 May 2007 (GMT).
- Oppose - Nice shot, like many sunset photos, but not exceptional. The centered composition is a little boring and the size too small considering present cameras - Alvesgaspar 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the best colors; just another pretty sunset. Doesn't even seem encyclopedic. Reywas92 Talk How's my editing? 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Insufficient resolution and blurs. Also the pic would be better with the whole shore captured IMO. -- Brand спойт 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - Lacks enc. If this is an FP, then every other sunset pic is, too. For me to support a pic based on beauty alone, it would have to be dead-perfect, and this one just isn't, as noted above. -- TotoBaggins 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Neutral I'm sorry but those lines really are strange. They ruin the image. If you could edit them out, then I would support....
Booksworm
Talk to me! 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Tennis Ball
- Reason
- Sharp, high resolution, large DOF, likely to be difficult to take a significantly better shot.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tennis ball, Ball
- Creator
- User:Fcb981 Self nom
- Support as nominator — Fcb981 07:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: unevenly lit; background especially lacking in light - white background that appears white would be ideal. Slightly lateral flash would be more elegant, to ease up on the strict symmetry of the picture.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I dont think the gradiated background is much of a problem, but tastes do very. And yes the lighting is a bit direct but until I get a flash gun and an external sync unit (hopefuly sometime next month) thats about what I'm stuck with. -
Fcb981 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I find that toying around presents a few alternatives. There isn't a replacement for "the real McCoy." However, one cheap substitute that I found involves wraping a lamp in tissue, giving very diffused light. The problems are that yes, there is still a gradient (but it's smaller), and that it requires a long exposure (plenty of noise on my camera). Here's an example. By the way, I know that that photo is poor, but I didn't have a lot of time. J Are you green? 16:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. There's a hidden message in the linked picture. Challenge: who can identify the source of the hidden message? J Are you green? 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Theres nothing "poor" about your picture, I also admire your creativity, I'll have to try your Idea. Thanks. - Fcb981 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I dont think the gradiated background is much of a problem, but tastes do very. And yes the lighting is a bit direct but until I get a flash gun and an external sync unit (hopefuly sometime next month) thats about what I'm stuck with. -
Fcb981 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is that
Hebrew? Also, try bounced flash, get a business card and a rubber band and wrap the card in front of the flash so it reflects the light up, and jack up the flash exposure compensation to +1.0 - +2.0. --
antilived
T |
C |
G 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. I was in a hurry, and I grabbed the first sheet of paper that I saw. I didn't notice that the ink had bled through until my hand slipped while adjusting the curves! Strange.... J Are you green? 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, a less distracting background would be more effective for me. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why not take the photo outdoors in full shade? Shadowless lighting. No need for a flash. No long exposures. Cost: none. Give it a try!
Fg2 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- See this photo for a cheap, easy setup. Fg2 01:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment consider using an unbranded ball, or the unlabeled side - compare with
Image:Golfball.jpg.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tennis balls are manufactured and distributed by privet companys. I don't hand make mine and neither do most people. To Suggest that tennis balls are made without a brand name on them is misleading and taking copyright issues, trademark issues, etc. to an extream. -
Fcb981 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is not copyright, but product placement. Supermarkets and bargain stores in Europe sell unbranded tennis balls. Regards, Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- So do places in the US. Honestly though, this picture only shows one half of a ball and turning it to the blank side is a simple solution. There is nothing extreme about Wikipedia avoiding the appearance of advertising. pschemp | talk 13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tennis balls are manufactured and distributed by privet companys. I don't hand make mine and neither do most people. To Suggest that tennis balls are made without a brand name on them is misleading and taking copyright issues, trademark issues, etc. to an extream. -
Fcb981 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for the lighting and the logo. I don't object to logos generally if they are commonly part of the object, but having the logo centered like this is too much like advertising for my taste. -- dm (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Green sea turtle
- Reason
- Very good image of a green sea turtle in its natural habitat.
- Articles this image appears in
- Green sea turtle
- Creator
- Mila Zinkova
- Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I remember this one from the Commons. I should mention that there were peoples' legs in the background that have been edited out, but I don't think that's too big of a concern. As an aside, how does one take good digital pictures underwater?--
Here
T
oHelp 00:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support Very clear and well lit. Here to help, you take a look at the camera model? Shockingly, its a 2 MP low end point and shoot. I am stuned by the color quality and lack of compresion. There are some aberrations but its hard to say if they are a result of it being a water shot or poor lens quality. Regardless, more proof that the camera doesn't make the picture. - Fcb981 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough.-- Here T oHelp 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, no need to weaken it. A 2 mpx camera can give good magazine-quality images (I've had some of my 2 mpx shots published full-page) - here it is the nice composition and the translucent lighting that determine my vote. I don't oppose of the removing of a couple of swimmer's legs (see both versions at
Commons FP), but if there's going to be a heated leg discussion, I'd support either version. --
Janke |
Talk 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I only weakened it for what look like aberrations on edges and a bit more grainyness than I like in the shadows. keep in mind that weak support is a positive vote showing that I want it featured but am not totaly vested in it doing so. - Fcb981 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very colorful, good quality. -- St.daniel Talk 11:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, that's pretty. Looks good. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Minor quality issues, but overall it's a great shot. -- Tewy 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, really nice shot, I wish we had more good under water pics. Chris H 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Just curious-- is this an aquarium shot, or an underwater camera shot?
Spikebrennan 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Probably underwater, since it's unlikely people would be standing in an aquarium. Chick Bowen 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I really don't care about the legs, so either pic if someone really objects to editing them out. Very unique and encyclopedic pic...I don't see many underwater pics on WP. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice framing and lovely colors coem together very well here. Circeus 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good moment captured of the turtle's motion. Has a good range of colours for an underwater shot. Aye Carumba Fajita Pizza 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support -The image is great most notably for being an underwater shot. - 凶 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, As per 1 (3) 'distracting elements'. It probably does not matter what I say since so many have shown their strong support, but I think the background is VERY disturbing, just because underwater pictures are rare and hard to take should not make us promote sub standard pictures. See
[5] and
[6] for much better compositions. One rule in underwater photograpy is to point the camera upwards (sure all rules are supposed to be broken, but not this one in this case).
Stefan 00:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Have to disagree re. camera angle. Pointing the lens upwards would lose the highly enc habitat & surroundings, perhaps the main reason I voted for this picture. --
Janke |
Talk 11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then you want a wide angle reef picture, not a picture of a turtle. Stefan 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Have to disagree re. camera angle. Pointing the lens upwards would lose the highly enc habitat & surroundings, perhaps the main reason I voted for this picture. --
Janke |
Talk 11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Pic looks good for FP. Kalyan 09:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion an exquisite photograph; good composition too. Chris Buttigieg talk 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Great image. —dima /talk/ 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. If it is edited, declare what has been done and point to the original (done now). And I cannot chime in to the chant of the marvelous image quality. Sorry, all sympathy for the 2MP underdog aside, the quality is pretty bad and leaves a lot to wish for. -- Dschwen 08:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose What are the blown out pink speckles? I think this is an example of an encyclopedic, excellent image for illustration purposes that shouldn't be featured because it simply isn't clear, perfect, and "wow" at full size. The 800 * 600 preview I see on the image page makes this image look pretty darn good, and it just kills the taxobox in the most awesome way; bravo to the photographer, this image is a wonderful contribution to the encyclopedia. However, featured pictures should be impressive at full resolution, and this shot isn't going to be impressive with any side at 1000 pixels. Personally, I do like the composition, as in my experience, sea turtles swim quickly away from the camera, not toward it, and spend more time in deeper water farther away from the bottom. This turtle is coming to say "hi" to the photographer, and is posing is just the most perfect way. This doesn't excuse the technical problems, though. Enuja 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Strong Oppose – Not like this vote matters but this picture is technically very poor, and it is easy enough to reproduce that its these issues cannot be overlooked.
Centy 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is "easy enough to reproduce"? I'm not sure I understood what you're talking about.
Mbz1 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- It means the green turtle is not extinct and a better quality photo of the same subject can be taken.
Centy – – 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. The turtles are still around and one could hardly argue that "better quality photo of the same subject can be taken".
Mbz1 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I think you just contradicted yourself. And if I may add,
green sea turtles aren't exactly common, either. --
Tewy 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Tewy.If you mean that I'm contradicted myself, it is not exactly right. After all I'm the one, who took the picture and I'm really happy with it. Thank you for your support of the picture. Yet I hope that everybody would agree with such a thoughtful conclusion by user Centy that "better quality photo of the same subject can be taken".
- I meant that in your last comment, you said one could hardly argue, where I think you meant to say one could easily argue, assuming you agree with Centy --[[onclusion is truth for almost any subject and in my opinion is a really great reason for not just a simple "oppose" but for a "strong oppose". After all there's no limit for a better. Mbz1 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Hi, Tewy.If you mean that I'm contradicted myself, it is not exactly right. After all I'm the one, who took the picture and I'm really happy with it. Thank you for your support of the picture. Yet I hope that everybody would agree with such a thoughtful conclusion by user Centy that "better quality photo of the same subject can be taken".
- I think you just contradicted yourself. And if I may add,
green sea turtles aren't exactly common, either. --
Tewy 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. The turtles are still around and one could hardly argue that "better quality photo of the same subject can be taken".
Mbz1 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- It means the green turtle is not extinct and a better quality photo of the same subject can be taken.
Centy – – 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is "easy enough to reproduce"? I'm not sure I understood what you're talking about.
Mbz1 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, It is a beautiful, very sharp and clear underwater picture. It shows the subect (turtle) very well. It also shows rare live corals with different colors. By looking at background one could clearly see that the picture was taken in wild ocean and not in an aquarium. The picture looks great in any resolution. Mbz1 05:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- My point is the picture is technically very poor (blurry edges, grainy at full size which isn't that big etc.) and just because its underwater, these points cannot just be disregarded as if it were a historically important picture or one which is hard to reproduce. This picture is simply not FP standard, that's why I strongly oppose. Centy – – 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The pic might not the best Criterion #1 standard candidate I've ever seen, granted, but it fits pretty much every other criterion perfectly well. Ultimately, those criteria are just guidelines. If people like a pic and it does its job well, I for one will put my ruler and pencil away and just sit back and enjoy it. Support!
mikaul talk 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG MER-C 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Lantana camara flower and leaves
- Reason
- It is a clear and sharp illustration of the flower, bud and leaves of the species, adding value to the article it appears in.
- Articles this image appears in
- Lantana
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose such a beautiful flower but I don't think this is "wikipedia's best work". I feel that it should be a little tighter cropped, since the top is all dark. Also a lil' grainy. ~ Arjun 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support original, weak support version 2. I think it is Wikipedia's best work, and I love how not just the flower but the leaves are also in focus. the bud is nice, but it would be good if it wasn't cut off!-- Here T oHelp 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good picture, well focused, nice how you have both the open flowers and buds. Graininess is limited to out of focus areas, doesn't seem like it is obvious enough to warrant oppose. Lorax 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support original, support version 2. Both suffer from some grain, but I really like the composition of version 2. I'm forced to employ the rule that the difficulty of becoming featured is inversely proportional to the difficulty of the shot. -- Tewy 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support either Superb lighting, although the original should've used a larger aperture. -- antilived T | C | G 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support original. The alternative has a less pleasing composition. - Mgm| (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Great composition and lighting but the image quality is slightly lacking. Lots of image artifacts, noise and the detail isn't what it could be. The textures are a bit wishy-washy at 100%.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 11:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - You are quite right, but this is close to the best I'm able to achieve with my Konica Minolta A200, whose known sins are soft images and quite a bit of noise in full resolution. I also suspect that diffraction has some visible effect in these kind of macros, which represent a limitation in terms of DOF. I cannot aspire to a EOS 1D, but I intend to offer to myself a DSLR as soon as possible. Thanks for the support.
Alvesgaspar 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- A good idea. You certainly don't need the EOS 1D though unless you plan to get into photojournalism or sports photography because really the only benefit of those over any other DSLR is speed and durability. Any entry level DSLR is more than capable of great images. The biggest factor is what lens you twist onto the front of it, of course. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - You are quite right, but this is close to the best I'm able to achieve with my Konica Minolta A200, whose known sins are soft images and quite a bit of noise in full resolution. I also suspect that diffraction has some visible effect in these kind of macros, which represent a limitation in terms of DOF. I cannot aspire to a EOS 1D, but I intend to offer to myself a DSLR as soon as possible. Thanks for the support.
Alvesgaspar 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support both I prefer the colours of the original and the composition of the alternative, but they both seem pretty encyclopedic to me and any technical issues haven't spoiled it for me. Terri G 14:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Two beautifully composed pictures of two pretty flowers. Everything is nice about them... except for the technical side: too little detail at the given resolution. I'm sure once you get your DSLR you can retake a similar pic with perfect quality. I've been pondering for quite a while about this vote and although it might be arrogant or cruel to punish people for
cheapconsumer grade equipment we immediately shoot down cellphonecamera pictures as well, don't we? And I somehow feel that we owe the end user the best quality possible. -- Dschwen 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC) - Oppose both. The shots are more aesthetic than encyclopedic: I've seen many similar pictures of flowers and this one, while perhaps particularly colourful and well-composed, just isn't unique enough to justify FA status. Theonlyedge 23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Dschwen but I love both images. I hate these dilemmas. Compacts sometimes turn out fabulous detail at full res for some colours (the leaves in these shots are superbly rendered) and then other colour ranges/saturations go into a posterised mulch almost devoid of anything approaching detail. Why, I don't pretend to know. Both flowers look quite a bit better downsampled, but I'm kind of getting tired of suggesting it for compact shots. Ho-hum.
mikaul
talk 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - But these images were downsampled from 3264x2448, which is the maximum available resolution (8 Mp)! By the way, the A200 is a bridge camera, not a compact, and not cheap at all. Two years ago, it was about the same price as the EOS 350D, which had just arrived to the market. What made me decide for this type of camera was the superb anti-shake machanism, now adopted by the new Sony DSLR.
Alvesgaspar 08:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have to be honest with you though. The better quality image and much higher ISO sensitivity of a good DSLR would probably more than compensate for the anti shake mechanism (and would obviously have other benefits in addition to that). The main downside with DSLRs is having to stop down considerably to achieve a large depth of field. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - But these images were downsampled from 3264x2448, which is the maximum available resolution (8 Mp)! By the way, the A200 is a bridge camera, not a compact, and not cheap at all. Two years ago, it was about the same price as the EOS 350D, which had just arrived to the market. What made me decide for this type of camera was the superb anti-shake machanism, now adopted by the new Sony DSLR.
Alvesgaspar 08:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Over saturated color and what looks like more color problems throughout. dithering and a bit of posterization or possibly artifacts, but mostly I don't like the blown, plasticy colors. -
Fcb981 04:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I took another look and I believe that grain is what at first glance looked like overcooked color, I cant imagin why there is grain with an ISO rating of 50 and there is also some slight chromatic aberration. - Fcb981 04:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support version 2 only. I agree with diliff and dschwen that a DSLR in your hands should be a great benefit to Wikipedia :) Blieusong 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support either. Interesting photographs that really do a great deal for their article. — Gaff ταλκ 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Both are very good although the second one is lacking the color of the first and the first is lacking the light of the second -- St.daniel Talk 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Question - These pictures have been here for more than 3 weeks and the last vote occurred 10 days ago. Still there seems to be a clear consensus to promote the first version. Anything wrong with the nomination? - Alvesgaspar 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:LantanaFlowerLeaves-3.jpg MER-C 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
National Cathedral Sanctuary
- Reason
- Encyclopedic value for Cathedral and High dynamic range imaging.
- Articles this image appears in
- Washington, D.C., (now added to) Washington National Cathedral
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Support as nominator — Noclip 13:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Not the prettiest cathedral I've seen, but I'm impressed by the tone mapping as I don't see any haloes or obvious abberations. As with any HDR image being compressed for display on the web it looks slightly lacking in contrast though. You know, you can't claim "Encyclopedic value for Cathedral and High dynamic range imaging" when it isn't in either article! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - It is an impressive picture and looks quite natural to me. But the main altar seems overexposed and has little detail. - Alvesgaspar 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_Cathedral_Panorama.jpg#File_links says that the image is only on the following pages:
Washington, D.C.,
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Cathedral Sanctuary.
Spikebrennan 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- And it contributes to the DC article, so what's your point? --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review) 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've added it to the Washington National Cathedral article - it's in need of more inline images in any case, and this is better than any of the existing interior shots. TSP 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- My point was simply to draw attention to the fact that the photo probably ought to be added to other articles as appropriate, which
TSP now did.
Spikebrennan 03:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and though it should, such a deficiency should hardly be held against FPC candidates. One applicable article is usually enough for me. --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review) 03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ergo my failure to oppose. Spikebrennan 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and though it should, such a deficiency should hardly be held against FPC candidates. One applicable article is usually enough for me. --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review) 03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- And it contributes to the DC article, so what's your point? --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review) 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment is there a reason to use HDR on this image? Also, what is giving it the purple look at the top of the image? gren グレン 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great tone mapping, almost like as the eye sees it. The purple look is probably due to the stained glass windows at the top.-- antilived T | C | G 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't support an image with such ovbious stiching errors. Shouldn't the image discription identify it as a stich of multiple photographs?
Cacophony 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Those "obvious stitching errors" look like they're unavoidable as they only occur in the hanging wires and not the ceiling (they are swaying). You may also want to consider that Diliff's Library of Congress panorama was featured even with similarly obvious stitching errors. Noclip 00:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd reconsider if you could you at least identify it in the image discription page as a stich. Criteria #7 has a footnote which states: The image description page should have sufficient context on circumstances of image creation and the specific image subject. Right now the image discription page is blank. Cacophony 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Support – I'm going to forgive the stitching errors as they seem unavoidable. Apart from that technically very secure and wonderfully symmetric.
Centy – – 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion a lovely cathedral, lovely photograph. I think it must be the overall perspective that has won me over. Chris Buttigieg talk 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice pic. The few sticking errors are not distracting can can only be seen upon careful scanning. Encyclopedic and beautiful. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:National Cathedral Panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Filipino casualties on the first day of war
- Reason
- Very impressive photograph of a little known war, also the age (1899) makes it more interesting, I think it is quite a good quality image considering the date it was taken
- Articles this image appears in
- Philippine-American War
- Creator
- Travb original uploader, but I uploaded a higher res version
- Support as nominator — Bleh999 10:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality and very enclycopedic -- St.daniel Talk 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, horrible, and a terrible thing to look at really, but it gets the job done. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support per above Jellocube27 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - by purely visual means brings to light a little-known conflict 139.184.30.18 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, IP users do not have suffrage. MER-C 03:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Blurry, very bad focus, downsampling would help a little. Might support a sharper version. -- Janke | Talk 11:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- support, encyclopedic material and shows the horrors of war. dtj 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Don jacob
Promoted Image:Filipino casualties on the first day of war.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Dark matter
- Reason
- A beautiful composite image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, that indicates evidence for dark matter, when seen in hi-res many dozens of galaxies including spiral galaxies like our own Milky Way can be seen some 5 Billion light years away giving us an image older then the Earth.
- Articles this image appears in
- Dark matter, CL0024+17
- Creator
- NASA, ESA, M. J. Jee & H. Ford et al. (Johns Hopkins U.)
- Support as nominator — ▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡ Talk 10:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Breathtaking but a little fuzzy -- St.daniel Talk 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I would have uploaded and nommed this image myself, except that it ain't PD. The image is credited to NASA, ESA, M. J. Jee and H. Ford (Johns Hopkins University). Only images credited to the STSCI are PD, as mentioned in the copyright page. MER-C 12:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is a PD image,
[7]
[8]. Other organizations my be contracted "or prepared for NASA under Contract NAS5-26555." -
Chris H 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing like self-contradictory copyright info. Changed to tentative support, as we are able to argue it's PD. Meh. MER-C 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- oppose - I will support the original only, I uploaded it several days ago for the
CL0024+17 article.
Chris H 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- And why is that? Anyways, each and every Telescope image we get to see here is postprocessed big time. Astronomers don't care about natural look, they want to enhance the details they are interested in. And in this case its the dark ring, which is completely invisible in the so called original. --
Dschwen 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but the blue stuff is just a computer generated gravitational field that has been overlapped, that covers up the real visible light image.
Chris H 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh... right... well... THEY SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE BOX! It should be clearly stated in the caption. Anyways, I think the composing adds to the enc value. -- Dschwen 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but the blue stuff is just a computer generated gravitational field that has been overlapped, that covers up the real visible light image.
Chris H 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- And why is that? Anyways, each and every Telescope image we get to see here is postprocessed big time. Astronomers don't care about natural look, they want to enhance the details they are interested in. And in this case its the dark ring, which is completely invisible in the so called original. --
Dschwen 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Shallow water waves
- Reason
- Beautiful picture, well illustrating the scientific idea.
- Articles this image appears in
- shallow water equations
- Creator
- user:DanCopsey
- Support as nominator — Michael Hardy 02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could someone figure out what this is not displaying correctly? I've spent too much time already wrestling with ths software on this one. Michael Hardy 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- For some reason animated gifs sometimes want to be their original size. ??? Fixed, though. -- TotoBaggins 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Support-- Very interesting and super-enc for waves, which are so deep and subtle. -- TotoBaggins 22:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Oppose- I just realized that there's a significantly bigger and better version of this item here, so I'm withdrawing my support. I'd definitely vote for the bigger one, though. -- TotoBaggins 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)- Support larger version --
TotoBaggins 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the larger version is to get voted on, should the link to the image be changed in this section? Does that require some sort of consensus? I would guess it would be necessary then to notify everyone who's opined on this to allow them to edit their opinions accordingly. Also I suppose that any opinion that was actually about the smaller version would have to be idenitified as being about the smaller version so as not to misrepresent people's views. Is there some standard procedure for such a situation? Michael Hardy 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support larger version --
TotoBaggins 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is to be voted on. Made it a bit more obvious. We'll probably leave this one open for a few extra days to gather consensus, as one of the oppose !votes no longer counts. MER-C 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Needs an explanation how the image was created on the description page. Like this its just a pretty anim with little enc. --
Dschwen 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- How the picture was created? You mean the software that was used? I don't think that part's important. If you mean the mathematical equations that describe the motion, those are explicit in the article.
Michael Hardy 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's so hard about writing This animation was created by solving the blah blah equations using matlab and creating a series of output images with the blah command. The animated gif was created using blurp. That's just like providing EXIF data in pictures. So people can learn by example. -- Dschwen 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- How the picture was created? You mean the software that was used? I don't think that part's important. If you mean the mathematical equations that describe the motion, those are explicit in the article.
Michael Hardy 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - We really need this kind of animations to illustrate physical phenomena not easy to explain in words. But the bathtub is too small for these wavelenghts, as well as the picture itself, resulting in a cluttered and confusing animation. Also, the point of view is not very favourable, a little more above the tub would be better. Finally, eveything happens too quickly, including the friction damping. A rest period should be inserted before the animation re-start - Alvesgaspar 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small. Larger version availiable. Duh. Maddiekate 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bigger version added. I've removed the pictures from this nom, as downloading 10 MB of stuff each time someone views this nom or the FPC main page is silly. MER-C 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)- I'm not sure why this was relisted - the nom didn't achieve a positive consensus within a week, and therefore shouldn't be promoted right? I don't even see 4 supports for this version or the alt, so it shouldn't it be closed? Debivort 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The concern here is that nobody expressed opinion on the bigger version - the oppose for this reason doesn't count, making it rather borderline. I tend to leave noms like this open for a few more days to see if discussion has stagnated. And the relisting was an experiment of mine. MER-C 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support larger version. ShadowHalo 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted , although the larger version might be nominated seperately in a little while. Raven4x4x 08:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll renominate it now. I think this needs a fresh nomination to draw more comment. Raven4x4x 14:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fulmer Falls
- Reason
- Beautiful waterfall picture, featured at Commons. Pretty much dominates its article page. Admittedly slight loss of quality at 100% zoom.
- Articles this image appears in
- Fulmer Falls
- Creator
- User:Ram-Man
- Support as nominator — Centy 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support The motion-blurred tree is really distracting. The water is blown to white in places, but I guess that's unavoidable in places. Looks okay overall.--
Here
T
oHelp 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let me copy what I wrote on the commons: "...Any darker and you lose the detail in the darker regions. I even had ideal lighting to eliminate even more contrasty lighting: taken in the evening near sunset on an overcast day....I've made large prints of this waterfall and the white water looks more than natural in this case. The water of the falls already spans ~65% of the image's tonal range." Can't argue about the blurred branch other than to say that it isn't where the eye is drawn into the image and people I've showed the print to haven't notice, FWIW. -- RM 03:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support as author -- RM 03:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I can sympathise about blown highlights in waterfall photos as it is very tricky to retain the whole luminance range, particularly when the surrounds are dark. My FP isn't any better in that regard. That said, it is very soft at full size and has a big square white hot pixel near the bottom of the falls that should be removed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Minus the hot pixel. I think the softness at full size is a function of the camera (probably the lens) rather than anything else; there're also some sharpening lines around the rocks at the bottom of the falls, which are probably from in-camera sharpening. At near-screen-filling size on my 19" monitor it looks pretty good and I think any more sharpness with that kit would require mosaicing... don't think that'd come off very well with a moving subject like this. Nice shot, Ram-Man. --
YFB
¿ 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stitching waterfalls usually works quite well - Eg
this and
this. Moving branches might cause slightly more problems though.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not have the technical skill and/or time and/or software to perform stitching like you do, so I take normal pictures with the equipment that I have. I've run into moving branches issues when I tried to do a few HDR images. Same basic issue. --
RM 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It can be a little time consuming to stitch panoramas but when you're putting the effort into a photo that you want to consider a keeper, isn't it worth a bit of time to maximise the quality? As for software, there are freeware panorama stitching programs out there, and as for equipment, why did you use the Coolpix 8700 instead of the D50 or D200? The difference in image quality is enormous.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I take so many pictures that processing them in the computer becomes a severe bottleneck. Taking the time to make 1 picture perfect in post-processing means a dozen or so more that may never get uploaded that will mostly be placed in actual articles (depends if the species article exists and if I make it). I have a few panoramas, but the photoshop panorama function doesn't always work too well. I'd be happy to let anyone take a stab at doing a better job at it. I do not own a D200 otherwise I would have used that. Since I have a D50 and 8700, there are a few reasons that I made the choice. If you test chart the 6MP D50 and the 8MP 8700, it has a little more real spatial resolution. I make poster size prints often, and the 6MP doesn't stretch as well as the 8MP does in real prints. It has different control of contrast and other aspects, but it should show more detail. The other reason is ISO. The 8700 has 50 ISO, the D50 only 200 ISO. I wanted the slow shutter speed for the water blur, so the two stops difference is a big deal. The third reason has to do with depth of field. It's my understanding that if you keep the field of view constant, the DoF is constant, but the distribution is not. Thus, the wider focal length of the 8700 keeps the foreground sharper than the D50 would for the same field of view. Images from my 8700 just look sharper. That said, I don't post-process my images as much as most people do, so they don't look as good for FPs, since I don't want to make the post-processing decisions for the users who may one day use the image for any purpose. The fact that this image has done so well without anything but simple post-processing is a testament to the quality of the source image. The fourth reason is noise. For some reason, the 8700's sensor has remarkably low noise at ISO 50 for long exposures. The fifth reason is that the 8700 has 5-step bracketing, the D50 only 3-steps. The sixth reason is mirror shake. The D50 at this shutter speed would suffer from blur due to the mirror slaming, since it doesn't have mirror lockup. The 8700 has no mirror, so it will be sharper. Lastly, it's soft because of the slight camera shake due to the breeze. --
RM 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see your reasoning but I don't agree with most of it. The D50 may have only ISO200 but its lenses will stop down FAR more than the CP8700 can. This results in longer length exposures and has the added benefit of increasing DOF to probably similar levels to the 8700. As for noise, I think you would find that the D50 at ISO400 has less noise than the 8700 at ISO50. Certainly the noise levels aren't particularly good in this image. Not enough to ruin the photo but hardly what I would consider clean. I'm also not convinced that the 8700 has more detail than the D50. Sure, it has more pixels but obviously that doesn't translate into real detail. I find the detail of just about every non DSLR camera has a sort of wishy washy look. The edge sharpness is usually not too bad, but the texture is diluted - probably from internal noise reduction algorithms. Finally, getting back to your reasoning that you take too many photos to spend time post-processing them.. well fair enough, but I just feel that taking many average quality photos is less rewarding than nailing a couple of photos and spending the time to make sure they're looking as good as they could be. I think you would find that the absolute majority of people who use photos on Wikipedia don't take much time to post-process existing images. In any case, I'm an advocate of taking photos in RAW format for the reason that there is so much more control over the photos. Sure, most of your images probably turn out just fine, but to have proper control over white balance, exposure and curves is something that cannot be matched by even the smartest camera. For example, you probably would have had a much better shot at saving the whites from clipping in this shot with a D50 and RAW. Don't get me wrong though - I'm not saying your photography or this image is in any way a bad photo, I just take issue with some of the points you raise. ;-)
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and your commons page says you have a D200. Thats where I got that impression from. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I borrow a D200 on occasion when I can, that's why. I don't have it most of the time. I've taken a lot of pictures with my D50 and 8700, often taking a shot from each on a photo shoot (always using a tripod). On long exposures, they both look very similar to my eyes (in terms of noise). I prefer the finer-grain noise produced by the 8700, all else being equal. I'll take the extra ~200 lines of resolution that the 8700 has, which I've seen comparing them side by side. The D50 smokes the 8700 whenever there is harsh contrast, but that doesn't apply to this scene which had great lighting. See here and here under "Resolution/Sharpness". You may disagree, but my eyes tell me what they tell me. You're probably right that stopping down will make both cameras essentially the same in terms of DoF and shutter speed (f/5.5 @ ISO 50 on the 8700 should be equal exposure to f/22 @ ISO 200 on the SLR) I don't like RAW because it slows me down on the photo shoots and on the computer. I use it occasionally. -- RM 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see your reasoning but I don't agree with most of it. The D50 may have only ISO200 but its lenses will stop down FAR more than the CP8700 can. This results in longer length exposures and has the added benefit of increasing DOF to probably similar levels to the 8700. As for noise, I think you would find that the D50 at ISO400 has less noise than the 8700 at ISO50. Certainly the noise levels aren't particularly good in this image. Not enough to ruin the photo but hardly what I would consider clean. I'm also not convinced that the 8700 has more detail than the D50. Sure, it has more pixels but obviously that doesn't translate into real detail. I find the detail of just about every non DSLR camera has a sort of wishy washy look. The edge sharpness is usually not too bad, but the texture is diluted - probably from internal noise reduction algorithms. Finally, getting back to your reasoning that you take too many photos to spend time post-processing them.. well fair enough, but I just feel that taking many average quality photos is less rewarding than nailing a couple of photos and spending the time to make sure they're looking as good as they could be. I think you would find that the absolute majority of people who use photos on Wikipedia don't take much time to post-process existing images. In any case, I'm an advocate of taking photos in RAW format for the reason that there is so much more control over the photos. Sure, most of your images probably turn out just fine, but to have proper control over white balance, exposure and curves is something that cannot be matched by even the smartest camera. For example, you probably would have had a much better shot at saving the whites from clipping in this shot with a D50 and RAW. Don't get me wrong though - I'm not saying your photography or this image is in any way a bad photo, I just take issue with some of the points you raise. ;-)
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I take so many pictures that processing them in the computer becomes a severe bottleneck. Taking the time to make 1 picture perfect in post-processing means a dozen or so more that may never get uploaded that will mostly be placed in actual articles (depends if the species article exists and if I make it). I have a few panoramas, but the photoshop panorama function doesn't always work too well. I'd be happy to let anyone take a stab at doing a better job at it. I do not own a D200 otherwise I would have used that. Since I have a D50 and 8700, there are a few reasons that I made the choice. If you test chart the 6MP D50 and the 8MP 8700, it has a little more real spatial resolution. I make poster size prints often, and the 6MP doesn't stretch as well as the 8MP does in real prints. It has different control of contrast and other aspects, but it should show more detail. The other reason is ISO. The 8700 has 50 ISO, the D50 only 200 ISO. I wanted the slow shutter speed for the water blur, so the two stops difference is a big deal. The third reason has to do with depth of field. It's my understanding that if you keep the field of view constant, the DoF is constant, but the distribution is not. Thus, the wider focal length of the 8700 keeps the foreground sharper than the D50 would for the same field of view. Images from my 8700 just look sharper. That said, I don't post-process my images as much as most people do, so they don't look as good for FPs, since I don't want to make the post-processing decisions for the users who may one day use the image for any purpose. The fact that this image has done so well without anything but simple post-processing is a testament to the quality of the source image. The fourth reason is noise. For some reason, the 8700's sensor has remarkably low noise at ISO 50 for long exposures. The fifth reason is that the 8700 has 5-step bracketing, the D50 only 3-steps. The sixth reason is mirror shake. The D50 at this shutter speed would suffer from blur due to the mirror slaming, since it doesn't have mirror lockup. The 8700 has no mirror, so it will be sharper. Lastly, it's soft because of the slight camera shake due to the breeze. --
RM 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It can be a little time consuming to stitch panoramas but when you're putting the effort into a photo that you want to consider a keeper, isn't it worth a bit of time to maximise the quality? As for software, there are freeware panorama stitching programs out there, and as for equipment, why did you use the Coolpix 8700 instead of the D50 or D200? The difference in image quality is enormous.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not have the technical skill and/or time and/or software to perform stitching like you do, so I take normal pictures with the equipment that I have. I've run into moving branches issues when I tried to do a few HDR images. Same basic issue. --
RM 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stitching waterfalls usually works quite well - Eg
this and
this. Moving branches might cause slightly more problems though.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per Yummifruitbat -- St.daniel Talk 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Support Very Nice picture
Booksworm
Talk to me!
Vote! Vote! 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC) - SupportAmazing photograph- moving water produces really interesting effect. If a particular photo of the two is needed I vote for version 1. Electricmoose- Electrifying talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, I didn't notice the blown highlights in the fall until I read Diliff's comment, so that doesn't bother me... nor did I notice the hot pixel (which does bother me). It is not very sharp full size or even when I scaled it to 1500px wide. The motion blur on the leaves to the left also bothered me. Since this most likely will become a featured picture I highly recommend filling in the hot pixel with a less jarring color and marking it retouched. gren グレン 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The entire image is a bit muddy my guess is from camera shake or possibly the very wide focal length. whatever the reason the sharpness is too lacking in my eyes. - Fcb981 04:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The fall is greatly overexposed.--
Mbz1 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I'm not sure I'd say that it is greatly overexposed. The luminance of the falls covers a substantial range over the 255 discrete levels (approximately 65%). At some point, the limitations of the media have to be considered. --
RM 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- True, but what actual dynamic range that 65% covers depends on the contrast settings on the camera just as much as the limitations of the media. Shooting with a DSLR and RAW would almost definitely have improved your ability to recover blown highlights.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 13:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Recoverable at what expense? More DR in extreme highlights = Less DR elsewhere (and different detail/contrast levels). Why is it important? The water has little detail: people don't notice the highlights unless they're looking for it. Why sacrifice already low contrast in other areas to dedicate more to the water? You could process the highlights and shadows differently from RAW (like the Shadow/Highlight adjustment in photoshop), but this takes time and isn't "honest" since it changes relative levels of parts of the image so it doesn't match reality. It's personal preference: Where do we want the contrast and how much manipulation is ok? -- RM 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- True, but what actual dynamic range that 65% covers depends on the contrast settings on the camera just as much as the limitations of the media. Shooting with a DSLR and RAW would almost definitely have improved your ability to recover blown highlights.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 13:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd say that it is greatly overexposed. The luminance of the falls covers a substantial range over the 255 discrete levels (approximately 65%). At some point, the limitations of the media have to be considered. --
RM 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Fulmer Falls Closeup 3000px.jpg Raven4x4x 08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Women of India
- Reason
- This picture excellently conveys what Women of Northern India look like. It also shows the culture and the dress of India as well as North India. This picture can be used as an image on the culture of India, demographics of India, people of India, etc. This image is colorful and conveys efficiently its purpose.
- Articles this image appears in
- Indian dress, Rajastan
- Creator
- lakshmi prabhala
- Support as nominator — Nikkul 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This image is too small. The nomination should be withdrawn unless a larger version can be uploaded.-- ragesoss 21:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)- Comment
Doesn't satisfy criteria #2.Jumping cheese Cont @ct 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC) - A request has been made for an image with a higher resolution to the author. It will be placed shortly. Nikkul 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's a nice picture but there are many higher resolution more centered pictures of Indians. Although Meanest Indian has been changing her licenses to CC-BY-ND-ND :O Some are still CC-BY -- gren グレン 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- This image with a higher resolution is now available on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Indiadem.jpg If someone could please make this image the same (greater) resolution, that would be great. I have no idea how to do that. Thanks so much. Nikkul 15:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Motion blurr. Witty Lama 15:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Thanks for taking the time to request a higher-res pic Nikkul. It's a very nice pic. However, the motion blur does ruin it and it's not as sharp or clear as I would like it to be. Sorry. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 06:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Saree is the most common dress of South Indian women and not the one shown above. The image shown above doesn't look like a saree. It looks more like a dress worn by Rajasthani women.--( Sumanth| Talk) 09:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I second what Sumanthk said. The image does not show the dress of a typical south Indian woman (which is anyways too varied to categorise like that).-- Seraphiel 10:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- To cite an example, Image:Kerala-girl-left.jpg is how south indian women dress.-- Seraphiel 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It does look like a sari to me.. but draped the Rajasthani way. And btw.. this is not a pic of a south indian woman.. definitely not dressed like one. This may be a very good addition to Rajasthan, but has nothing to do with South India! Its a good pic btw. I am only wondering what the 'motion blur' oppose is about... will defer voting till I figure that out. Sarvagnya 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Neutral Sorry to say but the image is grainy in some sorts and resolution could be better...
Booksworm
Talk to me! 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not Promoted Image:Indiadem.jpg The Sunshine Man 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Rogers Center, Toronto
- Reason
- A nice panorama of a Baseball stadium.
- Articles this image appears in
- Rogers Centre, Baseball park
- Creator
- Support as nominator — sikander 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Heavy JPEG artifacts, myriad of glaring stitching errors (~800, 1000, 2000, 2400, 3300 px from left at top; 600, 2100, 3100 px from left at centre; 2800 px from left at bottom - these stand out in particular). J Are you green? 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, very useful photo but the jagged area by the canopy is just too much stitching problem in and of itself. gren グレン 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Major sticking errors that are easily noticeable. Take a look at the railing and the lines in the baseball diamond. Very encyclopedic pic, but the sticking ruined it. Sorry. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 08:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Stitching damages the picture. <3 bunny 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Stitching errors are glaringly obvious--Benjamint [9] 11:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Rioting at the Bastille
- Reason
- This gendarme looks like Robocop... Good impression of what it means to encounter these (to be fair, the rioters use cobblestones and probably also Molotov cocktails.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tear gas, French Gendarmerie
- Creator
- Mikael Marguerie
- Support as nominator — David.Monniaux 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- support : good action photograph. Rama 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- oppose focus issues, not so crisp overall. -- Bridgecross 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Major artifacts on the visor and helmet. Dim lighting and distracting background. Encyclopedic, but not at FP status. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm somewhat taken aback by these arguments. One reason why there is a FP process on en:, in addition to the one at Commons, is to be able to reward pictures that have great intensity and topical interest for encyclopedic articles, yet may not be "technically" super good.
- In particular, there is no way that one could take photos of a scene of night rioting with ultra-crisp precision and no artefacts. This guy is not posing; he's firing real ammunition at real people. By the same token, the world-famous, Pulitzer-winning photo of Kim Phuc would have been rejected as a FP: blurry, enormous grain, etc.
- If the criteria taken into account are the same than at Commons, then the en: FP system should be folded, since it is redundant.
David.Monniaux 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Quite agreed : there is a disturbing tendency to obsess with technical criteria which are irrelevant in many cases and produce a heavy bias towards studio macro photography and shots of fornicating insects and swans. Rama 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this criticism is overblown. I've frequently seen votes here that say "subject matter makes up for technical flaws" (
ex. 1,
ex. 2), and to compare the Kim Phuc photo to this one is quite a stretch. --
TotoBaggins 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The same reasoning apply. Sorry, but the Kim Phuc photo is way noisy and blurry. I understand that, of course, a mobile shooting tear gas is less topical than a little girl burned by Napalm, but if your only angle of comment is technical quality, I'm afraid that Kim Phuc does not make it. I may even say that with that kind of elements of appreciations, you'll only find studio or staged photos, or photos of events in bright sunset, but no photos of live events at night. Photos of night events are necessarily somewhat noisy or blurry, because of the limitation of sensitivity of cameras (that is, unless they are "staged" and there is in fact projectors etc. to get decent lighting).
- Since the only criteria that appeared to be used were purely technical, the process seemed quite identical to COM:FP, whereas the Commons' FP crowd claims that Wikipedia FPs are judged according to topicality. David.Monniaux 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- To David: Sorry if my criticism came off as unnecessarily rough. I understand the difficulty in taking the pic but the jpg artifacts can easily be avoided. The very first criteria of a FP "Is of a high technical standard", with the exception of historical pics. Although the pic was hard to capture, the photographer had plenty of opportunities to take better shots...he took at least 15 shots of the "gendarme mobile" from behind the police line.
[10] The artifacts might be due to how Flickr handle pics, so I'm sure the photographer has better version. Also, I don't believe it'll be in the best interest of Wikipedia to close the FP system.
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- But all these images sport the same insufficient depth of field, numerical noise and sometimes motion blur. Because they are of fast action in the dark. Or maybe because they are not of flamingos shagging in the sunset, I don't know. Rama 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The image is unclear and has a limited horizontal capture, which cuts off the full uniform. An unusual angle in additional. -- Brand спойт 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per the objection directly above. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per the other Oppose comments above. We're mostly looking at the guy's back, and it's mostly in shadow. Spikebrennan 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a heavily modified version of the original on flickr, and has even more noise Bleh999 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ... and with all of the riots in France it shouldn't be too hard to find another one of them on the streets in the near future. :) Nice, but not FP quality. gren グレン 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- with all of the riots in France it shouldn't be too hard to find another one of them on the streets in the near future
- This is offtopic, but I think not. The originality of this one is that it took place in central Paris and was done apparently by left-wing political activists (anarchists etc.). This is way different from riots happening in distant suburbs that most people never set foot into, and where nobody with a good camera will go anyway. :-)
David.Monniaux 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that was tongue-in-cheek. =) Jumping cheese Cont @ct 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- David, you're right... but since it's such a narrow show and only used in tear gas and French Gendarmerie is my main problem with it. If there was an article about the post-election rioting then maybe this or something like it would be a good image... but, the police man doesn't show the uniqueness of the situation. gren グレン 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose For lack of subject illustration, mainly. It's remarkable in some ways, not least the capture conditions, but unremarkable in most others. Also the fact that so much discussion is required to establish what's going on in the shot is telling; there's no real action in it at all. Consequently, higher res or less compression wouldn't really cut it either.
FWIW, the technical aspects of this shot are way down my list of criteria. I could barely care less about noise, artifacts and resolution for this kind of subject. The fact that noone mentioned motion blur when it was taken at 1/6th of a second during a riot is definitely the most impressive thing about it, but not enough for FP.
mikaul talk 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) - Strong3 oppose Per the other oppose comments. Frankly, I first thought it was a toilet seat, then I thought it looked like someone was spraying his shop-window clean. If only one could see what was actually going on and take a technically better photo of the subject I might be inclinded to support. PS. Please note that my vote is Strong 'to the power of three' oppose - (that's strong x strong x strong) MorningRazor 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Arlington National Cemetery
- Reason
- This image wonderfully portrays the infinite expanse of one of America's most important national sites.
- Articles this image appears in
- Arlington National Cemetery
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Support as nominator — └ Jared┘┌ t┐ 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- weak oppose - the geometry is very arresting, but the color ballance is way red-shifted and the sky is pretty badly blown in the middle. Debivort 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - It has a wonderful composition, but the sky is overexposed, the color balance is off, and the foreground it blurred. (H) 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Your points are well taken; the sky would look nicer if it were properly exposed. As for the blurry front though, that was one of the main reasons I liked this image. I think it gives an interesting perspective of the picture, not being focused on any one thing specifically. I don't know. I just liked how that was. └ Jared┘┌ t┐ 19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Weak Oppose – I would have preferred a more symmetrical shot of the headstones. Other than that the same problems as per Debivort: overexposed sky, too much red, blurry foreground headstones.
Centy – – 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice pic, looks pretty good. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I have uploaded an alternate image in order to reflect some of the comments above. └ Jared┘┌ t┐ 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (not an oppose, just a comment). The sky is kind of flat; a bluer sky might help the composition. The time of year, with few leaves on the trees, is perfect, however. I notice that the composition is focused so that the foreground stones are generally out of focus--the focus seems to be on the ones a few tiers back. I am no photography expert-- what does everyone think about the particular choice of focus here?
Spikebrennan 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since a tripod was undoubtedly used I'm confused why you (Noclip) didnt stop down much farther for DOF purposes. Theres no meta data so what stop did you use 8? 5.6?. I too would like to see a better focus across the subjects. - Fcb981 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Was this done by rotating the camera in a fixed position? It kind of looks like a cylindrical projection. I think this image would be better served if all the headstones were in lines (and I'm assuming here that they are in neat rows, but it's been 23 years since I've been to Arlington). howcheng { chat} 06:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is a very visible stitching error in the bottom left hand corner running up and toward the young tree and then up the left hand edge of it's trunk on .-- Benjamint444 10:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Just looking at the thumbnail it looks like it may be tilted aswell.
- Oppose. There are too many points of view that can be very distracting to look at, try a larger pov? <3 bunny 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would crop/remove about 1 third from the right-hand side, it's far too distracting and is leading the eye to the wrong place. Chris Buttigieg talk 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oedemera lurida on a yellow chamomile flower
- Reason
- This is a high quality image of the Oedemera lurida in its natural habitat, adding value to the articles on the beetle and plant
- Articles this image appears in
- Anthemis tinctoria, Oedemeridae
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 08:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose Poor composition. It really doesn't illustrate anything - is it the flower or the insect? If the latter than it is far too small a part of the image, and the flower is isolated from thee background and very sharp giving the impression that it is the subject. I uploaded a crop for an idea of what I'd be thinking would be a decent shot at the insect - but it's too low res and unsharp to be considered as a nom. Maybe you can do a reshoot? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fir0002 (
talk •
contribs) 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Respectfully disagree on the poor composition. This is a picture of the insect on a flower, i.e. both are part of the subject. That impression of yours only happens when viewing the image as a thumbnail, not at full resolution. -
Alvesgaspar 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- As long as there is no Insect on flower article this limits the usefulness of this image. For enc purposes it would be better to concentrate on either aspect. -- Dschwen 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Respectfully disagree on the poor composition. This is a picture of the insect on a flower, i.e. both are part of the subject. That impression of yours only happens when viewing the image as a thumbnail, not at full resolution. -
Alvesgaspar 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- There really ought to be an article on Insect-plant interactions - they are such a definitive example of coevolution. Save the picture for when I start that article! Debivort 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have some other here, maybe you get some inspiration. Alvesgaspar 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose original. I unfortunately agree that the viewer may or may not understand what the subject of the image is supposed to be. └ Jared┘┌ t┐ 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Fir's crop is good, but it doesn't have the resolution of an FP, obviously. Reshooting seems a good idea. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Structure of Hardwoods and Softwoods
- Reason
- Adds value to the article by providing clear comparison between the structure of the woods. Resolution slightly too low, but probably the best available on the SEM.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hardwood, Softwood
- Creator
- McKDandy
- Support as nominator — Iamramin 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Surely this would be better if the images were at the same degree of magnification. - hahnch e n 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- oppose per hahnchen. Yes, the resolution might not get better but by zooming into each you would see a lot more detail. Debivort 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support as Creator Firstly, thanks for the nomination! I took these pictures a year or so ago for my degree course. Secondly, the SEM images are designed to show that in hardwoods there are pores (i.e. the big black holes) which are absent in softwoods. The difference in magnification does not affect this comparison, and scale bars are provided if comparison of other features (not the intention of the pictures) is desired. Also, by zooming in to see "more detail" you would loose the overview of the surface which shows the number and distribution of the pores. I understand the resolution of the images is slightly below FP guidelines, but this is the output of the SEM I was using. A similar picture is in the Vessel element article -- McKDandy 14:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. They don't show a very good scale (just for visualization), but they do serve encyclopedic purposes. <3 bunny 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Cathedra Petri, Altar of the Chair of St. Peter
- Reason
- A clear view of the St Peter's Basilica's Altar without worshippers. Also, the details of the work on the wall are also quite clear including the light flowing in from the backgroud.
- Articles this image appears in
- St. Peter's Basilica
- Creator
- User:Natrajdr
- Support as nominator — Natrajdr 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose — very pretty place, but the window light is blown, and the picture as a whole is off-center and tilted a little. tiZom (2¢) 23:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment does it have a CW tilt? Debivort 23:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, but compared to the National Cathedral nomination, this one is of low standard. -- Dschwen 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dynamic range problems, notably the overexposed windows. (H) 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Lake Pielinen from Koli National Park
- Reason
- A good shot from the classical "Lake Finland" scenery. Especially the rock surface on the right looks very nice. I didn't notice that the horizon is supposed to be tilted, but someone had already made alternative version as seen under it. In my opinion it doesn't look as good as the original, the image quality has perhaps suffered also.
- Articles this image appears in
- Pielinen, Koli National Park, List of national parks of Finland (altered version incl.)
- Creator
- Lobke Thijssen
- Support as nominator — Pudeo ( Talk) 11:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I made the rotated version of this and yes, it seems that the quality suffered somewhat. I'll try to replace the alternate with a better version. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 12:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd love to support this, living in Finland myself, but the clouds are totally blown, which is unacceptable. Can you go back to the original files and fix this? Then I'd give my parochial support... ;-) -- Janke | Talk 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support , great quality and encyclopaedic value.-- Svetovid 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose It's nice but a bit non-discript. I don't like the blown clouds either but they are always tough without a polorizer, which is what I always take when shooting clouds. theres also some polorization in the sky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcb981 ( talk • contribs)
- Oppose The seriously over-exposed clouds mean that this pic should not be a Featured Pic (making the Support from Svetovid puzzling) - Adrian Pingstone 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Galactic Center of the Milky Way
- Reason
- It is a beautiful image with ~ 10 million stars and fantastic example of the center of our galaxy.
- Articles this image appears in
- Galactic Center
- Creator
- 2MASS/G. Kopan, R. Hurt
- Support as nominator — Imaninjapirate talk to me 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Very nice. I would love to support, but the gray border needs to be cropped first. Reywas92 Talk How's my editing? 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why not use the full size version? J Are you green? 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to upload it, but it must be too big because it never seems to work. Imaninjapirate talk to me 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There, I cropped that large version, and now it will let me upload it. Imaninjapirate talk to me 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Third Version. Certainly, this is a wonderful image. └ Jared┘┌ t┐ 13:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Sirex and Jared; amazing image. Cliff smith 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Support(borderless hi-res) - " My God, it's full of stars!" -- TotoBaggins 18:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)- Oppose - After reading Debivort's comment and looking again, I've reconsidered. It does look overcooked. -- TotoBaggins 15:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support borderless high-resolution version. -- Brand спойт 20:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- ack! oppose - looks like it has been oversharpened / contrast boosted - with a majority of the distinguishable stars spread out to more than one pixel each, and running together. Too many stars saturated out, I suspect heavy handed post-processing. Debivort 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Debivort. -- Moondigger 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose – Per Debivort.
Centy – – 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Common Snipe on a fencepost
.jpg)
- Reason
- A nice close-up image of a bird that is normally shy and difficult to approach in its wetland habitat.
- Articles this image appears in
- Common Snipe
- Creator
- User:Talshiarr
- Support as nominator — Talshiarr 12:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tentative support. I think the image is sufficiently good to become featured. I might be missing something, though, so, as always, I may choose to change my opinion after other information has come out. For now, though, good image. └ Jared┘┌ t┐ 12:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral It's a picture of a bird. (That describes the experience for me.) It has a high enough resolution. I can't find any huge image defects. However, looking at the chest and the wooden post, I have a feeling this image is not as sharp as it could be. I would also have chosen a different crop to avoid placing the bird quite so plainly in the middle of the image, encyclopaedic as that may be! Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The balance of the picture bothers me. The tension is awkward and I keep waiting for the poor bird to fall off the post. Could you re-crop it so the post is shifted to the right and there is more space in front of his beak? It just doesn't need so tight a crop.
pschemp |
talk 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, those were my thoughts exactly! ;)
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try and dredge up the original CD I burned this to, it's an older pic. As to it appearing out of balance, this was taken about 3 seconds before he (she?) flew off. When I do run across them on fences they tend to squat down more. This was by far the closest I'd ever gotten to one though and is the clearest shot. Thanks for the kind critiques, everyone. I need to learn and it's helpful getting other POVs that are more than "Oppose: It's ugly." Talshiarr 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, those were my thoughts exactly! ;)
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The lighting is too poor toward the back of the bird. Other photos on the Common Snipe page show distinctive white lines/feathers of the bird's back that aren't clear from this picture -- McKDandy 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice pic and I have not problems with the background. -- Ba'Gamnan | Talk 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I don't mind the background either. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Strong Support Fascinating image, and that bird really scares me, (something about its eye[s])
Booksworm
Talk to me! 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lighting isn't really a problem here, it's actually quite good (looks like either very early or very late in the day? nice..) and composition is just fine, tight and balanced. Why would you want to see more empty space on the left? If anything viewpoint is a bit low, so some detail is missing from the wings/back, but you do get a good look at its beak, legs, feet and underbelly. Complemented by other shots, as this kind of illustration ideally is, this is a worthy FP. mikaul talk 14:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent and sharp photograph; the paradigm of an encyclopaedic image. Chris Buttigieg talk 15:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Common_snipe_fencepost.jpg MER-C 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Field Bindweed flower with velvet mites
- Reason
- Unusual and beatiful picture of velvet mites on a flower, adding enc value to the articles
- Articles this image appears in
- Acariformes, Convolvulus arvensis
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 11:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - What's the other little critter in there? --
TotoBaggins 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - A beetle for sure, but I can't identify it. - Alvesgaspar 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ruefully oppose - I really want to support this, since it's just so enc. and fascinating and such a lovely picture, but the poor focus and lack of detail on the mites is a showstopper for me. :( -- TotoBaggins 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's blurry, TotoBaggins? I don't think I'd be able to see more detail on the mites in real life than I see in this image, so I don't mind the lack of detail. Enuja 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I really wish the two articles had more information in them, and that this image contributed more centrally to them, but I do think this image does have real informational content. Maybe this candidacy will convince one of us to expand those articles! If I knew what the mites were doing on the flower, I would add this image to the relevant page(s). Oh well. I still think it's a beautiful image, good technical quality, with a lot of informational content. Enuja 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mild oppose. I can almost see this having a place in an article about pesticides, or organic farming, or parasitism/commensalism. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Shuttle approaches the ISS
- Reason
- Great details, you can even see the inside of the cockpit.
- Articles this image appears in
- Space Shuttle Orbiter, STS-121, STS-121 Timeline
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator — Chris H 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I sort of remember an extremely similar pic that was nominated before. I forget how long ago. I might be hallucinating though. ;) Jumping cheese Cont @ct 08:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is "upside down" more enc, or more "zero grav"..? It looks fine (and is easier on the neck!) the other way up. As far as FP goes, there are so many of this kind of shot that I'm inclined to be extra strict on the criteria. It's a little bit flat (could use a small curves tweak) and the tail is cut off (not a huge big deal, but might be if it ever needed a clipping path) Other than that it's pretty cool. Might support a rotated version, certainly a less cropped one. mikaul talk 09:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - NASA has set a very high bar for themselves, and this image doesn't measure up IMO. Too washed-out, inverted subject hurts enc, and cut off tail. -- TotoBaggins 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I added a new version.
Bleh999 07:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- How is a makeing the shuttle orange an enhancement? Please choose a less valuing and more descriptive caption. --
Dschwen 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Photographic conditions don't always result in the true color levels, these are more accurate
Bleh999 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That was actually what I was disputing. What do you base your colorcorrection on? The Shuttle tiles are yellow/orange in your edit. I would think that NASA isn't completely moronic about calibrating their images, and in fact the original looks more natural to me. Please don't take this the wrong way, but have you had a look at the calibration charts at the top of this page? Is your monitor maybe adjusted a bit too cold? -- Dschwen 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Photographic conditions don't always result in the true color levels, these are more accurate
Bleh999 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- How is a makeing the shuttle orange an enhancement? Please choose a less valuing and more descriptive caption. --
Dschwen 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose edit 1 Flipping kills the encyclopedic value, weak support original. Noclip 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- point taken, but it certainly is easier to see cockpit details in the rotated version, this could be useful in the case someone wanted to label such details, most definitely encyclopedic
Bleh999 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I dont really like the added yellow color cast much either. - Fcb981 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- point taken, but it certainly is easier to see cockpit details in the rotated version, this could be useful in the case someone wanted to label such details, most definitely encyclopedic
Bleh999 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
View of Zug before 1547
- Reason
- Interesting image showing how the town of Zug was in the 16th century.
- Articles this image appears in
- Zug, Switzerland
- Creator
- Johannes Stumpf
- Support as nominator — Cryptophile 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, nice change from the usual categories of photos we have here.-- Svetovid 09:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Weakoppose I'd love to support, but I cannot understand the strict B/W reproduction. It would make more sense to reproduce an analogue signal with as close a digital representation as possible. I am certain Johannes Stumpf didn't create this as a matrix of black and white dots. I like the subject matter, but I need a more realistic reproduction of the original to support. J Are you green? 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)- Agree with greenj. The original is out there; we just have to ask the person who digitized it to do a better job. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-28 17:27Z
- Oppose — Agreed. A full-color would be best, but I suppose a grayscale might be ok too. But the b/w just doesn't look right... tiZom (2¢) 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support It does a great job illustrating 16-century Zug. The focus should be on what it illustrates, not the illustration. As this was published in a book around the time of its creation, black and white suits it well, as it is a PRINT, not the original sketch. Jellocube27 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Weak Support - Weak Support as per comments above. But is of Historical Interest
Booksworm
Talk to me! 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per J, because a better of this subject is possible.-- ragesoss 08:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Gibraltar Barbary Macaque
- Reason
- This is a fantastic photograph which clearly shows the details of a Barbary Macaque's face. I know someone is going to come in and complain about the subject being cut off, but the purpose of this photo is to depict the face, not the entire body. ♠ SG →Talk 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Gibraltar Barbary Macaques, Gibraltar, Barbary Macaque
- Creator
- User:Chris Buttigieg
- Support as nominator — ♠ SG →Talk 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Top of head cut off, hurts enc. -- Janke | Talk 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, this image is about the facial features of the Barbary Macaque. There are plenty of monkey pictures showing the whole body. ♠ SG →Talk 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Fantastic picture, but poorly framed. I can't support it when so much of the top of the head is cut off and there is so much space under his chin that is not. I'm not saying that his entire head needs to be shown, but it is cropped too close to his left eye. Cacophony 22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Exquisite detail around the eyes makes up for the poor composition, IMHO. Very enc. and interesting. -- TotoBaggins 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support As the photographer I feel that people should bear in mind the fact that the photograph’s most important facet is to portray the facial features, as opposed to the face or head for that matter. For instance, if you take a closer look at the eyes you can even see that they are exceedingly reminiscent of a human’s. Fair enough it’s not the best in composition, but you can hardly argue that a commonplace whole-head photograph would have been far too dull. Chris Buttigieg talk 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uh oh. Reminiscent of a human's will almost surely become the next entry on Conservapedia's enumeration of ways in which Wikipedia untowardly prefers science to superstition. Joe 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Subject cut off. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose due to too-tight cropping/framing on top. I understand the purpose is to document the macaque's facial features, but the framing is distracting all the same and eliminates what most would consider to be part of the face -- the brow/forehead region over the left eye. -- Moondigger 13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - honestly, how could you oppose this? It's like people weigh up intangible positives against tangible negatives like "entire subject is not in shot", and simply prioritise the tangibles. This image is great: it's incredibly sharp, it's detailed, it's attractive, and it's caught the subject with a nice expression. Like I was saying on another image: would you expect to find this sot of image in a print encyclopaedia? Yes: you might have one photo of the whole body, or even several animals together, and a close-up shot such as this, just on the face. I agree that in an ideal world the image would be cropped to include slightly more of the brows, but that's a minor complaint. Cherish what we do have. Stevage 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. In this case I agree that if the aim of the image is to present the facial features, then this image does that, although it could still be improved with more direct lighting. Anyway, I can deal with a baby monkey crying but are you sure that isn't one of the Teletubbies?? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you have a point there, although wouldn't you agree that someone must have had a serious problem with the Tellytubby designing? Chris Buttigieg talk 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I think it makes it. -- Cody.Pope 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support as the crop is too tight really. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Its very hard to get the lighting right to get a facial shot of those damn monkeys, I tried lots of times. -- Gibnews 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose – Technical issues at full zoom with some of the single whiskers. Agree that crop is too tight and no argument of facial features is going to sway me. Facial features means I want at least the whole head.
Centy – – 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Depicts the macaque's facial features in great detail as well as having the subject looking straight at the lense. Getting a Barbary Macaque to do this only happpens occasionaly and when it does its about three seconds before it attempts to snatch the camera! Congratulations on this great photograph. Gibmetal 77 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I have no criticisms - Adrian Pingstone 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This may make the teletubby cry, but I can't tell what the entire head is supposed to look like. ShadowHalo 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think reflects the animal well. I don't mind that the subject is cut off, as I think it achieves it's purpose well. Nic007 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support The photo is a bit too close-up, but I don't think that detracs from either the encyclopedic value or the beauty of the picture. -- Kicking222 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Framing is good. The scalp is not part of the face. — Pengo 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support I like the image a lot, actually. My only criticism: it seems a bit superfluous in the context of the Barbary Macaque article itself, which already has two macaque images. SingCal 06:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Gibraltar Barbary Macaque.jpg MER-C 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Ships at Superior Duluth
- Reason
- I like the colors and the composition
- Articles this image appears in
- Economy of Minnesota
- Creator
- Randen Pederson
- Support as nominator — Ravedave 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- weak oppose While the ships look great, the background is not well focused and a bit noisy.--
Analogue Kid 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The background has not to be focused ! Ericd 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose due to lack of encyclopedic value. Cacophony 05:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cacophony. It's pretty, but it doesn't really illustrate anything in particular. J Are you green? 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cacophony; fairly good picture, but a touch noisy for my liking. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice picture of ship but the background is to distracting -- St.daniel Talk 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This image is a cacophony. Oppose per cacophony. -- TotoBaggins 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Fennec fox
- Reason
- I'm new to this, so please excuse me if I'm doing this wrong. I think this is a good image of the animal, in what seems to be close to a natural setting, and (maybe?) of high enough quality for consideration here. John Carter 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Fennec, Wildlife of Algeria, List of mammals in Tunisia, List of mammals in Niger, List of mammals in Morocco, List of mammals in Mali, List of mammals in Libya, List of mammals in Chad, List of mammals of Algeria
- Creator
- User:ladypine
- Support as nominator — John Carter 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately there is some jpg compression. Also, the pose isn't great (not especially captivating) and the tail is cut off. A perfectly usable image, but not FP quality. -- Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- support edit 2 is the best close up pose in commons of this fox species, and for that reason alone is worthy of FPC Bleh999 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support the edit; I like it. Why not crop a few slivers off the right side, though? -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice pictures, both of them -- Mbz1 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose either: Big vertical shadow stroke is distracting in edit. Original colors are washed. Circeus 19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Both are very good pictures, I almost support the first one over the second. -- St.daniel Talk 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - He looks like he just woke up at noon in a zoo. --
TotoBaggins 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the caption ;-) Circeus 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Why all the supports? Poor composition, unimpressive lighting, compression artifacts (which the sharpening in the edit has served only to exaggerate) and a generally dull and lifeless photo. Of a cutesy fox. mikaul talk 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose – Washed colours, fur still blurry when fully zoomed. Vertical shadow a distraction.
Centy – – 20:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
CMS Descent
- Reason
- The image is a very impressive animation showing the fitting of this huge piece of technology into place. Even though it itsn't of high resolution, the quality of the animation more than makes up for this.
- Articles this image appears in
- Compact Muon Solenoid
- Creator
- webcam
- Support as nominator — Eoin 14:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what information should be conveyed by this little clip. You can barely make out any details, and the only additional benefit from animating the process is a visible downward motion. Fairly thin IMO. -- Dschwen 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I don't think it adds very much to the article and is low quality. Maybe a decent quality OGM, but, I don't think a gif is the best way to show this. gren グレン 08:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose this. Far too small even for an animated GIF - no detail to be seen. If someone would like to create a new animation from the images for
this view (120 frames) and
and alternate view (135 frames), keeping the resolution, then I'd support. As for now it fails even the enc criteria, because it's too small to see much of enc value.
E4
T2
A2—
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Vanderdecken. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Weak Oppose - I oppose due to the fact that this is a tiny image. If a larger version can be uploaded then I will change to support
Booksworm
Sprechen-sie Koala? 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Drottningholm Palace in Sweden
- Reason
- It's a good, full shot of the Palace
- Articles this image appears in
- Drottningholm Palace
- Creator
- Sxenko
- Support as nominator — Sxenko 03:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment has a bit of chromatic abberation and leans to the right. If the latter was fixed, I might be inclined to weak support it, despite the non-ideal off-center angle. Debivort 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Yellow of the building is blown, texture is wishy, washy at best. Big smudge in the sky above the right tower, (sensor dust??) otherwise I think the lighting is pretty uninteresting, a bit lacking in saturation. - Fcb981 04:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you actually find single blown channels distracting? I never do, even when they are pointed out to me in FP noms. Debivort 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I usually dont mind a few blown highlights or some flat red but this case is a bit different. The saturation is low maybe artificialy so in which case I would bet that the yellows were just above being blown (due to the frontal lighting) and were killed by noise reduction and desaturation. Also, since the yellow is the main color of the building I find its loss of detail a signifigant problem. - Fcb981 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. A little too much dead space (would have been a nice pano subject), sensor dirt, and a slight (subjective) CW tilt. -- Dschwen 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - very nice, lovely sky. The lack of tourists or other distracting objects is particularly pleasing. The off-centre composition is a little unusual, but seems to work. While there isn't much detail on the wall surfaces, that's not a major problem. Photos of buildings get a little better than this, but not a *lot* better. Stevage 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - I keep wanting to lean to the right to center the building. Also as mentioned there's an obvious bit of sensor dirt above the rightmost dome. Otherwise a nice shot of a handsome building. But....hmm. Either go more off-center for more appearance of depth or square it up right in the middle, IMO. This is halfway in-between. Talshiarr 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose its alright, but it could be better and as it is reproducable a better picture could be taken -- Childzy ( Talk| Contribs) 17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support -its not a fantastic shot, but its nice, and has good composition. - Nelro 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose – Chromatic abberation at the edges of picture, and whole photo is little blurred to me.
Centy – – 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Whale Shark
- Reason
- Very Beautiful picture that appears in three articles.
- Articles this image appears in
- Creator
- User:Zac Wolf (original), User:Stefan (added cropping)
- Support as nominator — St.daniel Talk 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support That's just about the best quality possible for shooting a fish through several inches of plexiglass. Nice saturated colours. -- Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice pic Ba'Gamnan | Talk 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support There seems to be a vertical line just left of where the shark's forward left fin splits off. I think this is a seam in the Plexiglas (the kind that's filled with translucent, but not transparent, gooey material). Oh well.-- Here T oHelp 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, good. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Some artifacting around the edges, but well composed. --
Tewy 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The original file shown on the description page doesn't have these artifacts, if someone wants to perform another crop. --
Tewy 18:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the 'artifcats' you can see is sharpned noise, I have blurred the whole picture except for the actual shark to make it stand out more, the shark have been sharpened, but I need to have some 'buffer' around the shark so now you see some sharpened noise around the shark. Maybe I should have used less sharpening, please feel free to improve the process. Stefan 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The original file shown on the description page doesn't have these artifacts, if someone wants to perform another crop. --
Tewy 18:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, Since I did this version I obviously like the picture. Stefan 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - not sure what everyone else is seeing. It's so obviously an aquarium pic that it comes out looking really snapshotish. There's nothing remarkable in the composition - side on to the camera. No interesting background, and the backlighting leaves the shark in shadow with a very bright glarey background at the top. And of course due to the glass and water, the whole subject is slightly blurry. Compare this to the mandrill that got rejected last week - a much, much stronger image.
Stevage 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ramblings to be ignored: - Interesting how different we are as humans. Here I see one of the best pictures of a whale shark I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot), sure it is in an aquarium, it is not 100% sharp, it has a seam, it is a bit artificial but it is a VERY good shot as a species shot, it is a bit over manipulated but is high res so it is still good enough. Compare this to the mandrill, (where I did not vote) which had severe oversharpening effects which disturbed me a lot, it was a bad species shot but much more artistic, OK so far not so strange, then we have
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Green sea turtle which is a
IMHO a VERY messy picture with a very disturbing background, IMHO the worst of the three pictures, only good thing about it is that it is underwater and that is 'excotic' for people, this picture is 'only' from a aquarium, therefore 'snapshottinsh'. OK take this as a ramble, no offense, nothing personal, I'm not trying to change your opinion just wondering how different we are, we are all entitled to our own opinions, the green turtle will become featured, mandrill did not, here I do not know, the world is strange, have a good day! :-)
Stefan 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The original shot is actually better IMO. Wow factor due to size comparison, nice composition, and it doesn't try (and fail) to hide that it is an aquarium shot. --
Dschwen 08:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was about to say that. The original is far more interesting - I really like the composition with the people in silhouette as a shark swims over their heads. Perhaps not an FP either (though conceivably for something like
Aquarium), but the original image is so contextless and dull. It does explain why the cropped version is so fuzzy though: too far from the glass, and too far (with insufficient telephoto) from the subject.
Stevage 00:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just as a explanation, I made the crop to have a good picture to put in the taxobox in the whale shark page, there it is at least IMHO the best picture so far, there you want a picture ONLY of the shark. Also a comment abou the shape of the fins as per below, I think it is because it is a juvenile, but not sure. Maybe it was hurt when captured. Stefan 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I aggree wih Stevage, but, as per the suggestion above, I have added the original uncropped picture to the Public aquarium page, where I do believe it adds real value. I think the uncropped version is the only suitable one for consideration as FP to which I would give support. The picture also appears in Georgia Aquarium -- McKDandy 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was about to say that. The original is far more interesting - I really like the composition with the people in silhouette as a shark swims over their heads. Perhaps not an FP either (though conceivably for something like
Aquarium), but the original image is so contextless and dull. It does explain why the cropped version is so fuzzy though: too far from the glass, and too far (with insufficient telephoto) from the subject.
Stevage 00:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The original shot is actually better IMO. Wow factor due to size comparison, nice composition, and it doesn't try (and fail) to hide that it is an aquarium shot. --
Dschwen 08:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ramblings to be ignored: - Interesting how different we are as humans. Here I see one of the best pictures of a whale shark I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot), sure it is in an aquarium, it is not 100% sharp, it has a seam, it is a bit artificial but it is a VERY good shot as a species shot, it is a bit over manipulated but is high res so it is still good enough. Compare this to the mandrill, (where I did not vote) which had severe oversharpening effects which disturbed me a lot, it was a bad species shot but much more artistic, OK so far not so strange, then we have
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Green sea turtle which is a
IMHO a VERY messy picture with a very disturbing background, IMHO the worst of the three pictures, only good thing about it is that it is underwater and that is 'excotic' for people, this picture is 'only' from a aquarium, therefore 'snapshottinsh'. OK take this as a ramble, no offense, nothing personal, I'm not trying to change your opinion just wondering how different we are, we are all entitled to our own opinions, the green turtle will become featured, mandrill did not, here I do not know, the world is strange, have a good day! :-)
Stefan 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I fail to see the problems that Stevage mentioned. I think this is a great image for FP. -- ZeWrestler Talk 14:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, ack Stevage. Wierd vote. There even is a visible seam of two glass panes running through the image. -- Dschwen 19:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I agree with Stevage... and the seam right on the head of the shark is not so good. gren グレン 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly, oppose. I was really excited as I first looked at this nominated picture on the main FPC page. I didn't even know Whale sharks could be kept in captivity! However, there are numerous problems with this image. 1) Artifact rostral to 1st gill slit looks like a gill slit; I promise you, Whale sharks have only 5 gill slits as they are not a member of Hexanchidae. 2) Area just rostral of artifact is very blurry, and the rest of it is quite grainy; you really don't get a good idea of what the shark looks like 3) The impression of the shape of the pectoral fins you get from looking at this image is misleading; they both look very blunt, and the one in front maybe even injured. Compare the shape of the pectoral fin in this picture with the shape in the drawing, the picture from the maldives, and aquarium image with two whale sharks. 4) Previously mentioned sharpening artifacts around the shark. 5) The blurriness of the background is actually really distracting to me, probably because the small fish in front of the shark and the jacks under its pectoral fin are not blurry. 6) Least importantly, the previously mentioned aquarium joint is distracting. Personally, because it conveys the size of this species, doesn't mislead about shape, and because a small image in a taxobox doesn't have to be particularly high resolution, I'd actually prefer the whole-shark shot from the Maldives in the taxobox to the nominated image. I know this is not the place to discuss which image should be in the taxobox, but I just want to emphasize that this isn't the most encyclopedic of the current images of whale sharks. Enuja 03:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I don't support any version; color enhanced crop (version #2) still has problems 1, 2 (although not the last half) 3 & 6 and has the new problem of being too altered to be a featured picture. Enuja
- Oppose per other oppose comments listed above. -- Moondigger 13:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I really like this picture. It is a sharp picture. Wikipediarul e s 2221 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I added another crop from commons, which has better color depth -- Bleh999 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted . This one took a lot of thinking about; it's rather close but I'm not quite able to call this consensus to promote.
Raven4x4x 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I was too hasty here. And too harsh. I'll move this to the 'requiring additional input' section. Raven4x4x 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Weak Oppose – Feels to artificial to me.
Centy – – 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Swaledale Mother and Lamb
- Reason
- Wikipedia has been short on photos with a lot of artistic merit lately. I notice that this is the only one of Vaelta's that hasn't been nominated yet, so should be worth a shot.
- Articles this image appears in
- Swaledale and Swaledale (sheep)
- Creator
- Vaelta
- Nominator — Benjamint 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- speedy close I'm worried this isn't a good faith nomination, but the image is over sharpened with lots of detail missing in the blown whites. Debivort 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agree get over Vaelta. There is no reason to bring up dead issues. -
Fcb981 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say Vaelta is a dead issue
yet...
J
Are you green? 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- All the more reason we should close a potentially sarcastic nom early. Debivort 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say Vaelta is a dead issue
yet...
J
Are you green? 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose only because of the really obvious pixel problems (they're quite clear around the ears of the little one and the horns of the big one). However, let's keep the discussion here limited to a discussion of the image itself rather than trying to read the creator's mind. If it weren't for the technical problems, I would support promoting this image. It's way better than this one, for example. Spikebrennan 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- speedy close Can someone please close this obvious bad faith nom? mikaul talk 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question - Obviously there is some previous story behind these comments. Anyone wants to clarify the problem with the user? -
Alvesgaspar 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow! where have you been? Try here, here, and here for starts. Just read through Vaelta's contributions; the list is not that long, and it's definitely intriguing... J Are you green? 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Try User talk:Vaelta#NPA this, too. To be honest, looking at Vaelta's image contributions, all of them are too small and oversharpened. Sour grapes? — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose - only just big enough, blown, oversharpened with colour fringing and blurry (cloned out?) areas. Not to mention that the neutrality and motive of the nominator and author are severely compromised. —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, good grief. Judge the picture on its own merits, not on
the basis of whether you like the author or nominator.
Spikebrennan 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uncivil personal attacks can be removed from discussions at any time. This nom probably qualifies as a personal attack. Debivort 03:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good composition but very poor photographic quality: overexposed, blurry, very little detail and small. Alvesgaspar 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose Questionable nominator motives aside this image fails on so many levels to meet the criteria for an FPC most of which have been mentioned above.
Cat-five -
talk 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --
Debivort 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Highway 401 at 18 Lanes
- Reason
- Highway 401 is the busiest highway in the world, and has a very impressive cross-section through Mississauga, Ontario, Canada at 18 lanes wide. Add another 4 lanes for exiting/entering traffic, another 10 lanes for paved shoulders, 3 concrete berries, advanced digital signing, great lighting and drainage systems, and other safety features.
- Articles this image appears in
Freeway, Ontario, Highway, Highway 401 (Ontario), Dual carriageway, Local-express lanes
- Creator
- RingtailedFox
- Support as nominator — Haljackey 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor color depth (this could be corrected), a lot of noise, low resolution, good enough for encyclopedia, but not up to the standards of other featured pictures Bleh999 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have added an edit with colour enhanced. It's an interesting photo, but i would still like it to be larger, with less noise. C hris_huh talk 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, because the resolution is not high enough to show the berries.-- Svetovid 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I'm willing to forgive the noise because this picture really does a good job of illustrating the most important features of this highway (namely, that it's got a lot of lanes and that it's congested). Since I assume that the picture was taken from some sort of aircraft, I don't know how replicable the shot is. Spikebrennan 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support The colour enhansement that C hris_huh made add a lot of extra detail to the image. The photo was taken on a cloudy day, which would explain the extra noise in the image. Excellent editing job C hris_huh! Haljackey 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I'm allowed to vote as the uploader of this GFDL image, right? If not, then disregard. I think this image is good, but the edit by Chris_huh is also quite good. Either are worthy of being "Featured Pictures". :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Going against the crowd on this one. It's a picture of a road, there shouldn't be quality issues. More specificly, the sky at top should be properly exposed, there shouldn't be heavy noise, it should be 3 times the size. The lighting should be more interesting than it is (unsaturated hazey light). Other than that fine, I love the composition. - Fcb981 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Me too. Techincal problems aplenty, poor lighting, not compelling or striking enough for FP, for all its high enc value.
mikaul talk 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC) - Oppose, nothing special here. Needs a higher resolution for me. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose its not special at all 81.110.125.162 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC) thats me Childzy ( Talk| Contribs) 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the image as a copyright violation. It's a copy from a flickr image with 'all rights reserved' indicated and no attempt has been made by the uploader to explain why he considers it to be under the GFDL. I'm also going to delete the edit as equally infringing. Nice work, but sorry we can't keep it. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted MER-C 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Not promoted -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter ( talk) 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Djouce
- Reason
- Excellently illustrates the subject matter.
- Articles this image appears in
- Djouce, Deforestation, Wicklow Way.
- Creator
- Conor Campbell.
- Support as nominator — Conor Campbell 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose very bad jpeg artifacts. Sorry. Debivort 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the mountain itself is fuzzy and the immediate foreground is littered with jpeg artifacts.-- Here T oHelp 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, is there no better version? The quality of this one is too low unfortunately.--
Svetovid 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not, it was taken last summer with a poor HP, although I should be able to go back with something a lot better in a couple weeks... Conor Campbell 11:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The 'halo' effect at the mountain-sky joining region is a typical artefact of not great photoshopping. -- Javit 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The quality is too low. Looking at the deforestation article, nominate 'View from macmillans lookout - benambra.jpg' instead.-- Svetovid 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Starfire Optical Range
- Reason
- Caught My Eye (Wow)
- Articles this image appears in
- Starfire Optical Range
- Creator
- United States Air Force
- Support as nominator — TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 01 Photographing lasers probably creates a lot of photographic noise, I uploaded a version with noise reduction Bleh999 11:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose original, strong oppose edit 1 — The original has too much noise, the edit has blurred the edges too much. ♠ SG →Talk 13:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Yep, amazing sight but irredeemably poor image of it. It's another "featured subject" submission, where the subject matter is far & away the best thing going for it. Don't get me wrong, it's a valuable addition to the encyclopedia, it just isn't an outstanding photograph. The edit is no better, I'm afraid, possibly worse, as the sky now looks mottled as well as multi-coloured and the whole image is soft.
mikaul
talk 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- True but the edit looks better even as a thumbnail image, the noise is very distracting. I don't think this image can be made into FPC status, it is damaged beyond repair Bleh999 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Opppose, unfortunately. MIck's thinking very well parallels mine, and I am inclined also to think Bleh's conclusion to be quite right. Joe 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question Why can we see the lasers? Lasers are coherent light, so the photons all go into one direction; they don't bounce around. Therefore, you can only see a laser beam when there is lots of stuff in the path of the laser beam, so that the light can bounce off the stuff and hit your retina. The picture in question looks like it was taken on a clear night, when there wouldn't be anything to bounce the light off of. So what is the laser light bouncing off of? Enuja 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- even on a clear night there is dust and droplets of water vapor in the air. Adaptive optics lasers are pretty bright to begin with, so lots of photons are there to bounce back. Debivort 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The exposure time is also extremely long...notice the stars moving in a circular pattern. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Laser
- Reason
- Looks Cool
- Articles this image appears in
- Laser, Photon, Eye protection, Applied physics
- Creator
- United States Air Force
- Support as nominator — TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as per previous nom, great enc and subject matter, average-to-poor photo. mikaul talk 14:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, for now needs to be cleaned-up. There is a lot of data there to work with. -- Cody.Pope 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The version uploaded here is missing the exif data and is smaller than the original on the airforce website
Bleh999 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, yeah, I wasn't suggesting the image I uploaded as a featured pictured, but we often use down-sampling to fix grain and such, especially given the nominated image's size. It was just a for instance type image, that's all. -- Cody.Pope 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- The version uploaded here is missing the exif data and is smaller than the original on the airforce website
Bleh999 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Quicksort algorithm
2) Reorder the list so that all elements which are less than the pivot come before the pivot and so that all elements greater than the pivot come after it (equal values can go either way). After this partitioning, the pivot is in its final position. This is called the partition operation.
3) Recursively sort the sub-list of lesser elements and the sub-list of greater elements.
- Reason
- Illustrates the concept well
- Articles this image appears in
- Quicksort
- Creator
- User:RolandH
- Support as nominator — Ravedave 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Demonstrates a complex procedure well. It is clear what is going on. (H) 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- support great! I'd love to see one of these for merge sort, bubble sort etc... it would make a smashing FP set. Debivort 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- support whoa...it took me a minute to figure it out but now it's perfectly clear thanks to this.-- Analogue Kid 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Simple and effective.-- Here T oHelp 11:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - could you slow it down just a little? 129.215.149.96 15:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Given the crucial nature of the pivot element in the algorithm, is there any chance that the animation could mark at each point which the pivot element is? This seems an odd omission. TSP 17:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is a valid point, I would really like to see the pivot point marked clearly as well, I know it is in the center of the arrows but that may not be obvious. Perhaps an arrow above it pointing down? Or perhaps just a red line in the middle of the shaded arrows. (H) 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I like it! -- Golbez 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I guess I'll agree with all you guys...I don't know what I'm looking at since algorithms are not my forte. However, it does present the subject in a very clear manner. Encyclopedic and FP status worthy. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 22:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - It could hardly be more enc than this. Any wikinerds with a desire for FP notches on their bedposts should feel free to nominate the other famous sorts and count on my vote. -- TotoBaggins 23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Before we do that, I'm going to ask the creator if he/she has others we can include in an FP set. Debivort 01:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look here and there's another image depicting the heapsort algorithm. Pstuart84 Talk 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I can't follow the heapsort one unfortunately... Debivort 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Needs to be slowed down vastly. I'll see about adding an overview of how it works to the caption. - Ravedave 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, agreed (the creator is me). I don't have much experience with wikipedia, but what I want to do is 1) fix some flaws that were pointed out to me so far, and at the same time 2) finish and release the code responsible for generating the images (a Ruby script which needs Cairo and ImageMagick). I need at least one more day to do that. Editing the animations by hand is always possible, but doing so will make the scripts obsolete. RolandH 11:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The caption seems wrong (or the image is wrong). What the image shows is that the "pivot" (shown in red) is kept in its current position until the rest of the items are sorted to the left or right of where the pivot will be placed, and THEN the pivot is moved to that center spot. Is this actually how quicksort works? If so, then the caption should be fixed; if not, then the image should be fixed. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-06-04 17:03Z
- Support, and also agree that including other sort algorithm animations would be nice. - LesPaul75 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Great illustration of the algorithms -- ZeWrestler Talk 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Beautifully illustrated Alvesgaspar 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Sorting quicksort anim.gif MER-C 03:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
British Columbia Parliament Buildings
- Reason
- (Self nomination) This image depicts it subject well, allowing you to see the intricate detail on the building including the coat of arms and several statues including a gold covered one of Captain George Vancouver at the top. No other image on Wikipedia captures this building properly due to the wide angle(90 degrees+) one must use to photograph the building due to obstructions(trees and a statue of Queen Victoria prevent you from going further back). Oh and by the way, the domes on the side are actually titled in real life, check the ledge below the domes to see that it is level.
- The image was constructed by taking 3 different exposures at 20 different angles. I used HDR and tone mapping to combine the sets of three into uniform exposures, then combined the 20 tone mapped images into a mosaic. At total of 60 image were used to create this picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- Victoria, British Columbia, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, 37th Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, British Columbia Parliament Buildings, Francis Rattenbury
- Creator
- User:H
- Support as nominator — (H) 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent image quality, the mosaic definitely paid off. I'm not sure whether HDR was necessary, but at least it seems to be a subtle effect :-). The only beef I have with the image is the uneven sky. An earlier nomination of me was shot down for less (my pic had a monotonous smooth gradient (which was almost compensated for in an edit (which apparently still was not enough for some voters (which upset me quite a bit back then (causing me to withdraw the nomination (yes I'm drama queen...))))), yours has a varying oscillating brightnesses. -- Dschwen 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I confess, I made a mistake. I used a polarizing filter, and the different shots at different angles were filtered differently. I tried to match the images in post production as best I could, but there is still unevenness. If this ends up being a deal breaker I will just have to go out and shoot them again. The moral of the story is "don't use a polarizing filter for a multi-angle composite shot series". (H) 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - great image, very useful, the uneven sky is trivial. Stevage 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful pano, only problem is that it is so large that some browsers on comps with inadequate memory might not open it directly. A resize to perhaps 7000 pixels would almost certainly solve this. Also, with some judicious editing, the sky color can be repaired although I agree with the others; when viewing the full sized image, this is not annoying at all. Talshiarr 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support Great picture. The only thing bugging me is the uneven sky mentioned above. - Wutschwlllm 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose It is a great picture, but considering how easy it is for you to do better without a polarizer... well... sorry Ryan ;) -- KirinX 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will most likely redo this image eventually even if it passes, the sky bugs me too. For those looking for faults, the fountain is also not centered as it should be hehe. (H) 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No need to reshoot, just use smartblend instead of enblend and it will fix the luminance discrepancies. Noclip 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- What software are you referring to, I use PTgui and have not seen that option. I have all the source files and can redo the image from any point. (H) 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! I have found it, I will try it out immediately. (H) 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, the plugin gave an error "Pixel formats must be the same", but all the source images are the same pixel format, RGB16. I used the internal ptgui blender for the current image, I will try enblend. (H) 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, the enblend plugin just crashes. It seems the plugin blenders don't like the 16 bit tiff source files. (H) 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I got the Smartblend plugin to work by disabling the yoff and xoff parameters. But the blending is not better. (H) 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support -per nom - Nelro 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Exquisite detail; feels like I am standing right there. The sky is not too bothersome and in my opinion does not degrade the image. I think that the finishing touch would be a pearl white horse (a bit like this one) in the foreground - but maybe I am asking too much. Chris Buttigieg talk 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That horse is grey. Unfortunately horses are not allowed on the grounds, something about tearing up the lawn and fertilizing out of season. (H) 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, must be some gimmick to put off
touristshorses - I guess we could always call Napoleon and his white/grey horse, I am sure he wouldn't mind. Chris Buttigieg talk 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, must be some gimmick to put off
- Comment - Ironic that it didn't pass Commons Quality Image nomination, yet it seems on its way to passing FPC. Cacophony 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- weak support Fantastic detail, however the difference in sky brightness is very distracting. I would think someone with photoshop skills could fix this and it would be on its was to FP right quick.-- Analogue Kid 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Can't bring myself to an oppose. This image is just exploding with details.
Circeus 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support Excellent image. Acalamari 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I was going to nominated this myself. Bewareofdog 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — I went ahead and edited the image to lighten up the dark areas of sky a little bit. Not completely, because otherwise the sky would look way too flat. ♠ SG →Talk 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good edit, but you will see it did introduce some artifacts to the face of the gold statue at the top. Also the domes are given artifacts in areas. I had similar problems while trying to remove the band of darkness, it was much worse before I did what I did. (H) 05:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's because I was way too lazy to mask out the buildings properly when applying the new sky layer, so part of the sky (at approximately 0 to 30% opacity) has gone over tiny areas like that. It could be fixed by cutting out the affected sections and replacing them with the originals. I'll get around to it later today. ♠ SG →Talk 11:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit or original? Please indicate which. Moving down for further input. MER-C 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- As the creator of the edit, I say use the original; I kind of screwed up the edit. Actually, keep this open for another day or so. If I don't (or anyone else) upload a better version by then, just promote the original.
♠ SG
→Talk 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree the sky can be fixed, but the current edit available has damage to the building as a result of the edit. I suggest either waiting for an edit that does not damage the subject or go with the original. I would do it myself but I have no idea how SG got such a nice effect on the sky. (H) 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Pano - HDR.jpg MER-C 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ossuaire 2
- Reason
- Interesting image displaying a component of a rather unusual place, the Sedlec Ossuary. Seems to fulfill all the criteria of a featured image.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sedlec Ossuary
- Creator
- Martin St-Amant
- Support as nominator — –– Lid( Talk) 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- weak support - stunning image, but the harsh flash shadow is a bit unfortunate. Debivort 18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- oh my god! the bottom right quadrant is a crow eating a severed human head - made out of actual human heads!!! Debivort 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very stunning image. ♠ Tom @ s Bat 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support, great scene, but some technical problems... gren グレン 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Add alternative Any takers?-- Here T oHelp 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I prefer the original over the alternative due to the level of detail. I'm requesting that the original to be sharpened and cleaned-up, since some of the edges around the smaller bones are a bit blurry. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support either I like the original for the larger size and more detail on each individual bone (although there are some places where the highlights are almost blown), but the alternative for the lighting and atmosphere. I think I'm going to go read something by Edgar Allen Poe now…-- Here T oHelp 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support alternative. Sharper and shows more of the direct environment of the coat of arms (or should I say 'coat of bones'?). - Mgm| (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support original/weak oppose alt The original's main problem is tonal issues created from the flash. Bouncing the flash or using a tupperware globe could have helped soften the light. Given the size, sharpness isn't really a major issue. The cropping is a little tight. As for the alt, the composition is a little wider and you get more context, but there seems to be a bit of dead weight (no pun intended) at the bottom of the image (the semi-circle bothers me, compositionally). The image isn't that crisp and this shows in the thumbnail (when thumbnails normally cover up sharpness issues). The color and tonal range is better than the original.- Andrew c 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Would darkening the colour/tone of the original to closer match the alternative make it ineligable under the featured picture criteria? ––
Lid(
Talk) 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, if you think that you can improve it so, you are encouraged to have a go at it!
J
Are you green? 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure I have the skills how, I was inquiring because a lot of these comments, while supporting, tend to say "I like X from the first, but I also like X from the second" Is there a way to combine these into a single image or does anyone around here have that ability? ––
Lid(
Talk) 02:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- See Andrew c's analysis. The second one is lit with ambient light, so it looks much better tonally. Re-lighting isn't something you can do afterwards, worse luck. Comping is out for the same lighting reasons. In either case, I'm not sure this is being judged as a featured picture so much as a featured subject. It is pretty wild, but photographically, neither is particularly outstanding. I Oppose both versions, as we can surely do better. mikaul talk 09:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure I have the skills how, I was inquiring because a lot of these comments, while supporting, tend to say "I like X from the first, but I also like X from the second" Is there a way to combine these into a single image or does anyone around here have that ability? ––
Lid(
Talk) 02:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, if you think that you can improve it so, you are encouraged to have a go at it!
J
Are you green? 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The subject is very interesting, but the shot itself leaves much to be desired in my opinion. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. per KFP -- Jklamo 09:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per KFP--great subject, so-so photo. Calliopejen1 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It should be noted the alternate has been replaced with a significantly higher res version that it was originally. –– Lid( Talk) 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very intriguing and unusual subject; however I cannot support because the technical quality of the photograph is under par. Chris Buttigieg talk 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Mysore Palace
- Reason
- This picture is an excellent candidate for Featured Picture status, the reason being that it has a high resolution, has an excellent view of the palace, shows the immense international diversity of Indian architecture, and has natural beauty.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mysore Palace and others.
- Creator
- Arul Prasad
- Support as nominator — Universe=atom• Talk• Contributions• 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support As per Universe=atom -- Indianstar 18:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too bleached. Trees in foreground too dark. Has typical digital image problems. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent and unique pic of one of the most important cultural icons in India. Sarvagnya 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- weak Oppose only 1024 × 577 resolution, still a good photograph though and encyclopedic Bleh999 20:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose red color noise, detail is obscured in blown yellow channel, and blown white highlights. Perhaps if it was much larger, but at this marginal size... Debivort 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The cut off light source to the left is distracting, and the image is too small for such a large subject. But I like the composition (good night shot) and framing.-- Here T oHelp 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Over-exposed, need cropping of the bottom field, wrong colour balance. -- antilived T | C | G 23:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Town hall in Zwickau
- Reason
- Very intersting picture and it's of high quality.
- Articles this image appears in
- Zwickau
- Creator
- Aka
- Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great architectural shot. An even larger resolution would be nice (more shots to stitch!) but this is by far sufficient.-- Here T oHelp 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Although a higher resolution would be nice, it is a good shot overall, with decent detail and not too much noise.-- Analogue Kid 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice picture Cacophony 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. No wow factor, just a facade, just 2MP, and quite a bit oversharpened. -- Dschwen 06:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can't make my mind up here. Backighting, with the sun on the buildings opposite, is nice and arty but bad enc for details and textures. Perspective correction is only just good enough, post-processing in general a little heavy-handed but reasonably ok. I like the very architectural, front-on framing and there's nothing within the frame to complain about, very clean indeed. If it gets promoted, it won't be totally undeserved, is all. Size is fine for this subject, what's wrong with 2MP? mikaul talk 15:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose – Heavily oversharpened.
Centy – – 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Great pic but spoiled by over-the-top sharpening - Adrian Pingstone 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Pingstone, the image is very down sampled and is a bit unrealisticly saturated to the point of looking fake. I liken it to this which I think is a rather nasty photograph - Fcb981 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Dire post-processing (excessive sharpening and saturation), poor lighting. -- YFB ¿ 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Shallow water waves
Image:Shallow water waves.gif. Again, image not shown to prevent huge loading times.
- Reason
- I closed the previous nomination as 'not promoted' earlier today, but I have decided to start again and renominate the larger version. After the larger version was added to the nomination it received very few comments, so I am hoping that by relisting it here it can be judged properly. Raven4x4x 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- The smaller version still appears in Ocean surface wave and Shallow water equations. Of course if this version is promoted the small one can be replaced in these two articles.
- Creator
- commons:User:R. Koot
- No vote — Raven4x4x 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Enc, large enough for an animation, and deserves a second chance.-- Here T oHelp 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support — Along with its description (on the image page), I get a pretty clear understanding of what is going on. ♠ SG →Talk 05:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Support Very nice animation and very well done.
Cat-five -
talk 15:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Super Sonic Support!! My special support for great candidates! Flows smoothly and is very realistic! Cool job!! -- Sonic is Cool!! 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support — Very interesting image, excellent animation Andrewjd 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone close this for me, please? I have a painfully slow internet connection which won't cope with post-closure procedures. MER-C 08:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Shallow water waves.gif Joe 04:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Backspace
- Reason
- Simple, yet refreshing photography. While the focal point remains on the Backspace key, the rest of the image manages to make it pleasing for the eyes. While not in its typical natural environment, it IS in a natural environment nonetheless.
- Articles this image appears in
- Backspace
- Creator
- ElbridgeGerry
- Support as nominator — Communist47 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Are you serious?!? It's a backspace key popped out and placed on a rock. I don't see how it adds to the backspace article (as you said, it's not in it's natural environment) and certainly not encyclopedic.
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 05:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What do you mean it doesn't add to the article? It is a very profound and deep photograph. I am moved by its overall message. How even in the deepest wilderness, full of confusion and frustration, we can find a small Backspace key, which can undo everything. It gives us the chance to start over. Communist47 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Um, ok ... but this isn't a website for philosophical pondering, it's an encyclopedia. That's not where you'd typically find a backspace key, so it's not an encyclopedic photo. Oh, and as if that wasn't enough, the whole key is not in focus, and the highlights to the right of the key are blown. -- Herald Alberich 06:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is of very limited encyclopedic value because does not add to understanding of the subject. Backspace keys are found on keyboards, not on rocks. Cacophony 06:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Nice picture! I agree with the above notes (rocks on your desk?), but the picture is a beauty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.198.196 ( talk • contribs) 05:02, June 11, 2007
- IP users do not have suffrage. Cacophony 16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose on placement of subject, per above.-- Here T oHelp 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - If it's not enc, it had better be stunning. This picture is neither. -- TotoBaggins 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and recommend speedy close. Per above. -- Tewy 19:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per the above. Nothing spectacular about this. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 23:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, Umm... 8thstar 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Backspace keys belong on keyboards. Purple Is Pretty 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No enc. whatsoever. Please see WP:SNOW with regards to this. Sorry. Pedro | Chat 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose: Just doesn't have what it takes, and I oppose as per comments above Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 10:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Slight DOF problems on front of key. Also there is nothing to indicate scale; perhaps the key should be beside a guitar pick or orangutan. If these problems were addressed I would support. -- Bridgecross 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose! What is the use to put a backspace on a rock and use the nature as a background? Vincent Pun 15:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose I'd have to agree that it is a great photo. It juxtaposes a bit of modern technology against the backdrop of a natural setting. I would also like to point out that it is not resting 'pon a rock but on the stump of a severed tree, an artistic symbol of the environmental movement. However, since one does not usually find a backspace key in the middle of the woods on a tree stump, this photograph is a poor representation of the concept of "backspace". Although it would be excellent subject to be featured by an encyclopedia of artistic photographs, it would be an inappropriate choice for a featured picture of an encyclopedia of facts. Colerado 08:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like the idea, but placing the key out of its keyboard context means its encyclopedic (rather than philosophical) value is rather non-existent. - Mgm| (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. This image should go to Uncyclopedia. Sorry.-- Edtropolis 14:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Most of the picture is blurry; I can't tell if the it's the backspace key from a laptop or just shot at a weird angle. I think a plain white background would have been better, but even that would not make it among Wikipedia's best work. -- Pixelface 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. Backspace keys do not belong on rocks. It is an easy to recreate picture. Perhaps a different background. May I suggest a keyboard? Maddie was here 04:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support. First off, when you bring the photo to full size it is not blurry. In fact, it has a beautiful depth of field. They key set upon a piece of bark (No! It is not a stump or a rock. It appears to be a fallen tree!). Because this depth of field is so shallow, one is able to feel the size of the object due to the size of the grain of bark and massive clump of trees in the back ground. Also, this photo is able to bring our focus constantly back to the key, for the key is so stark against such a vibrant background. Apart from that, the trees and the grain of the bark lets ours eyes travel upwards, but are stopped abruptly by the horizontal atmosphere the key creates--drawling our eye once again to the key, further emphasizing backspace key. All and all this is a wonderful piece and would make one want to read the article that would be attached. Freemarie4sale was here 10:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't that my signature? Maddie was here 16:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- No...it was added by
User:Freemarie4sale.
[12] Unless Freemarie is your sockpuppet or something. ;)
Jumping
cheese 01:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- No not the comment, the crazymarie4sale signature. And unless i'm unknowingly schitznophrenic(sp?), that not my sock puppet who contradicts me. Maddie was here 04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- No...it was added by
User:Freemarie4sale.
[12] Unless Freemarie is your sockpuppet or something. ;)
Jumping
cheese 01:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Tewy 19:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The Qutub Minar
- Reason
- 1. The Qutub Minar is a World Heritage Site, but there are no featured pictures of it
- 2. It's one of the last reminants of early Indian civilizations
- 3. It's an example of early Indian architecture
- 4. The Qutub shows the influence of Islam on India
- 5. Its the world's tallest brick minaret
- 6. It has high encyclopedic value
- 7 There arent many pictures of historic India
- 8 The Qutub Minar is of "outstanding cultural importance to the common heritage of mankind."
- 9 This image captures very well the Qutub Minar and its surrounding monuments
- Articles this image appears in
- Qutub Minar, Delhi, New Delhi, History of India, North India, Slave Dynasty, Mamluk, Qutb-ud-din Aybak
- Creator
- Flickr User: thovie333
- Support as nominator — Nikkul 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted; and more detail (higher rez or more direct composition) on the minaret would also help.-- Here T oHelp 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice shot, but unfortunately it could serve as an example of how not to shoot for the encyclopedia. Whatever the image, subject illustration is of paramount importance. However cool, arty angles confuse, rather than clarify. The tree on the left obscures important detail unnecessarily and this all conspires against a sense of scale. Most of the points in support, while undoubtedly true, aren't relevant for FP nomination purposes. mikaul talk 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not illustrate subject matter adequately, off center. But still good when used with other photographs I guess. Bleh999 11:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As per HereToHelp. No question on enc. value, but the subject is off centre and the angle is disconcerting rather than helpful. Pedro | Chat 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Think to yourself what is the subject of the photograph; the trees, the fluffy clouds or the minaret? Which is it illustrating? I know for a fact that it is the minaret, but this is only because I read the description. I feel that the main downside to this shot is that the other elements (the elements apart from the minaret that is to say) are distracting and thus degrading its encyclopaedic value. Chris Buttigieg talk 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per user:MIckStephenson. deeptrivia ( talk) 01:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
54th plate from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur
- Reason
- I was going to nomiinate the one that wikipedia use to have which is Image:Haeckel Gamochonia.jpg but didn't like and I went searched and found [13].But anyway it is a very good and encylopedic illustration.
- Articles this image appears in
- Cephalopod
- Creator
- Ernst Haeckel
- Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Definitely not one of Haeckel's best. Also, I feel there is a bit too much "artistic license" to make this highly encyclopedic. -- Janke | Talk 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Janke. It doesn't come even close to be as interesting as the otner Kunstformen FPs. Not to mention i think we have enough of them. Circeus 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Still very enc. for
Haeckel, if not for octopuses, and beautiful. --
TotoBaggins 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- it's not used to illustrate that article. And how does it illustrate the person? Debivort 08:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I also agree with Janke. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose per janke. Debivort 08:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Esplanade-de-la-defense
- Reason
- Spectacular image It's rare that the blurred lights add to the image but they did on this one.
- Articles this image appears in
- Paris
- Creator
- fr:Utilisateur:Yogi
- Support as nominator — St.daniel Talk 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose image is confusing and framing is unhelpful. Circeus 03:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose rather interesting but technicaly poor. Overexposed, grainy, theres some dust, tilted, as well as reflections on the glass of the buildings. I haven't ever experienced that myself in night shooting and I would never usually shoot with a polorizer at night but is this case it would have been useful. - Fcb981 03:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Busy composition, I don't think the motion blurred lights are a benefit at all, the flares around bright lights are kinda distracting. What I do like is way the image is painted in light on a dark canvas. Shoeshirt 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Very striking night pic. However, as mentioned above, the pic suffers from some technical problems and isn't very encyclopedic. Sorry. Jumping cheese 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Slug curled up
- Reason
- Nice pic, encyclopeic, clear quality, pretty big.
- Articles this image appears in
- Slug, Great Grey Slug, Limax, Limacoidea
- Creator
- User:HorsePunchKid
- Support as nominator — ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good resolution, encyclopedic-looking. SingCal 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Blurry at full resolution; I think we can do better. -- Tewy 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Shallow DOF, Poor angle, Unatural background, distracting background, poor lighting. The list continues. - Fcb981 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose - A beautiful subject, and excellent detail on the head, but the glare, darkness, and poor DOF kill it. -- TotoBaggins 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, depth of field does it for me. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Most of the subject is blurry. Purple Is Pretty 03:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Out of focus and badly lit.- Mgm| (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Absinthe glass
- Reason
- Close up on a very clean, very encyclopedic, well centered picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- Absinthe, Absinthiana, Legal Drugs
- Creator
- User:Ari x
- Support as nominator — ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - while the image does look nice, its a bit on the small side. --
ZeWrestler
Talk 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do agree, it is a bit small; I have however seen other pictures that are quite small (not sure if they are the same size as this, however), but I think that despite its size, it could make a nice featured pic.
- Move to close nom Creator has stated this is the largest version. Pic does not meet FPC critera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravedave ( talk • contribs)
- Comment Yes, too small, even though I'm not sure what higher rez would add to the pic. Also, the cropping on the metal utensil is rather tight towards the bottom.-- Here T oHelp 03:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment--didn't this same image already fail a FPC nomination once? Spikebrennan 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- On Commons, I think, yes. It's a real shame, I like it. I really do wonder what a 50% bigger version would add to its appeal, even if there were one available. If it was up for delisting, rather than promotion, I would vote to keep. Getting your foot in the door is always the toughest part :o/ mikaul talk 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unless the same image of larger resolution is provided. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 21:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunate because it's such a nice shot but 480px600p is about half of what is even minimally required for size and that's by my standards most people require a lot higher than even that. Cat-five - talk 10:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- In that case I really should give my moral support. Just because a low res image isn't suitable for printing purposes or such, doesn't mean it would make a bad featured image. Featured status should be based on quality not size (quantity). I can easily imagine this on the main page. - Mgm| (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've argued this point for ages, so I'm very much inclined to agree. As long as the FP criteria have no clause allowing for exceptionally good-looking images to be exempted from the resolution guidelines (the way historical/unique images are) then there's no hope for the absinthe-glass pics of this encyclopedia. I've started (yet) another discussion on the FP criteria talk page about this, but for those who don't make it there (and you are many) here's why I'm supporting this pic. Despite being of lower-than-acceptable size,
- It's very much suitable for print, being well lit and sharply focussed. Without upsampling (which it might stand) it would be 2x3 inches at 200dpi
- Although absinthe shots are quite reproducible, the spoon isn't so easy to come by. Hence it's very enc and reasonably unique
- As a picture, it has a certain quality, which I'm not going to waffle on about, but which sets it apart for the ordinary run-of-the-mill
- I like it a lot, and so do many other people, and
- Rules are rules, except when they're
guidelines
- Support per my comments above. mikaul talk 19:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I could overlook the picture being a bit small, but I can't overlook that, plus the slight cropping of the spoon, plus the artifacts seen in the background even at natural resolution (there's an irregular horizontal border in the sky where it's slightly purplish above and more blue-ish below). It's a good pic, but it's just not feature quality, IMO. Matt Deres 20:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okapi
- Reason
- This is a beautiful image that perfectly displays the markings on the back legs of the okapi, the velvety coat of the body, and the giraffe-like features of the head, all at the same time. The backdrop conveys a natural setting, and is not clearly a zoo as typically seen in images of exotic animals. I noticed it because it is used on the talk pages of all articles about mammals. The stance would not be ideal in images of other four-legged animals, but it is great for this image because you can see the markings on the back of its legs clearly while still seeing its face. This is a female okapi; the males have horns like giraffes.
- Articles this image appears in
- Okapi, Template:MaTalk
- Creator
- User:Raul654
- Support as nominator — Strangerer ( Talk) 14:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Legs cut off, rear obscured by branches, purple fringing on neck, and splotches of color all over the coat. Sorry.-- Here T oHelp 14:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per HTH; the cut-off legs are a dealbreaker, in my opinion. -- TotoBaggins 15:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Branches distract from markings, background distracts from subject and I'm afraid the lack of hooves. Pedro | Chat
- Oppose per above; a poor image of the subject really. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per HTH. TimV.B.{ critic & speak} 23:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Pedro. If you're gonna photograph it, we need to have the hooves in the picture too. - Mgm| (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice picture but I think the subject is poorly cropped. -- Pixelface 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Landslide on Mars
- Reason
- The HiRISE team have done it again - stunning clarity, high encyclopedic value and somewhat less confusing than the last one.
- Articles this image appears in
- Landslide, Geology of Mars
- Creator
- NASA/JPL/University of Arizona
- Support as nominator — MER-C 07:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's really useful or appropriate for the
Landslide article. —
BRIAN
0918 • 2007-06-05 13:51Z
- Support I agree. However, it is rather appropriate for Geology of Mars. Jellocube27 15:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- question what does the false coloring indicate? Is the blue or the brown the slid area? Debivort 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's both: in this case the brown stuff appears to be surface material and the blue stuff would be a layer underneath it. Then again, I'm not a geologist. MER-C 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great image!-- Mbz1 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Looks good. - Chris H 01:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support It's not that impressive of a pic...but it's not of this world, so I'll cut it some slack. The caption should also include some info about what the colors represent. Encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Updated caption. MER-C 11:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's a clear picture, especially as far as Mars goes. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:PSP 001764 1880 cut b.jpg Stefan 14:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Whipped slave
- Reason
- Powerful, cringe-inducing image. One of the top 10 most requested photos from the National Archives. [14]
- Articles this image appears in
- History of slavery in the United States, Slavery in the British Virgin Islands, Torture in the United States, Maafa, History of the Americas
- Creator
- Unknown
- Support as nominator — howcheng { chat} 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak supportSupport original I remember seeing this pic in every U.S. history book I've cracked open. Very horrific and cruel pic; very encyclopedic. However...I remember that all the version I've seen before appeared much cleaner. I'm certain that there must be a cleaner scan available on the web. Will fully support if better version can be found. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)- Comment only: I have not found a cleaner reproduction of this image of slave Peter. Even the original uncompressed TIFF from the NARA isn't any better. There is, however, another very similar image of a slave Gordon, Reid, fig. 4 which does appear to be in slightly better condition and which was originally published in Harper's Weekly on July 4, 1863. [15] Lupo 08:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- This version
[16] looks better, there is no fading over his eye area, but has scan moiré unfortunately
Bleh999 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like considerable effort was taken to find a better version without luck...so I support the original. The other version is of much poorer quality. I guess all the pics looked good in the history texts because of the small size. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- This version
[16] looks better, there is no fading over his eye area, but has scan moiré unfortunately
Bleh999 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Original, for now; better version would be a bonus. Quality is adequate given the subject matter. Emotions aside, it's a really good photograph, well lit and nicely composed. I can see it making a striking and compelling POD. The alternative version (posted) offers nothing different other than more compression artifacts and actually has a lot less detail overall. The one Bleh999 just linked to is too cropped (although the "eye" problem is gone) None so far look as "orignial" as the original sub.
mikaul talk 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- The one I linked to offsite [17] seems to be published in a book when the original print was in better condition, the detail around his eye is completely missing in these two posted here Bleh999 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Support strongly any version of the same subject - this should be featured merely on subject alone, nevermind quality.
E10
T5
A8 —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose — While we DO need a featured picture on the subject, that is not our main criteria. The image must be of high quality, and in this case, as Bleh999 has proven, there are better versions available. The nominated version appears to have no eyes! ♠ SG →Talk 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, a version with eyes would be nice ;) but we don't need a FP on any subject. Nor is it true that this image must be of high quality to be promoted, as its age and historical value mitigates the obvious techincal shortfall. If there are better versions, I've not seen one yet; if you prefer the one Bleh999 linked to, posting it up as an alternative for consideration might be an idea.
mikaul talk 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per SG. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original - Important pic, and after googling I didn't see any better versions. Google image search for "whipped slave" turns up quite a variety of human behavior. :) -- TotoBaggins 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original. I actually had meant to nominate this image myself, and searched around for better versions but couldn't find any. I think the fact that this is one of the top ten most requested images from the national archives makes it clear that this is THE definitive image on the subject. It is striking and horrific--definitely among the best images on Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original NARA version looks disagreeably overblown.
Circeus 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Still support original. Circeus 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original - Photo quality does not significantly detract from the significance of the subject or the artistry employed. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 06:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support (both) Encyclopedic, also shows the effects of whipping quite nicely (as nicely as possible, anyway) Purple Is Pretty 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support It shows the horrors of slave-whipping, which is the point, not to show the beauty of his eyes. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've taken a shot at doing a modest Photoshop retouch. I don't know if that qualifies, or what, but it might help having a version with decent eyes and no scanning problems. MamaGeek ( talk/ contrib) 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original Man...what an image. I, too, remember this from my US History textbooks, even as early as middle school. The historical and societal significance of the picture outweighs the image's shortcomings...but frankly, I think it could do with some downsampling. At full resolution, it lacks sharpness. I went to the image page, and thought that the thumbnail (at 362×600 px on my 15" monitor at work) was a much better representation of the image as I’ve seen it in textbooks. While the picture itself is 144 years old, and that is definitely the reason for its technical quality (or lack thereof), I still believe Wikipedians should get a slightly sharper version. On this nomination page, the thumbnail of edit 1 looks sharper, but there are too many blown areas in it and edit 2 for me to pick either of them over the original. —
BrOnXbOmBr21 •
talk •
contribs • 01:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- See new Edit 3, which looks less "blown out."
MamaGeek (
talk/
contrib) 01:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I applaud your efforts here (despite some severe posterisation!) but I'm inclined to support only the original submission for this candidature, for no other reason than its journalistic and historical value warrants total respect for the original document. In other words, any retouching on this (as with any historical document) must be extremely carefully and sympathetically done. The term "original" isn't even applicable to this submission, as the true original is a glass plate negative. We don't know how much manipulation this version has already had (a fair bit, I'd say) nor how far from the true original it has come. My view is that Wikipedia should recognise the progressive loss of original information this repeated editing causes, and not materially alter historical images beyond an absuloute minimum (very slight cropping, shading, rotating, etc). Am I wrong or did you combine the head from the newer sub with the body of the older one? I'm not "having a go" here, it's a neat job, but that sort of editing should never be allowed, for the sake of preservation of the original document. mikaul talk 08:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- See new Edit 3, which looks less "blown out."
MamaGeek (
talk/
contrib) 01:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I’m still going to have to pick the original, although you did give it the ol’ college try. In the edits, the scars on his back still look somehow like liquid globs to me; I feel that they're easier to make out in the original. Plus, there is definitely some posterization, as mikaul mentioned, as well as some bad gradients — much of the picture is just represented by differently shaded blotches of gray. Plus, the eye region isn’t particularly better in the edit. If anyone wants to take a shot at downsampling, though, I’d still like to see that. — BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original Emotionally disturbing. Good for a FP. -- Calibas 02:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 4 Okay, I downsampled the image myself in Photoshop to 1000×1657px, and I think it’s a better representation of the original. Well, perhaps not, but at least it’s sharper at full res. — BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is the right way of going about it. While it makes sense to show a downsampled version for viewing, it's the full-size file which is the "asset" here. Screen viewing is no more than a primary use; to use it for almost anything else, you would want the original scan to optimise, just as you did. The idea of a hi-res asset is its abitily to be viewed clearly in print: the resizing, sharpening, etc which that might call for is entirely dependent on the medium it appears in, something we can't possibly predict and shouldn't prejudice. ANyway, all this provoked me to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures arguing for "piggyback" downsized versions of FPs, purely to aid on-sceen viewing & I'd value your opinion. mikaul talk 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a powerful photo of a slave who escaped from a plantation in Mississippi and made his way to the Union garrison at Baton Rouge, LA, where the photo was taken. Sf46 ( talk) 21:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg --
Stefan 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Dannebrog
- Reason
- It is a great example of a flag flying in the wind, and the Dannebrog was the first and oldest national flag in the world.
- Articles this image appears in
- Flag of Denmark, Flag
- Creator
- Per Palmkvist Knudsen
- Support as nominator — ANNAfoxlover 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose — The POV is weird...for a flag picture, I'd prefer something face-on. tiZom (2¢) 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, not the best Wikipedia offers.-- Svetovid 23:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above, and not to forget that if we feature one flag, we'll sooner or later have to feature all... -- Janke | Talk 06:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As per comments above Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 12:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose subject isn't that interesting. While as a photo, it is relatively interesting in the angle and mood. The photo itself is dynamic, but as an encyclopedic subject, and the best of wikipedia, I do not feel this image is spectacular. For example, we could change the subject to any number of other flags, but keep the angle and similar sky. Hypothetically we could have hundreds and hundreds of featured pictures. Also, I'm not too found of the blotchy color noise at 100%. Also, the little lighter grey circle in the clouds towards the top of the frame looks weird in the thumbnail.- Andrew c 16:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Stefan 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Palace of Brazilian National Congress
- Reason
- The Palace of the Congress is one of the main symbols of the Brazilian State, with its twin towers flanked by the two plenary domes of the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate. It is front and back fenced by reflecting ponds and lawn. It is the biggest landscape architecture of Brasília, housing thousands of people that work there or go there daily for professional interest or tourism. As a support to the activities of the elected representatives, there are in the interior of the Palace of the Congress almost all the administrative activities of a city, including restaurants, radio and TV stations, press, snack bars, barbershop, cinema, libraries, museums, art galleries and, namely, auditoriums of all sizes, where the Committees of the two Houses meet and where usually most of the out-of-the-Plenum events take place.
- Articles this image appears in
- Brasília, Brazil, National Congress of Brazil and Politics of Brazil.
- Creator
- Eurico Zimbres
- Support as nominator — Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's a wonderful bit of photography. Very nice. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good enc angle and people for scale. However, the sky left of the tower is blown, the subject is cut off at the sides, everything looks sort of flat, and (I know this isn't your fault) the rain looks like it's selectively falling into that bowl-shaped structure. Better luck next time.-- Here T oHelp 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Well, without the rain falling exactly into that structure, this would be a banal picture. Unfortunately the quality is poor, look at the artifacts in the grass. Alvesgaspar 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I like how the rain falls int he bowl, but I have to oppose due to the heavy artifacts in the image, especially on the grass. (H) 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the image is fuzzy and out of focus overall. And the rain falling in the dish looks photoshopped. - Mgm| (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Is something burning in that giant wok? All kidding aside, I think the rain is distracting. I also notice artifacts in the grass. It's a nice picture but I don't think it's quite up to featured picture standards. -- Pixelface 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As MacGyver said above, the "rain" appears to be photoshopped. I'm pretty sure that not how rainfall looks like and the rainfalls I've encountered usually fall in areas bigger than a single building. I might be overly cynical/paranoid though... Also, the technical problems mentioned above. Jumping cheese 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- The raid is undoubtedly falling far away behind the bowl, not into it. Debivort 05:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose per Pixelface. Debivort 05:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --
Stefan 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hurricane Kate (2003)- Good pic.jpg
Bateleur Eagle
- Reason
- This is a well composed high resolution photograph of a young eagle in flight.
- Articles this image appears in
- Bateleur
- Creator
- Flickr user Stevie-B
- Support as nominator — — Gaff ταλκ 07:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, nothing particularly special here for me, the majesty of said animal is somewhat destroyed as it's so close to the ground. The ground also creates a distraction in terms of the similar colours. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the tips of the wings are very motion blurred, given that this is a domesticated bird(as evidenced by the leash on its leg) a better shot could be made. (H) 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, Blurry 8thstar 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, nice picture, but the background is distracting. -- Pixelface 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --
Stefan 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maslenitsa
- Reason
Maslenitsa, a 1919 painting by Boris Kustodiev.
Every Christian nation has its variety of Carnival, and Russia is no exception. The last week before Great Lent is called Maslenitsa. Its literal meaning is "Butter Week", although a more appropriate translation would be "Pancake Week". Maslenitsa has a dual ancestry: pagan and Christian. On the pagan side, Maslenitsa is a sun festival, celebrating the imminent end of the winter. On the Christian side, it is the last week before the Lent, when eating meat is forbidden, but pancakes ( bliny) are still allowed and consumed in great quantities.
The Russian painter Boris Kustodiev (1878-1927) was fascinated with old, rural Russia which he felt was slowly but steadily disappearing. At the time of the Russian Revolution he created a series of paintings which were intended as a farewell to the provincial "Holy Russia" of yore. They are full of movement and warmth in the tradition of old Russian lubok, the Brueghels, and the Venetian vedutisti. The first of these paintings is now at the Tretyakov Gallery. Some others canvases from the series are on exhibit at the National Art Museum of Belarus [18], Russian Museum [19], and a private collection. [20]
The nominated work was painted by Kustodiev in 1919, at the the height of the Russian Civil War. The painting seems to encompass a broad range of things associated with Russia. There we have snowy winter weather, a troika, an Orthodox church with onion domes. On the right is a theatre with a wrestling poster. On the left is a pub advertising "cheese" and "caviar". I believe the reproduction of this bright, hectic painting encapsulates the festive mood of Maslenitsa as the finale of the long Russian winter, thus significantly improving our article about this holiday. The canvas was presented by Kustodiev to his friend, painter Isaak Brodsky. It still hangs in his memorial house at St. Petersburg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Maslenitsa
- Creator
- Boris Kustodiev
- Nominate and support. -- Ghirla -трёп- 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I think it's beautiful. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful painting. Bewareofdog 22:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the painting. The reproduction is of good quality and it is quite useful Alex Bakharev 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Support Fascinating Painting and as per comments above
Booksworm
Sprechen-sie Koala? 08:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support per all above. There are some compression artifacts but nothing too serious. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 10:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - nice image. Very encyclopedic.-- Wolf talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা 11:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Exquisite image; captures the very spirit. Chris Buttigieg talk 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Strong Support: Brilliant picture of a wonderful painting. Shows good detail of the painting. --
Kalyan 05:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great picture, flawless scan, and get this: no blown highlights!-- Here T oHelp 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is this a somewhat romantic or realistic painting?--
Svetovid 23:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- How would you classify the " Winter Landscape with a Bird Trap"? I don't know how that particular town looked in 1919, but I'm afraid the appearance was rather dismal. So it's about romaniticizing power of memory rather than about real historical conditions. -- Ghirla -трёп- 13:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful subject, no tech. flaws in the scan either. vlad§inger tlk 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Just a fantastically vibrant and detailed painting, and it’s a great scan of it! — BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 20:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Maslenitsa kustodiev.jpg -- Raven4x4x 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria)
- Reason
- This is a high resolution and good quality illustration of a desert locust, which contributes to the encyclopaedic value of the articles it appears in.
- Articles this image appears in
- Acrididae, Desert locust, Grasshopper, Locust
- Creator
- Alvesgaspar
- Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Good detail on a moving subject in its natural surroundings. --
Tewy 22:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- The second seems (is) cut off, so I prefer the first version as featured picture, although the detail is nice on the second. -- Tewy 07:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original - Wonderful eye detail. Very enc, obviously. Nice bokeh. -- TotoBaggins 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support (first version) per TotoBaggins. Cacophony 23:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info - Adding new version with more detail in the head (but not depicting full body) - Alvesgaspar 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, gorgeous. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 04:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Original, dice detail. - Ravedave 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original Beautiful and sharp. -- LucaG 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Far more so than the Lantana flower pics, this one proves the worth of your camera Alves! Great clarity and composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original Great shot. We need the whole insect there, I think, so I'm not in favour of the second pic. Matt Deres 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support (original) Lovely view of the entire insect- adds a lot to the article. Purple Is Pretty 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original. It's perfectly in focus. We don't need more detail on the head. It's more important to have a view of the entire animal. - Mgm| (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original Nice and sharp. Great picture. -- Pixelface 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I think it's a great quality picture, but it's too busy for me to like it. The whole thing blends in, and I don't think we get the whole effect of the locust with all the twigs and grass, etc., cluttering up the picture. └ Jared┘┌ t┐ 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg -- Raven4x4x 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Battleship firing
- Reason
- Its awesome, its got a unique angle, it looks good, it clearly demonstrates a bow, its hi res, a lot of people like it, and it really does a good job of grabbing attention on the page battleship.
- Articles this image appears in
- Battleship, USS Iowa (BB-61), 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun, Gun turret
- Creator
- PH1 HILTON
- Support as nominator — TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What's that line running vertically in the centre?
J
Are you green? 04:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the lines emminating from the bridge; those are antennas for used for communications.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 04:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I mean the light band ~ 1365 pixels from left. It looks like a scan arifact, but it's subtle enough that I'm not assuming anything yet. J Are you green? 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, ok, I see it (Actually, I see two :) My guess is that the one on the left is from stitching; based on the other version of this photo I found the additional firepower on the left is (or was) cropped at one point, so I assume that line is probably where the cropper drew his line, so to speak. I don't see it to be a huge deal, it should be fairly easy to crop the image and remove the line (incidently, that may help the nomination in the long run by centering on the battleship, which is the subject of the photo). As for the one on the ship, I am not sure about that one (stitching maybe?). At any rate good catch, I missed that the first time around.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 06:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I scanned the pic for like five minutes before I saw the very very faint vertical line down the battleship. I spent another 10 minutes before I spot what I think is the second line (?) about a cannon length from the muzzle. I'm not even sure if that's the line you're talking about. Frankly, those lines are extremely minor flaws...I see the noise level as a more significant flaw. Those lines are definitely not from stitching errors (no shift...only a faint line), but probably from a less than perfect scan. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hmph, I go staight to the source for the hi res version and it has flaws (Oh, the irony :). Yeah, the second line is about cannon length from the muzzle, and was the line I thought had caught J's eye the first time around. It was only after the third time of looking over the image that I relized that the line I had found was to far to the left to be the one original refernced, thats when I spotted the other one. This is coming straight off the Defense media link website; I find it hard to believe they would put a less than perfect scan up, although for all I know the photo could have been doctored. The line to the left is not a big issue, we could cut off that half of the photo and not lose anything particularly important, but the line in the middle would remain a problem. Is there any way to fix it/them, or is the photo beyond all hope?
TomStar81 (
Talk) 07:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about cropping it. If anyone cares much about the lines, it shouldn't be hard to remove them. J Are you green? 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the lines emminating from the bridge; those are antennas for used for communications.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 04:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive and striking pic. The only technical problem I can see is the slight noise, but clearly understandable for a scan at 2354 × 3000. As I mentioned above, I don't see the faint line(s) as a significant or even an obviously noticeable flaw. My main issue with the pic is that there is already a similar pic awarded with FP status (to the right). However, in my opinion, this pic is more awe-striking and taken at a better angle. Both pic deserves FP status, but the current nomination deserves it even more. The pic is definitely not doctored (in my armature observation) and I don't believe that a it should be cropped in any fashion. No need to obsesses over a faint line down the center. It's not noticeable unless intentionally searched for (or if you have superduper sharp eyes). Also...encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 08:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Impressive, but could anyone sharpen the pic to avoid blurriness? Looks like a VHS footage. -- Brand спойт 13:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very soft in full size. Even downsampling to 50% won't help. Details just aren't there. -- Janke | Talk 13:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support could be a little sharper but still a nice picture. Cat-five - talk 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose a firing ship (even the same) already featured.-- Svetovid 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- In all good faith, can I ask: is this a valid reason to oppose? I realise the criteria specify "the best of a given subject", but do we take this to be an exclusive or inclusive "best"? We could take it to the talk page if you like. mikaul talk 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great shot (per comments above) not brilliantly presented but not bad either. I'm fairly sure it's a scanned print – see non-digital retouching spots on that thin vertical line, towards the bottom of the frame. The line itself is almost certainly a scratch on the original negative caused by abrasive dust in the camera film guides, which are typically very fine and parallel to the frame sides; there may well be (a lot) more than one, that's just the deepest of them. Techinically, it looks a bit dodgy at 100% but it would be just fine in repro. We can't judge film scans by digital tech criteria, they're very different things on a computer monitor.
mikaul talk 21:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC) - Oppose - Could be a bit sharper -- ZeWrestler Talk 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, the ship is off center... which would be fine except for the fire from the cannons is cropped. And I don't think it adds so much to any of the articles its in. gren グレン 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The lack of sharpness could be caused by the entire ship vibrating from the canon blasts. Shoeshirt 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very dramatic and enc. Too bad about the cropping and lack of sharpness, but the subject matter makes up for it. The image quality of the current FP is just as bad, but it too is so dramatic that it deserves its status. -- TotoBaggins 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Weak Support Amazing picture, bad sadly has a lack of sharpness
Booksworm
Sprechen-sie Koala? 08:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The current FP is much better bringing more information as it show the effect of the schockwave on sea surface. Ericd 08:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support Very interesting image with good resolution, but the image is a little bit blurry and there seems to be a white line running vertically through the center of it. ANNAfoxlover 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. It is a very good picture, with a few very minor flaws, and the fact that there is already one featured picture of a battleship firing, makes no difference. Dreamy 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the crop on the left side.
- Yeah, same. It seems to lose its balance a little like this. What does the original look like?
vlad§inger
tlk 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is the original; it came directly off the DoD server.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I missed that. vlad§inger tlk 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is the original; it came directly off the DoD server.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, same. It seems to lose its balance a little like this. What does the original look like?
vlad§inger
tlk 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It being cropped on the left. 8thstar 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Alluvial fan
- Reason
- Perfectly illustrates the article, highly encyclopedic, high resolution
- Articles this image appears in
- Alluvial fan
- Creator
- NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS/ASTER
- Support as nominator — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-06-06 20:22Z
- Support-- Mbz1 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
Support - Interesting, detailed, and sharp.
Roguegeek (
talk) 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Intriguing picture.
70.20.162.98 17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Dylan Schiff 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- IP users do not have suffrage. MER-C 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- That was my vote. I didn't sign in. Dylan Schiff 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I really like this image at thumbnail and image page dimensions, but I feel that it looks oversharpened (not that I know anything about that) and somehow vague at full resolution. How about a down-sample? It is certainly large enough to have one, and I don't think it's sharp at full resolution.
Enuja 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think they apply any sort of sharpening filters to these images. Can you point out a section that indicates oversharpening? As for size, it's usually better to have these images as high-res as possible. The downsizing occurs in the articles when people view them at thumbnail size. There's no need to downsize the full res image and lose information in the process. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-06-10 22:43Z
- Support - Very illustrative, encyclopedic, and beautiful. Cacophony 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Interesting and very encyclopedic per nom. typhoon chaser 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Amazing image. TimVickers 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Typhoon, for one, puts it quite right. Joe 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Alluvial fan, Taklimakan Desert, XinJiang Province, China, NASA, ASTER.jpg -- Raven4x4x 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
New Zealand North Island Robin (Toutouwai, Petroica australis longipes)
- Reason
- This bird is part of a ground breaking 'mainland island' environmental project
- Articles this image appears in
- New_Zealand_robin, Karori_Wildlife_Sanctuary
- Creator
- Tony Wills
- Support as nominator — AGoon 12:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Not the absolute best bird pic I've seen in terms of sharpness and detail on the feathers, but this is respectively close.-- Here T oHelp 14:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral the angle of the bird isn't the best because the rear of the bird is foreshortened. The light is a little bit harsh (especially around the feet). The bokeh is pretty bad as well, all the out of focus sticks are distracting. The sharpness and exposure are decent, and the composition of a centered bird is made more dynamic by the reddish twig traveling on a diagonal off frame. It's a good image, and I wouldn't mind if it were featured, but it isn't that special and there are some technical concerns.- Andrew c 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral/weak oppose I need to put some more thought into it. For the moment let me leave it at this. It's pretty uninspiring for a bird shot which there are plenty of and the detail isn't really that impressive. - Fcb981 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- comment You guys are difficult to impress :-), but I would say the feather detail on this small bird is better than many other FP birds, and this is not a common sparrow or black bird which can be photographed from the bedroom window until it's perfect :-). You might note that it was a 1/3rd of a second exposure, which is quite remarkable as this bird was hoping from branch to branch, with a slight pause on each branch, looking for insects. I especially like the reflection in its eye-ball of the predator proof fence which is an essential part of this environmental restoration project :-) -- Tony Wills 121.73.5.55 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in some ways, yes. I didn't notice the 3rd second exposure time which is impressive in its self but doesn't really improve the picture. My point is that compared to the current featured pictures of birds this one isn't anything super special. Compare to this, this or this. - Fcb981 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose it reflects a couple of trade-offs, I tried very hard to get the whole bird in focus rather than choosing a shallower DOF and just having the head in focus but allowing a better separation of the background and I haven't 'enhanced' the photo at all (apart from cropping) but felt the contrast between the white branches and the colours of the bird and twig was good, there is real depth to the photo. The balance between FP being eye-popping images or images valuable in other ways is something that could come into the discussion at this point :-) -- Tony Wills 121.73.5.55 08:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful bird, nice quality and original shooting angle. The only thing I don't like to see is the ring. Alvesgaspar 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Good shot for a very rare bird. -- antilived T | C | G 09:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - apart from the photographic qualities mentioned by Alvesgaspar above, this image goes beyond that because it tells a story - the fence reflected in the eye, and the rings on the leg identify the bird as under the protection of a revolutionary, cutting-edge conservation project. Kahuroa 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - Interesting subject but I'm afraid it's not really grabbing me, compared to many of our other bird photos. The composition seems awkward (too "top-down", and one of the feet is cropped, for example) and the image quality isn't amazing. I can sympathise with that since I also use a C750UZ, but I have photos of a similar quality that I wouldn't nominate because I don't feel they're up to scratch. I also find the background somewhat distracting - a lower perspective might have given you greater separation between subject and background and allowed you to achieve the same DOF on the bird whilst throwing the background further out of focus. There's also some glare, as mentioned above. Overall, it's a nice-ish photo but I really don't think it's up there with our best. Sorry. -- YFB ¿ 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose as per Yummifruitbat's comments. I'd be happy taking a picture of this quality, but it's just not quite feature quality IMO. For me the foreshortening of the bird just makes in inappropriate as an FP. Nice shot, though. Matt Deres 01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support' I believe this is one of the best pictures I have seen on wikipedia since I've been here since April 2007! Politics rule 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I'll have to agree with YFB, sorry. But User:Mdf has set a pretty high standard for bird pics already and FPs are supposted to be Wikipedias' best. -- Dschwen 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. -- MichaelMaggs 12:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per YFB - Wutschwlllm 18:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Angle could be better and I could do without the leg bands. Chris H 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- The leg band is part of the bird. They are virtually extinct in the wild and the few that are left are all tagged and left on their sanctuary. This is NOT the robin that fly around in your back garden, this is an endangered species whose survival is only ensured with one single female. --
antilived
T |
C |
G 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter to me, If the animal is not born with it, its not natural. And makes it a negative, but that isn't the primary reason for the oppose, its the camera angle. That just one more extra distracting problem. Chris H 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- The leg band is part of the bird. They are virtually extinct in the wild and the few that are left are all tagged and left on their sanctuary. This is NOT the robin that fly around in your back garden, this is an endangered species whose survival is only ensured with one single female. --
antilived
T |
C |
G 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, per YFB. I'm also not very happy with the lighting. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, per YFB, mostly because of the odd angle. Calliopejen1 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Great white shark
- Reason
- As good an image as I've seen of a great white. In focus, in frame, and with a bit of action and detail.
- Articles this image appears in
- Great white shark, Shark attack, Fish, Portal:Sharks
- Creator
- Pterantula
- Support as nominator — Yomangani talk 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support Fine image, I like the caustic effect on the shark. But it is rather small. (H) 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Meets all Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria, support!!! Stefan 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Later comment, support all three version, in order I prefere 2 over 1 over 3. Stefan 05:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per H, the shark is smallish but otherwise impeckable. There also seem to be a few distracting blown pixels near the splah; there are only a handful so they can be adjusted by hand.-- Here T oHelp 23:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I assume this is a somewhat difficult shot to obtain, but I feel like a better one could be found. The
school of fish below the shark is very distracting for me, as is the splash on the right side of the image. The entire rear half of the shark is out of focus (though perhaps that's because its tail was moving at the time the picture was taken). I can't figure out if those spots (near the top of the picture, towards the middle) are specks of dust on the lens, or if they're something else (they don't look like bubbles to me). Also, as
H noted, the image isn't very large. —
BrOnXbOmBr21 •
talk •
contribs • 00:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- As for the tail to be out of focus, it is not (out of focus that is), my guess is that it is particles in the water, you must understand that you can not get the same clarity in underwater shots as when you take pictures in the air, water is very dense and it has lots of things floating in it, if you have 20 meters visibility underwater it is very good, you can not expect a picture underwater to be like a picture on land, if you had fog making you see 20 meters on land all pictures would look lousy and you would just wait for the next day and take a clear picture, underwater thsi is always the case, this picture seams to be taken in good conditions, I would guess that the visibility is even better than 20 meters, but still you will have reduced clarity even in very short distances, compare the fish that is close with the fish that is far away, they are not clear either, but if that is the criteria for features pictures it would be very hard to get underwater pictures passed. See image:Hawaii_turtle_2.JPG which recently passed, it have the same isse but much more (remember this shark is 3+ meters, turtle estimated to 50+cm) but still the end of the turtle starts to look a bit blurred. Stefan 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The spots on the top I think is backscatter, this happens when you have partciles in the water and uses a flash, my guess is that this is actually bubbles, quite close to the lens reflecting the flash light, it is hard to avoid, also a fact of life in underwater photography, can be made less by placing the flash further from the camera but sometimes with lots of particles it just does not help enough, not sure in this case, but the water looks to have lots of buibbles in it. Stefan 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, but there are just too many distracting elements that do not bring much more encyclopedic value. Circeus 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- support dramatic! school of fish and splash I find not distracting - they show they prey (and prey behavior) and the splash shows the energy exerted by the shark respectively. Debivort 05:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support I'm not distracted by the school or the splash either, and the detail on the shark is quite nice. Shame it's so small, though, it'd make a great wallpaper otherwise. --
Herald Alberich 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- More Support for Edit 1 than for the original. -- Herald Alberich 06:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Though I would've preferred not to have the splash in the background, this is a fine image. The fish show the shark is in his natural habitat, and it's crisp and in focus. (There's such a thing as a focus plane. You can't have something in the background as clear as something in the foreground especially if it extends several feet and is subject to underwater light scatter). - Mgm| (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- stuns me, interests me, grabs my enthusiasm. Seems to be of good quality. Subject fairly clearly defined. Thats what a FP is, isn't it? Anonymous Dissident Utter 10:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Some technical flaws, and unfortunately small, but I don't think I've ever seen a shark image this well-lit and well-composed before. -- TotoBaggins 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support-- Mbz1 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Strong Support per above Jellocube27 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit one, original as a compromise only. The encyclopedic value this shot overwhelms the already mentioned techincal imperfections, as the encyclopedic of the recent shots of the sea turtle and whale shark did not. I am somewhat concerned about the encyclopedic value of whatever that is at the base of the dorsal fin, but it looks so much like an individual imperfection (scar, whatever) that I think the encyclopedic value is preserved.
Enuja 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I oppose edit two, with the tracking tag and part of the dorsal fin scarring removed. That does detract from the reality of the image. Removing the unfocused spots (and leaving lots of bubbles and other real things) just makes the picture better and doesn't damage its encyclopedic value.
Enuja 02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- (the thing at the base of the dorsal fin is a research tracking tag, age unknown.) - pterantula, 13 June 2007
- Support; agree that the picture overcomes any technical deficiencies. -- Golbez 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. Shows the shark in its natural habitat without depicting it as the typical "killing and eating machine." A great picture, especially considering that the photographer was in the water with the shark at the time! -- Vhadsell 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful image and a novel subject. TimVickers 02:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest support for second image, although all three are great. TimVickers 18:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Just big enough; beautiful sharpness, composition, colors, and lighting; great WOW value; one of the best pictures I've seen of this fish; minor distractions can't stand against all the positive things about this picture. Excellent! Althepal 03:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)- Support edit 1 While I think that the original is worthy of FP, the edit removes a negative element (the spots or bubbles) from the picture and should replace the first. Althepal 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support perfect quality picture.-- Svetovid 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the featured picture candidate should be replaced with the edited version.
Althepal 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Call me visually insensative, but I actually cant see the difference between the original picture and the edited one. Can you pint out to me the actual differences?
Anonymous Dissident
Utter 08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the white bubble above the fin of the shark, in the middle top of the picture, and 5-10 other simmilar bubbles.
Stefan 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's right, Stefan. If you use a browser that allows tabs (Firefox, IE7, and many others), you can also open the two versions in two different tabs and switch back and forth between them so the pictures are in the same place. Then you will for sure notice the difference. Althepal 17:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the white bubble above the fin of the shark, in the middle top of the picture, and 5-10 other simmilar bubbles.
Stefan 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Call me visually insensative, but I actually cant see the difference between the original picture and the edited one. Can you pint out to me the actual differences?
Anonymous Dissident
Utter 08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Am I allowed to comment on my own work?...) I greatly appreciate and value the scrutiny given here; if I might just comment that minor artifacts (such as the dome bubbles, particles in the water, shoals of other animals, etc.) represent the true, natural conditions and circumstances of the image subject; this is not an idealized piece of "art" in a vacuum, and I believe it should be viewed in the greater context of its surroundings, "real-world", as it were. (But that's just me...)
Pterantula 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying, but if it takes away from the main subject which we need to focus on, maybe it wouldn't be so horrible to modify it just a little. BTW: If there is an artificial tracking tag, maybe even that should be removed to better show what the sharks really look like?
Althepal 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I made this edit. I know it is deviating from what "really happened," but we have to decide if it's a more "encyclopedic" depiction or not. Althepal 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pterantula, are you sure the bubbles and other stuff I removed in the first edit are simply not specks of something on the camera lens?
Althepal 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Should not answer for others, but compare [21] and [22] in a tabbed browser and you can see that there are different 'artifacts' in each picture. (which should not happen if it was artifacts from the camera setup) Since I did not take the pictures i'm only guessing, but it looks to me that these are taken just a few seconds after each other, so no time to 'clean' the lens (which you can not do under water anyway), also look at some of the other pictures on the flicker account, and see that this guy knows how to take pictures, compare the deeper pictures [23]which have less bubbles, but bubbles do happen underwater especially close to the surface and there is not much to do about them. Stefan 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying, but if it takes away from the main subject which we need to focus on, maybe it wouldn't be so horrible to modify it just a little. BTW: If there is an artificial tracking tag, maybe even that should be removed to better show what the sharks really look like?
Althepal 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support - I strongly support the original, or the first edit without the spots (with preference probably to the edit), but i feel that the tracker is important in showing that these fish are being monitored. Also the fish are not distracting as it shows the animal in its natural conditions, and in no way subtract from encyclopedic value. C hris_huh talk 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support - The picture does follow all of the requirements for a featured picture and depicts the Great White's entire body and niche. Taipan198 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Great picture of a Great White. Certainly FP material in my book. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support first edit; would give weak support for original. The spots were a bit distracting and removing them added to the shot without taking anything away; I would oppose the second edit with the tracker removed.
Matt Deres 22:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- (the original image is already a JPG, so all these additional edits would conceivably be recompressing, thus reducing the quality overall...? Just a thought.)
Pterantula 02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I saved using 100% jpeg quality each time. When viewed at full size and switching between the pictures, you cannot notice extra jpeg artifacts. Althepal 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- (the original image is already a JPG, so all these additional edits would conceivably be recompressing, thus reducing the quality overall...? Just a thought.)
Pterantula 02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Great shot. Ba'Gamnan | Talk 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Super Sonic Support!! My special support for GREAT pics like this!! The reflection of the lights on the shark are just a tad distracting, but it is definitely bearable because at the same time, it looks cool, like Sonic!! The fish are not a distraction either because they actually serve as a great scale in how big the shark is. THe splash is trivial; it's in the corner, for crying out loud!! This definitely would be a COOL FP! -- Sonic is Cool!! 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:White shark.jpg -- Raven4x4x 04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- THANK YOU, everyone who took a look and offered their thoughts. I really, really appreciate the feedback. Cheers! Pterantula 07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Einsatzgruppen killing a Jewish man
- Reason
- High resolution, captures an event that can never be forgotten and 100% non-reproductible
- Articles this image appears in
- Einsatzgruppen, Holocaust
- Creator
- Support as nominator — Brent Ward 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The creator is certainly not the USHM, and I doubt it really is in the PD in the US. The photographer is most definitely not a member of the allied forces. My guess would be that the picture was taken by a german SS (or possibly Wehrmacht) soldier, and thus would be copyrighted until at least 2012 (assuming the photographer died in 1942). A pretty iconic and strong picture. Unfortunately the license needs some further investigation. -- Dschwen 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -- Amazing picture, of course, but I'm sure I've seen better versions of it. As for the license, good catch Dschwen, but I can't believe all the Nazi stuff we have isn't PD; I see you're correct, though. Stupid laws. -- TotoBaggins 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, very poor quality.--
Svetovid 00:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Would you mind clarifying? See criterion #3 if your opposition is based on the quality of the photo. If it is based on the quality of the scan, of course, this doesn't apply. J Are you green? 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- There must be better pictures to illustrate German atrocities during WWII.--
Svetovid 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well find one then nominate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 ( talk • contribs)
- There must be better pictures to illustrate German atrocities during WWII.--
Svetovid 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't copyright from that period only still be in effect if there was a notice on the image, or at least a renewal, so it's safe to assume that any copyright that did exist has lapsed? I also have issues with the quality of the scan. It looks blocky or otherwise degraded, like it was a scan of a photocopy instead of the original image.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 06:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC
- No, copyright lasts until 70 years after the photographers death. No notice or extension required. --
Dschwen 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Under
United States copyright law, to quote our article, "For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated in 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. " The 70 years requirement only holds for works that hadn't yet entered the public domain in 1978. But that's US law.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but german law is different here. --
Dschwen 07:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- It might have been released into PD by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (as was
Image:Warsaw Ghetto Josef Bloesche-edit1.jpg).
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 09:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the USHM cannot release a picture into the PD which is still copyrighted by someone else, unless they can properly document a transfer of rights of some kind. This issue comes up every time I see a picture from the USHM website. They quite frankly either have no clue about the legal situation, or they don't care. Anyways, in their position would also try to handle copright situation as liberal as possible, as their educational mission is fairly important. But falsely claiming PD is just too much of a stretch, and it is pretty annoying that people believe their bogus licensing every time due to their perceived authority. --
Dschwen 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to think these images are in a legal wasteland so they just assume PD... or maybe they do know how the copyright holder is. I usually think it's proper to trust them unless we have evidence to the contrary. gren グレン 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The German government doesn't usually claim copyright on holocaust related photographs, the stroop report photos were gifted to the polish institute of national remembrance, and this photo is over 50 years old, many photographs are considered public domain according to German law Article 72 Bleh999 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the USHM cannot release a picture into the PD which is still copyrighted by someone else, unless they can properly document a transfer of rights of some kind. This issue comes up every time I see a picture from the USHM website. They quite frankly either have no clue about the legal situation, or they don't care. Anyways, in their position would also try to handle copright situation as liberal as possible, as their educational mission is fairly important. But falsely claiming PD is just too much of a stretch, and it is pretty annoying that people believe their bogus licensing every time due to their perceived authority. --
Dschwen 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- It might have been released into PD by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (as was
Image:Warsaw Ghetto Josef Bloesche-edit1.jpg).
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 09:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but german law is different here. --
Dschwen 07:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Under
United States copyright law, to quote our article, "For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated in 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. " The 70 years requirement only holds for works that hadn't yet entered the public domain in 1978. But that's US law.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, copyright lasts until 70 years after the photographers death. No notice or extension required. --
Dschwen 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support Would be better if it was a higher quality photograph. But is still a fantastic picture -- St.daniel Talk 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - It is an amazing - yet terrible - picture.
Booksworm
Talk to me! 05:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Comment Whenever I look at this image, the expression on that poor man's face makes me cry
Booksworm
Talk to me! 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Support - As per Booksworm. S0ulfire84 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support version 2 - Great photograph of a tragic situation, I would like to see more information on the discovery of this photograph, was it released through the polish government in exile or USSR? Bleh999 09:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose on copyright grounds. There is no evidence this photograph is in the public domain(other than two words on a website that does not specialize in copyright), and until there is this nomination cannot be approved.-- Pharos 11:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)- I disagree with you 'that there is no evidence this photograph is in the public domain', USHMM and the Library of Congress are considered reliable sources on wikipedia, Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz has this image in its archive (# 30003980), but they say photographer is unknown, hence unable to claim copyright
Bleh999 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- The USHMM is a reliable source on many things, but not on international copyright law. There is no evidence the Library of Congress considers this image public domain.--
Pharos 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- USHMM is pretty clear to credit the specific copyright owners for images they don't own copyright, not all the images are labeled public domain, they say this image is public domain and courtesy of the library of congress, I don't see why it's not true
Bleh999 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have no doubt they made a good-faith effort in labeling this image, but they just don't exercise the copyright scrutiny that we do (or that the Library of Congress does). Mistakes do sneak in. And when they label a photograph "Public Domain" when we have every reason to believe it to be copyrighted, we cannot take that at face value without further explanation or evidence.--
Pharos 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- But I think the onus is on the people who think this image is copyrighted to do some research to prove it is, besides this image is not on commons but only on the en wiki, so only US law applies here. If this was a captured or seized photograph and the author is unknown then it is also PD after 50 years in most countries according to the Berne convention
Bleh999 12:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- That being said, it would be nice to know more about the origins of this photograph Bleh999 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is clearly the responsibility of the nominators to show that the image meets the very basic criteria of being a free image. And there is just no evidence or reason at all to believe that this image is public domain in the United States, or anywhere else.--
Pharos 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well you only seem to claim USHMM made a mistake by claiming the library of congress released the image into the public domain (but you didn't offer any proof that USHMM and the Library of Congress made a mistake about the image being PD) and yes the image is explicitly labeled as public domain as USHMM photo #64407, that is proof enough since I don't think their claim has been refuted Bleh999 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- By Pharos's argument, we should delist most Featured Pictures because they don't have a handwritten (and signed in blood) letter from the creator indicating release of copyright. Anyone who submits their "own" work to Wikipedia would be in the same situation; after all, how do we know that Fir0002 has ever actually taken a photograph? Maybe he's found a nice database of images, and he's just been stealing them all these years. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for copyright claims, so Image-space copyright claims should be held to such high scrutiny (or should they?). — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-25 20:13Z
- But I think the onus is on the people who think this image is copyrighted to do some research to prove it is, besides this image is not on commons but only on the en wiki, so only US law applies here. If this was a captured or seized photograph and the author is unknown then it is also PD after 50 years in most countries according to the Berne convention
Bleh999 12:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have no doubt they made a good-faith effort in labeling this image, but they just don't exercise the copyright scrutiny that we do (or that the Library of Congress does). Mistakes do sneak in. And when they label a photograph "Public Domain" when we have every reason to believe it to be copyrighted, we cannot take that at face value without further explanation or evidence.--
Pharos 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- USHMM is pretty clear to credit the specific copyright owners for images they don't own copyright, not all the images are labeled public domain, they say this image is public domain and courtesy of the library of congress, I don't see why it's not true
Bleh999 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- The USHMM is a reliable source on many things, but not on international copyright law. There is no evidence the Library of Congress considers this image public domain.--
Pharos 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with you 'that there is no evidence this photograph is in the public domain', USHMM and the Library of Congress are considered reliable sources on wikipedia, Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz has this image in its archive (# 30003980), but they say photographer is unknown, hence unable to claim copyright
Bleh999 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Beyond the copyright issues, is there a way of fixing the fading on the right side of the photograph? Spikebrennan 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Unique and interesting. Public domain claim is from a satisfactorily reliable source. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-25 20:16Z
- Strong Support This picture is unique and has huge encyclopedic value.
![[2]](/info/en/?search=Image:San_Francisco_in_ruin_edit2.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.hanks-place.com/Andros/fish/images/green-turtle.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://divebarbados.net/Current%20Photos/Pictures/Green%20Turtle%201.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=HDSN9901768&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/1999/DoD/HD-SN-99-01768.JPG){kind=link}
![[16]](http://www.themoonlitroad.com/archives/teacher/images/whippedslave.jpg){kind=link}
-_Good_pic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[19]](http://www.belygorod.ru/img2/Maslennica/0KUstodiev_MaslennicaRAN.jpg){kind=link}
Mbz1 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Strong supportStrong support version 2 The copyright finally seems satisfactory...so I;m giving my full support. The pic is extremely grainy, but given the circumstances and rarity of the pic, the historic value overrides the technical problems. Very encyclopedic...certainly one of the best on Wikipedia. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 06:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)- The scan from the Library on Congress is much clearer and less noisy than the one from the USHMM. The original one is also cropped, so it looses some of the historical context. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 04:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support This picture is unique and show huge histrorical value.-- Beyond silence 08:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Poor quality for even for a WWII photo and copyright is questionable, but in reality know one would ever challenge its use. Chris H 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per above. 8thstar 14:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg --
Brent Ward 23:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC) +9 / -2
- Huh? It's only been four days, and you didn't actually close the FPC!
J
Are you green? 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I second this, promotion can not take place before the 7 day mark and it is questionable for the nominator to do the promotion.
Chris H 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I
strikedstruck it out. The nomination doesn't end for at least another three days. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 02:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)- "Striked"? I think that should be struck too :)
J
Are you green? 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Getting antsy with the grammar, huh? I "struck" it out. ;) Jumping cheese Cont @ct 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Striked"? I think that should be struck too :)
J
Are you green? 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I
- I second this, promotion can not take place before the 7 day mark and it is questionable for the nominator to do the promotion.
Chris H 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image moved to suspended nominations pending copyright clarification.
♠ SG
→Talk 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Until you got involved people were entirely satisfied with the copyright. Move it back! --
Brent Ward 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, leave it down here. The copyright situation clearly needs clarification and the legal situation is not up for vote here. --
Dschwen 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who cares though, if we're allowed to display it on the
holocaust and the
einsatzgruppen pages, whats wrong with displaying it on the main page?
- Featured Pictures have to be genuinely free. They have a PR function and stand for the best Wikipedia has to offer. Other people might want to spread the FPs and any legal limitation or copyright issue reflects badly on the supposedly free Wikipedia. -- Dschwen 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who cares though, if we're allowed to display it on the
holocaust and the
einsatzgruppen pages, whats wrong with displaying it on the main page?
- Nope, leave it down here. The copyright situation clearly needs clarification and the legal situation is not up for vote here. --
Dschwen 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Until you got involved people were entirely satisfied with the copyright. Move it back! --
Brent Ward 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright clarification: The pic is released into the Public Domain by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, as indicated by the
copyright page for the pic. The credit is "USHMM, courtesy of Library of Congress" and the copyright is "Public Domain"...as black and white as that. The issue seems to be a distrust of the validity of the copyright status as provided by the USHMM. I'm not sure if I missed something, but I'm assuming that the USHMM is a rather trustworthy organization. I'm aware of the German law that states that 70 years has to pass after the photographer's death before the pic is released in PD. However, this pic was probably released into PD before the copyright expiration period and transfered over to the Library of Congress, which allowed the USHMM to use the pic. Given no other sources that would directly indicate the copyright status to be different, why should the copyright come into question? Furthermore,
this nom has the same copyright status as based on the info provided by the USHMM. That nom passed and appeared as pic of the day back in Sept. 26, 2006. There was also some controversy over the pic's copyright status
[24], but the tag was reverted since there was no clear copyvio.
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is no clarification, and the example is unfortunately backing my point, that image has been deleted
[25]. --
Dschwen 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- And that image of the Warsaw ghetto uprising from the Juergen Stroop report was incorrectly deleted, I emailed the bundesarchiv in Koblenz (which holds a copy of those photographs) and they say the German government claims no copyright over those images and transferred them to the Polish institute of Remembrance, also those photos are in the US national archives too. The people in that deletion request did not even bother to clarify the copyright status, and so I didn't bother to reply since the discussion is closed. Bleh999 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is no clarification, and the example is unfortunately backing my point, that image has been deleted
[25]. --
Dschwen 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I added a new version, this hasn't been resized, its the native resolution from the library of congress. I did adjust the contrast though.
Bleh999 11:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- And where did you download this version from (link please)? Thanks.--
Pharos 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the library of congress won't mind if I post the link to the uncompressed tif file,
[26] and yes I did adjust the the black & white levels, because the original is dark as you can see and I cropped the white border, but there is no retouching or manipulation in the version I uploaded, as you can verify.
Bleh999 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I mean, what is the url of the description page?--
Pharos 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was able to deduce that from the URL of the TIFF file:
[27]. Source link has been added to the photo.
howcheng {
chat} 06:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- and that source link states Rights status not evaluated. There seems to be a misconception of all LOC material being PD or otherwise free... --
Dschwen 10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course not all LOC material is PD, since it is a library, however this item is PD and USHMM told me in an email the Library of Congress and the 'Dokumentationsarchiv des Oesterreichischen Widerstandes' provided them with the copyright information regarding this photograph, so I guess they must have confirmed it is PD --
Bleh999 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the copyright issue, see WP:PD#German World War II images for some background. It is possible that this image is PD in the U.S. by virtue of being "seized enemy property". (That doesn't make it PD elsewhere, though. Commons treats German WWII era photos as copyrighted. Mark both images with text saying that these images should not be transferred to the commons.) Here at the en-WP, we operate under U.S. law exclusively, AFAIK, and we host quite a few such confiscated Nazi-era images available from the NARA, the USHMM, or the LoC (even if we may know better concerning the copyrights elsewhere, I presume they know better what they may legally do within the U.S....) I'll happily contend such PD claims over at the commons, because they only apply within the U.S., but here, they appear to me to be acceptable. Lupo 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bleh999, where did you find that memory.loc.gov link to the TIFF? On what page is this being linked to? Lupo 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and BTW, if you do have an e-mail from the USHMM on that image, please forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, clearly stating to what images this refers. Thank you.
Lupo 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- email PhotoArchives@ushmm.org and ask yourself, although emailing them may be pointless since some here dispute USHMMs authority to claim this is PD anyway
Bleh999 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you do already have such an e-mail, why can't you forward it?
Lupo 12:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I will forward it Bleh999 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- You've got it all backwards bleh, I have no obligation to prove that there are licensing inconsistencies (and in particular I have no obligation to do any legwork for you). The uploader (and on FPC the nominator) has to prove that the license is ok. The main issue is that the USHMM did not provide any information on the origin of the image. If they claim that it is PD they have to give a reason. They did not shoot the picture and therefore they cannot release it to PD on their own authority. --
Dschwen 12:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to provide proof that this image is not public domain as claimed by USHMM, I suggest since you are fluent in German you contact the Dokumentationsarchiv des Oesterreichischen Widerstandes, which is a primary source for information on this image according to USHMM -- Bleh999 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you do already have such an e-mail, why can't you forward it?
Lupo 12:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- email PhotoArchives@ushmm.org and ask yourself, although emailing them may be pointless since some here dispute USHMMs authority to claim this is PD anyway
Bleh999 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course not all LOC material is PD, since it is a library, however this item is PD and USHMM told me in an email the Library of Congress and the 'Dokumentationsarchiv des Oesterreichischen Widerstandes' provided them with the copyright information regarding this photograph, so I guess they must have confirmed it is PD --
Bleh999 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- and that source link states Rights status not evaluated. There seems to be a misconception of all LOC material being PD or otherwise free... --
Dschwen 10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was able to deduce that from the URL of the TIFF file:
[27]. Source link has been added to the photo.
howcheng {
chat} 06:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I mean, what is the url of the description page?--
Pharos 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the library of congress won't mind if I post the link to the uncompressed tif file,
[26] and yes I did adjust the the black & white levels, because the original is dark as you can see and I cropped the white border, but there is no retouching or manipulation in the version I uploaded, as you can verify.
Bleh999 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- And where did you download this version from (link please)? Thanks.--
Pharos 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Image%3AWarsaw_Ghetto_Josef_Bloesche-edit1.jpg&diff=3125415&oldid=2850105){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:26543e.jpg){kind=link}
Moved to 'suspended nominations' section. The concerns over copyright are sufficient to need further investigation before we decide what to do with this one. Raven4x4x 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, people concerned about copyright should read comments by Lupo above, even if it is theoretically copyrighted in Germany, it doesn't mean it has a valid copyright in the US, look at Price vs United States:' United States Court of Appeals, Fifth circuit, 20 November, 1995
[28], where Price sued the US government on behalf of Heinrich Hoffman's heirs but lost and the case confirmed the items captured were PD in the US. Heinrich Hoffman had a better case for having the copyright to his images restored than the author of this einsatzgruppen shooting image, because his images didn't depict illegal acts and that might be why the author of this image is unknown, it seems he wasn't eager to gain credit for his photography
Bleh999 10:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- So is this picture still up for debate? Have we any conclusions as to the copyright status? Schulb72 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright issue clarified. I would like to drop my opposition to this photograph on copyright grounds. It was difficult to get an explicit statement on the copyright status of these photos from NARA, but I finally got one, which I much appreciate. Please see User:Pharos/NARA.-- Pharos 04:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pharos while I respect your efforts, I have to be honest, this is actually not a NARA image AFAIK. I sent some emails to the places USHMM said but never got any response, maybe someone else can try. Bleh999 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion reopened I'll follow howcheng's lead and move this nomination out of the suspended section. Since there's been a significant amount of comments on the nomination already, I don't believe it needs be placed on top of the page, as was the other WWII nomination. I'll add it back to the appropriate time slot. Jumping cheese 10:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg -- Raven4x4x 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Little Joe one
.jpg)
- Reason
- Very high resolution, encyclopedic, the guy gives the image scale (he really does this time and yes its the same guy from the Soyuz launch!! :P)
- Articles this image appears in
- Little Joe, Little Joe 1
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator — A look at NASA's more humble beginnings. Chris H 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. The image has some distracting vertical scan line noise that could probably be removed fairly painlessly, but otherwise a good historical record of, as Chris H said, the first steps of the space race. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Nice shot. Agree with Diliff about the scan lines and I think I'd be inclined to go for a tighter crop, losing some from the top and a bit from the left, where there's nothing going on anyway. Funny to see all these rocket noms all of a sudden, I've just been writing a report about the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project... -- YFB ¿ 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It would certaily look better with some delicate post-production work. Extra- historical too, as this would have been the last day that particular assistant worked for this particular photographer ;o) mikaul talk 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I don't see any major technical problems. A little tweaking and cropping per above is all that's needed. Very encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, a lot of noise/contrast and stuff making it kind of a weak image, and nothing really eye catching about it. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 01:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I added an edited version which removes the excess sky at the top (see thumbnail caption for full details). -Panser Born- (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Much better without all the empty space. Chris H 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Support the original pic. Kalyan 09:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose both versions Mainly per Night Gyr; interesting subject but too many downsides, I find the tones for instance are also somewhat intense. The cropped version is worse than the second given that naturally the eye needs space for the subject to fly! (well maybe not fly, but move in the direction of the subject) It is the same as if you had someone on the right hand-side of a photo also facing the right hand-side. Chris Buttigieg talk 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original Enc makes up for technical qualities. The empty sky is a necessary part of the composition; I think it's called "leadroom" (but I couldn't fid such an article).-- Here T oHelp 12:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, leadroom is a "moving pictures" term, but you're right to mention it in this static context, cos that's precisely what's "wrong" with that crop, IMO. There really should be a page on it; its not even mentioned at
Composition (visual arts), although that particular article's been on my copyedit list for a good while.
mikaul
talk 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do kind of see what you mean. Chris H 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support original per HereToHelp above... Check-Six 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:GPN-2000-001883.jpg -- Raven4x4x 04:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thespis - Illustrated London News Jan 6 1872
- Reason
- One of a very few contemporary images of the first Gilbert and Sullivan opera, making this an important historical document, and the only high-resolution version of it that apparently exists on the web (this is the only other copy I can find, and it's low-resolution and missing bits left, right and top).
- Articles this image appears in
- Thespis (opera) Gilbert and Sullivan Arthur Sullivan
- Creator
- D. H. Friston
- Support as nominator — Vanished user talk 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, encyclopedic, high quality and of historical value.-- Svetovid 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. I totally get the historical significance. The illustration itself is interesting, playful, dynamic, and well executed. However, there is something that is bothering me about a technical aspect of the image. The image appears to have been artificially enhanced to create a very striking contrast between black and white. As a graphic designer who works with historic imagery, it almost looks like files I work with that have been vectorized (eps, ai, svg, pdf, or similar format). For a raster image, I would have preferred to see a more au naturale quality. I would have liked to see the paper color. For an image such as this, I would have preferred it to be an SVG file, because the contrast and line quality works very well for that sort of thing. Sorry if that is a bit too technical/nit-picky. I still support this image, but would strongly support either a vector conversion of this file, or an image that shows over 100 years of aging and paper wear.- Andrew c 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment/Question What is the provenience of this picture? What I mean is, is this a scan of the actual newspaper clipping, a fresh printing from the original woodcut/engraving, a handmade reproduction of the original, etc? My concerns are very similar to Andrew's (above).
Matt Deres 00:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Scan of a good-quality photocopy of a well-preserved original, with a little adjustment to remove the grey. I've done research in various libraries; few of them let you take archival books with you, or have scanners available, but most allow photocopying.
Vanished user
talk 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have the unaltered version still available? The reason I ask is that, to me, the picture seems un-naturally bright and defined - I doubt it looked that good the day it was printed, which is actually a bit of a detraction as far as how encyclopedic the picture is.
Matt Deres 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it really does look like that. I've gone through hundreds of engravings from this magazine, and they really did do a superb job. Indeed, their art sections usw engravings of paintings that rival the originals.
- Here's another, for comparison. Franco-Prussian war. I've scanned this one straight in, with no levels alteration.
- Do you have the unaltered version still available? The reason I ask is that, to me, the picture seems un-naturally bright and defined - I doubt it looked that good the day it was printed, which is actually a bit of a detraction as far as how encyclopedic the picture is.
Matt Deres 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Scan of a good-quality photocopy of a well-preserved original, with a little adjustment to remove the grey. I've done research in various libraries; few of them let you take archival books with you, or have scanners available, but most allow photocopying.
Vanished user
talk 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that's great quality. I guess that was my only concern, so I'll support. Nice finds! Matt Deres 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Vanished user talk 02:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support Exquisite detail and needless to say, choice of subject. Gives an insight into the remnants of a bygone age; in my opinion it is the archetype of an encyclopaedic image. It is a bit of a change to the usual too. Chris Buttigieg talk 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Thespis - Illustrated London News Jan 6 1872.png -- Raven4x4x 04:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Mode Dial
- Reason
- Detailed and accurate SVG illustration of the article Mode dial.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mode dial
- Creator
- Althepal
- Support as nominator — Althepal 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I like it, it does a valuable job of illustrating the article where a photo might be too brand-specific. Clean, informative and direct. I'm on the brink of support but it's not really doing anything more than a basic good job. If you could animate it, it would be fantastic.
mikaul
talk 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about that, but I really am not very familiar with SVG animation. I don't think rotating the dial would really contribute much more to the article, anyway. (It is clear from the graphic as it is that it should rotate.) I'm glad you like the illustration! Althepal 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Perfectly illustrative. Jellocube27 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support - Original vector illustrations get a boost in my personal ratings system. Wikipedia doesn't allow SVG animation, so that's moot. Downgrading to GIF just for animation doesn't make much sense. The only thing I can think of that might be nice would be to have the labels of what each thing is in the image itself, but it might be too cluttered. -- TotoBaggins 00:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I like it. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-06-14 02:06Z
- Oppose. It's just not... interesting. 8thstar 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support I was reflexively inclined to agree with 8thstar, and even as I don't know that I'd be disposed to think of this as amongst Wikipedia's best work, I must say that it is otherwise entirely consistent with the FPC and surely serves an encyclopedically illustrative purpose quite well. As to rotation, I actually think rotation would be unnecessarily distracting here, and I think any accompanying caption will properly convey that the dial in actuality serves to rotate. Joe 04:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. It looks smooth and nice. Maddie was here 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support: The caption needs to tell that this is found on a camera! We know it, but do all wiki users? -- Janke | Talk 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per above. And yes, let's say that this is found on a camera.-- Here T oHelp 14:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I've got a couple of problems with this being an FP. The first is that while it's an excellent illustration of a mode dial, I don't know if there is any actual dial that looks just like that. For example, the dial on my Cybershot is no more than half similar to the illustration. If it illustrates an actual camera's mode dial (and it very well might), it should be specified so as not to create the impression that mode dials are standardized. Second, while it is nicely drawn, I can't say that it actually increases my knowledge of what a mode dial is; I agree that adding captions for the symbols would clutter the pic, but without them the picture doesn't enhance understanding. Third, and I realize this is completely subjective, I just don't get the feeling that this picture represents the "best possible" illustration.
Matt Deres 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, different designers will have different mode dials. As the caption says, this is, more or less, a pretty generic camera dial, and as you said, it is even partially similar to the dial on your Cybershot. I did not model this after a specific camera, but rather looked at multiple dials on cameras from different designers and created a generic one (not modeled after any one of them) with elements (design, color, modes, illustrations) that they generally share in common. As far as the settings go, while they will vary from camera to camera, the ones in this graphic are among the most common. But thanks, and I updated the caption per your suggestions. Regarding your second concern, the caption does the job of a key within the illustration. About the third, well, what can you do? ;) Althepal 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support The illustration is technically well executed. I don't like how the dial is simply floating in space, because it makes the minus sign off to the left seem a little odd. Otherwise, good work with the illustration and caption.-
Andrew c 23:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The notch is supposed to be shorter in height than the dial, and the light is supposed to come from the upper-left, which is why the shadows look like that. It's not supposed to look like it is floating, but just rather have a bigger shadow than the notch. Thank you for your support. Althepal 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice bit of graphic design. Looks very realistic, while being simple enough to clearly indicate the content. Adam Cuerden talk 23:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is a good effort, but I don't think it rises to the level of our best work. I find the disembodied dial rather disconcerting in the way that a close-up of an actual dial wouldn't be. I also think the shadow actually increases that feeling, especially given that there is no texture to the dial itself. I could also imagine improving this by adding a partial illustration of a camera underneath to give it context. Dragons flight 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I think it's very well done. gren グレン 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport This mode dial really only looks like the mode dial that you'd find on a digital SLR. as far as I know there are not many point and shoots that have manual modes. With that, I'll support if the caption is changed to reflect that and the articals that its in also reflect that. - Fcb981 15:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)- Done. Althepal 04:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - a picture of an actual mode dial from a real camera would be more illustrative and more encyclopedic. -- D. Monack | talk 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I really don't think this is one of Wikipedia's best. For all it's worth
this is an accurate and detailed reproduction of the
Treble clef, but does it deserve to be a FP? --
antilived
T |
C |
G 04:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the treble clef is a symbol, not a detailed illustration, but thank you for your input. Althepal 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't think this shows Wikipedia's best. Sure its informative, but there is nothing specal or eye catching about this picture. Z1720 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - sorry, I don't see the need for a diagram of this, when a photo of this object would put it better into context, for the "encyclopedic factor" -- i.e. it would show that the typical location of such a knob is on top of a camera rather than in front of a white background.
Spebudmak 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Really? Actually, the location varies from camera to camera. For example, on my Kodak DX6340, it is in the front next to the screen, and on my Fuji S5200, it is on top like SLRs. I think that an actual photograph would be too specific to the camera, and it may not be clear that the photograph is referring to the dial. The encyclopedia article is not on the location of the dial (since this is not the same on every camera), but rather it is on what it does, which is best illustrated by a generic dial showing common modes to both SLRs and point-and-shoots. Sure you don't want to change your vote? Althepal 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I love original work on Wikipedia. However, I'm afraid that this illustration doesn't really live up to it's full potential. It's a mode dial...very encyclopedic, but not very interesting or stunning. It'll be really nice if it was animated...switching between the different modes. Sorry.
Jumping
cheese 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, as others have noted, an animation would be distracting and reduce the quality to GIF. Althepal 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Very good work, but it is not very interesting and therefore I do not think this should be considered FP. Stefan 02:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- With 12 support and 9 oppose, how much of a majority do you need for promotion?
Althepal 04:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Approximately two thirds support is usually required, sorry.
Dragons flight 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this is almost two-thirds. What I'll do is improve the picture based on some suggestions in this discussion and try again. How's that? Althepal 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Approximately two thirds support is usually required, sorry.
Dragons flight 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- With 12 support and 9 oppose, how much of a majority do you need for promotion?
Althepal 04:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Buzz Aldrin on the Moon
- Reason
- One 2700 x 2700 snap for a man...
- Articles this image appears in
- Apollo 11 and several others.
- Creator
- Neil Armstrong
- Support as nominator — Spikebrennan 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy close. The picture is already featured as a quick look at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Aeronautics_and_aviation proves. -- Dschwen 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- My bad. Sorry. Nomination withdrawn Spikebrennan 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter ( talk) 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Blue Ornaments
- Reason
- I am nominating this picture, because it is one of the few pictures used to show Christmas ornaments, and it is the very best of them. It should, therefore, be one of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. It is also a very nice picture, that is fair and decent to look at, as well as illustrating what Christmas ornament's are.
- Articles this image appears in
- Christmas ornament
- Creator
- Dreamafter
- Support as nominator — Dreamy 01:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose pretty - would make a good desktop, and the blown highlights might not be deadly except that the subjects are hard to distinguish from their pacakaging, and a view of ornaments on a tree would be much more encyclopedic. Debivort 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Debivort; it needs context. Being the best of a given subject isn't enough to promote on it's own. While it has plenty in the way of artistic merit, this same virtue reduces it's enc value in direct proportion. mikaul talk 09:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The lovely decorations are unclear against the blue tinsel, also per above: out of context. -- Thelb 4 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The picture is too busy and the ornaments are difficult to make out. -- Underneath-it-All 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Canyon Sainte Anne
- Reason
- This picture is of high resolution and captures a unique natural location.
- Articles this image appears in
- Canyon Sainte-Anne
- Creator
- Camera Eye (uploaded by BostonMA)
- Support as nominator — Z1720 04:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question Is this really the main canyon? It looks very different to the other picture on the page, and the flow is way too slow for such large waterfall. --
antilived
T |
C |
G 09:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the original source of the picture, I believe this is an almost bird's eye view of the canyon. I say almost because at the angle the picture was taken, the actual falls were cut off by the rocks in the middle. Z1720 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose This is a nice picture, but the POV doesn't seem right. Althepal 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, resolution could be better, composition is poor, nothing special. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Not very impressive and the angle is kind awkward. Also, a bit on the small side. Jumping cheese 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Swifts Creek Township
Haven't been on for a while, but in the aftermath of exams being over thought I could spoil myself with a FPC nom :-) This time it's got a personal attachment since it shows my home area and probably it's best. For a brief time (and I'm talking literally days) in Spring the hills green up, and under the right light it can look quite spectacular.
Appears in Swifts Creek, Victoria
- Support Self Nom. -- Fir0002 04:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks good, a bit on the softer side in full size though. And isn't it the middle of the school year right now? -- antilived T | C | G 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, you don't suppose the teachers can confine themselves to only end of year exams?!! I've had midyear exams in every subject, with external ones in Physics and the GAT (they'll count towards my overall score at the end) -- Fir0002 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - I agree it looks good but it is too small for this type of photo, where the detail matters (yes, I'm aware of the guidelines) - Alvesgaspar 09:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty place, lovely lighting, tight composition, just a bit soft and lacking an "edge" on the detail to make it really spectacular. Got to be fair to other landscape candidates; like macro shots, they're have to hit a really high level of detail to hold the eye, and this one falls a fair bit short due to some camera shake (at a guess). mikaul talk 12:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per mikaul. Also, the enc of the photo (and in fact the whole article) seems a teensy weensy bit on the low side - it's a town with 200 people (or 450 counting "suburbs")... Obviously, a few wikipedians live there, otherwise there wouldn't even be an article! ;-) Lovely shot though. -- Janke | Talk 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, towns and villages are considered notable regardless of size so I'd say the image is encyclopedic... --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - Janke's comment was perhaps not expressed entirely as intended though.. I do think it is reasonable to take into consideration the significance of the subject when considering an FPC. An amazing/difficult to photograph subject would probably be judged more favourably than a good photo of a somewhat common scene/subject. This is a good photo of the town and surrounds, but it is generic enough that it could just about be any small town and that makes it more difficult to support IMHO. It isn't in the criteria, but of course it is a subconscious influence. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, towns and villages are considered notable regardless of size so I'd say the image is encyclopedic... --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd say those distant hills could do with a contrast boost. It looks a bit hazy. As well, I think a panoramic compositions would have served better. - Fcb981 15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support A bit noisy, but it is a good picture and depicts its subject well. Jellocube27 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It might illustrate the article on the town, but it's not compelling, it's just a landscape without much of interest to make it stand out from any other small town. Waerloeg 09:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Exemplifies southern, mountain districts in Victoria very well.
HelloMojo 12:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Except it doesn't appear in any article relating to southern mountain districts in Victoria.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Samuel de Champlain Carte geographique de la Nouvelle France.jpg
- Reason
- Encyclopedic picture of high quality
- Articles this image appears in
- History of Canada, History of immigration to Canada, History of New Brunswick, New France, History of Quebec
- Creator
- Samuel de Champlain; was uploaded by David.Monniaux
- Support as nominator — Tomer T 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's such a nice map, but why put this copy forward as a candidate? Even as a thumb it has really obvious problems (colour cast, skewed) and at full size it's really disappointing. Image quality is so-so, it needs to be around twice the size to appreciate its fine detail and – final nail – it's incomplete, as the bottom right is cropped off. A bigger, better version would stand a much better chance. mikaul talk 13:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above; it was summed up nicely. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose At full size, the quality has made some of the words impossible to read, especially in the top right hand corner. A clearer picture is necessary. Z1720 01:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 05:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Saami Family 1900
- Reason
- Historically significant, high resolution, good quality, very unique and informative.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sami people, Indigenous peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, Indigenous peoples of Europe, Lavvu
- Creator
- Unknown
- Nominator
- Rhetth
- Support — Rhetth 13:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I thought it'd nominate this unique picture, but i noticed it had already been nominated, but the nominator had failed to add it to the list. -- Snoopydawg 11:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, good quality and encyclopaedic. It reminds me of the beautiful film The Cuckoo.-- Svetovid 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question Why do the people look fairly awkward to me? The woman on the left look particularly awkward, maybe it's just me but it looks like a cut-out face stuck on. PS: Overwritten picture with full-sized version from TIFF from the link on the image description page. --
antilived
T |
C |
G 08:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps because they're not used to being photographed because they lead such a primitive life?
- Actually, I think it's a hand-coloured picture (a fairly common practice at the time it was taken). It does look a little odd to modern eyes, but it's typical of this period.
Adam Cuerden
talk 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the concept of 'smiling for the camara' is a learned cultural practice. Very few photos show anyone smiling at this time (1900), even in so-called 'main-stream' society. There is a book called The Culture Builders that describes this from a Scandinavian perspective. Dinkytown ( talk) 09:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it's a hand-coloured picture (a fairly common practice at the time it was taken). It does look a little odd to modern eyes, but it's typical of this period.
Adam Cuerden
talk 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps because they're not used to being photographed because they lead such a primitive life?
- Support, excellent FP status worth image. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support this is a much better version than the original nom. I think it could be an autochrome or maybe a hand-tinted monochrome plate, which is why it looks a little "unreal" in places. mikaul talk 12:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Wow! A great picture, perfectly illustrative of the rare subject it depicts. A+++++ SELLER Jellocube27 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - nice, historic picture. Adam Cuerden talk 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Good encyclopedic picture. -- Underneath-it-All 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Saami Family 1900.jpg -- Raven4x4x 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
More crepuscular rays
- Reason
- All of the Crepuscular pictures are of excellent quality, and I believe this one is no different.
- Articles this image appears in
- Crepuscular rays
- Creator
- Mbz1
- Support as nominator — > Animum < 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very enc; you can really see the nature of these rays as light and shadow. Plus pretty. Some technical issues, but not enough to kill it. -- TotoBaggins 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose grainy and out of focus compared to other examples on that page. I don't think the fact that the rays radiate in all directions makes up for the technical issues, as it doesn't add that much enc to the image. Debivort 02:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The thunbnail looks wonderful, but the more I expand it the more the lack of focus ruins it for me. Cacophony 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose That is very very very heavily blown... --
antilived
T |
C |
G 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I personaly think that it is exposed perfectly for such a high contrast scene. If you take a look at the histagram, you'll see equal clipping on both the highlights and shadows. But tastes vary. oh and Oppose due to sharpness and grainyness - Fcb981 04:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - As above and I don't like the centered composition. For a picture with little enc relevance, beauty and technical quality should be outstanding, which are not. Alvesgaspar 09:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Grainy and out of focus. - Wutschwlllm 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality. 8thstar 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support A very nice picture of a rare all sky crepuscular rays with the beautiful sunset and iridescent colors. The picture represents the subject very well and has a higher resolution than most of the other pictures at the same page. -- Mbz1 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- It has lower effective resolution though, because it is out of focus. Debivort 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose But I'm borderline. It's too grainy at full view, but it's very pretty. If it could be touched up somehow I would reverse my vote because it's such a great image. Arius Maximus 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Église de Saint-Jean-Baptiste
.jpg)
- Reason
- Ultra high resolution, captures the unique architecture of the Church clearly, very encyclopedic.
- Articles this image appears in
- Saint-Jean-de-Monts
- Creator
- Schcambo
- Support as nominator — Schcambo 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - It looks curved, like it was taken with a fisheye lens. Was it? --
TotoBaggins 01:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - No, just a normal lens, however it's a couple of photos taken at the same point stitched together. Schcambo 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose curve and big gray discontinuity in sky. Debivort 02:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the image is highly reproducible and should be retaken at a better time of day (not into the sun) and with a longer focal length (to reduce the lens distortion). Even then I don't think it is compelling enough to be a featured picture. There are thousands of more interesting/beautiful/historically significant churches in France. Cacophony 04:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Introduced edit, corrected the lens distortion. Schcambo 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry looking near the top. 8thstar 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I really fail to see where there is any blurriness in the photo - JOWright 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 05:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sidsmith.jpg
- Reason
- This is a picture I really like, taken by my Hebrew-Wikipedia mate, Almog. I believe it is suitable to become a FP and be displayed on the Main Page.
- Articles this image appears in
- Acre, Israel, Mortar (weapon)
- Creator
- Almog
- Support as nominator — Tomer T 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support My only complaint is that I'd prefer a wider crop on the bottom. Enc with no real problems, and certainly large enough.-- Here T oHelp 18:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Enc and technically adequate. -- TotoBaggins 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- comment I'm not sure how much it does to illustrate Acre. Debivort 02:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Dire composition (subject cut off, funny angle, nothing centred, no
rule of thirds...), uninspiring subject (rubbish at bottom right, mortar appears to have been graffiti'd with "JL 04"), apparently meaningless filename ("Sidsmith.jpg"?) and doesn't really inform about Acre or mortars. Nul points. --
YFB
¿ 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think it informs about Acre and some about the history of mortars. Citation from the article
Acre, Israel: A heavy land
defense wall was built north and east to the city in 1800-1814 by
Jezzar Pasha (called by the locals Al-Jezzar) and his Jewish advisor
Haim Farkhi. This wall is the first notable thing to come into sight when coming to Acre. It is a modern
counter artillery
fortification which includes a thick
defensive wall, a dry
moat,
cannon outposts and three Burges (large defensive
towers).
- I think it informs about Acre and some about the history of mortars. Citation from the article
Acre, Israel: A heavy land
defense wall was built north and east to the city in 1800-1814 by
Jezzar Pasha (called by the locals Al-Jezzar) and his Jewish advisor
Haim Farkhi. This wall is the first notable thing to come into sight when coming to Acre. It is a modern
counter artillery
fortification which includes a thick
defensive wall, a dry
moat,
cannon outposts and three Burges (large defensive
towers).
-
Tomer T 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- What you've illustrated is that the article gives a reasonable description of the site. This photo does very little to elaborate on that description, being a photo of a rusty, apparently vandalised metal object in front of a small, context-less, non-descript segment of wall of unclear importance. It tells me nothing at all about the history of mortars and all I learn about Acre is that it apparently has some sea, some sky, a fast-moving bird, some unidentified stalks/poles/cranes, some topiary, a rusty cannon-thingy pointing through a gap in an uninteresting wall and, in 2004, apparently at least one bored teenager with the initials JL. Citing the contents of Wikipedia articles does nothing to improve the image to anything approaching featured-quality. --
YFB
¿ 06:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you're right and I think you're exaggerating the disadvantages of this picture. I don't think this image is so bad as you illustrated it. In my opinion, this is a great picture and it illustares an important historical object. I also have the reason for the name of the picture, as Almog told me: It is called "Sidsmith" because it was pictured for usage in the Hebrew article about William Sidney Smith (The description in the Hebrew article under the photo, translated to English: A cannon fixed in the walls of Acre in front of the sea in the battlefield in which Smith won his great victory against Napoleon) Tomer T 11:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- What you've illustrated is that the article gives a reasonable description of the site. This photo does very little to elaborate on that description, being a photo of a rusty, apparently vandalised metal object in front of a small, context-less, non-descript segment of wall of unclear importance. It tells me nothing at all about the history of mortars and all I learn about Acre is that it apparently has some sea, some sky, a fast-moving bird, some unidentified stalks/poles/cranes, some topiary, a rusty cannon-thingy pointing through a gap in an uninteresting wall and, in 2004, apparently at least one bored teenager with the initials JL. Citing the contents of Wikipedia articles does nothing to improve the image to anything approaching featured-quality. --
YFB
¿ 06:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per YFB. Looks like an ordinary tourist snapshot. - Wutschwlllm 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Just not FP material at all. Really, being in focus, or big enough, or "not too bad" are insufficient reasons to support. It might have enc value at mortar, but so do others; it simply isn't an outstanding illustration of the subject. It might be within the walls of Acre but there's insufficient context to be highly enc for that article – again, less so than others on the page. I don't think there's anything more to say about it, other than the "graffiti" is almost cetainly written in some form of abjad script and is not a date/handle. At a glance it looks like "shalom" written in Arabic, which is nice. Still not a reason to promote! mikaul talk 12:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, excuse my inadvertent Anglo-centric bias. Didn't occur to me that it might be Arabic script, but I think you're right. Still not the most enc addition to something 200 years old :-) -- YFB ¿ 14:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, doesn't show the subject adequately. BTW, the picture messes up the layout at Mortar (weapon).-- Svetovid 17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Wow... the back of a mortar! 8thstar 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 05:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
National Gallery East Wing
- Reason
- It's a photo that details the wing and some of the exhibits displayed inside.
- Articles this image appears in
- National Gallery of Art
- Creator
- Sxenko
- Support as nominator — Sxenko 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The only (close) exhibit that isn't obscured by plants is out of focus. A hallway like this is hard to capture, and this pic just doesn't overcome that difficulty. -- TotoBaggins 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Toto. Cacophony 23:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Very nice pic. But as Toto points out, doesn't quite pulls it off. Also the artifacts in skylight. Maybe it's only me, but I feel really claustrophobic watching the pic. Sorry. Jumping cheese 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Dust Bowl - Dallas, South Dakota 1936
- Reason
- This is a very historic an iconic image (it's even included in the top tier United States article). It was nominated once before 6 months ago Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dallas South Dakota. However, that was the image taken from the online USDA site. I contacted them and obtained a high resolution image which I uploaded to the commons. For whatever reason, the thumbnail on the website (i.e. the image previously nominated) is sepia, and the one they sent me has been converted to greyscale. In addition to being a historic image of an unrecreatable natural disaster, the composition is very striking. Focus and contrast is adequate, cropping/framing is dynamic. The image clearly illustrates the severity of dust bowl conditions.
- Articles this image appears in
- South Dakota, Dust Bowl, Dallas, South Dakota, Great Depression in the United States, United States
- Creator
- "Sloan" for the USDA
- Support as nominator — Andrew c 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Good composition. I like how the car is almost completely buried. Shows the devastation pretty well. howcheng { chat} 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Significant milestone was made, though I would like the photo to be sharpened a bit. -- Brand спойт 20:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Kudos to Andrew c for taking the time to request a high-res copy. Like the gruesome whipped slave pic below, I've seen this pic many times in U.S. history textbooks. This pic is almost synonymous with the whole Dust Bowl ordeal. Very encyclopedic and of very high quality. Jumping cheese 20:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Matt Deres 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great historic image, even though the sky is completely blown and you list South Dakota twice in the list of articles.--
Here
T
oHelp 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if you have a stylesheet that doesn't turn the hyperlink underlines off (or if you hover over the links in monobook) you will see that the second SD is part of the title for the Dallas article. ;) Cheers! - Andrew c 02:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, very nice, very encyclopedic. Could be a little clearer, but... gren グレン 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Cacophony 04:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support As Jumping cheese mentioned, this is yet another historically significant image, like the famous whipped slave picture. This photograph is to the Dust Bowl as Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother is to the Great Depression — it epitomizes the overwhelming nature of the climatic devastation caused by the drought and dust storms. It’s also a solid digitization of the original work; I don’t think that the sharpness is an issue at all, and the technical quality of the image is very high. As to HereToHelp’s contention that the sky is “completely blown”, well, this is a 71-year-old image, and I doubt that the (sepia) original looked any better due to the limitations of the equipment of the era (the digitization that failed previously definitely didn’t have a better-looking sky). But that’s just a guess on my part, of course — I can’t know for sure. Either way, this image certainly is iconic and encyclopedic with regards to the Dust Bowl, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t be featured. — BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 12:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support That's a very striking shot. I like it. vlad§inger tlk 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Great historical shot. utcursch | talk 08:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Support -- As per supports above
Booksworm
Sprechen-sie Koala? 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Dust Bowl - Dallas, South Dakota 1936.jpg -- Raven4x4x 05:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Chicago Avenue Pumping Station
- Reason
- This beautiful architectural vision is deserves recognition in its own right as a Chicago Landmark. It is overshadowed by the water tower, but makes its own contribution to the historic district. This picture clearly represents its splendor. Although numerous pictures are available of the water tower, no good images of the pumping station across the street are readily available. This contribution is a good one.
- Articles this image appears in
- Chicago Avenue Pumping Station, Old Chicago Water Tower District, Magnificent Mile, List of Chicago Landmarks
- Creator
- User:TonyTheTiger
- Support as nominator — TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Its all blurry and blown out and tilted. 8thstar 23:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not as sharp as I would have liked it to be. And as mentioned by 8thstar, the easily noticeable tilt really kills the pic. Sorry. Jumping cheese 02:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose As per comments above
Booksworm
Sprechen-sie Koala? 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cheese. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per comments above. -- Thelb 4 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Cocoa Pods
- Reason
- Its very encyclopedic, adds alot to the articles and the composition is just nice somehow.
- Articles this image appears in
- Chocolate, Cocoa and Cocoa pod
- Creator
- User:Medicaster40
- Support as nominator — Yzmo talk 15:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very enc. I go cuckoo for cocoa pods. -- TotoBaggins 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I find the composition very distracting and undescriptive. otherwise it is fine however the composition is the most important part of a picture and this one has too many other element other than the subject. I simpily don't think this is the best we can do. - Fcb981 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks kind of 'eye catching'. 8thstar 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, I think it couild be a bit tighter on the subject. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. Not focused on the subject. Also, that vertical leaf in the foreground is really distracting. Sorry. Jumping cheese 02:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Fcb981 above. -- Thelb 4 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support Yes, we could get a tighter zoom and there are blown highlights on the pods. But it's still marginally on the good side, in my opinion.-- Here T oHelp 20:38, 20 June 2007
(UTC)
- supportI actually think it's quite a descriptive and useful image and encyclopedic Recesende 12:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fcb, composition lacks pizazz. -- Janke | Talk 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I just didn't get that instant sense of quality that would come from a really clean shot. Subject isn't in the absolute center of attention, doesn't draw the eye. vlad§inger tlk 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special. Althepal 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Crying Sudeten woman saluting Hitler, 1938
- Reason
- This famous image has been used as propaganda both by the Nazi government as well as the U.S. Originally published in the Völkischer Beobachter, the Nazi explanation was that here were portrayed the intense emotions of joy which swept the Sudeten Germans as Hitler crossed the Czech border at Asch and drove through the streets of the nearby ancient city of Eger [the German name for Cheb], 99% of whose inhabitants were ardently pro-Nazi Sudeten Germans at the time. However, in the National Archives and Records Administration, this image is captioned, "The tragedy of this Sudeten woman, unable to conceal her misery as she dutifully salutes the triumphant Hitler, is the tragedy of the silent millions who have been 'won over' to Hitlerism by the 'everlasting use' of ruthless force."
- Articles this image appears in
- Sudetenland, German occupation of Czechoslovakia, History of Czechoslovakia
- Creator
- Völkischer Beobachter (National Socialist newspaper)
- I am pretty sure that this is a cropped version of the original, or perhaps 2 photographs were made within a short period of time, some have derided this photograph as being deceptive, but I'm sure someone else will mention this
Bleh999 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- never mind you did include a link to the original Bleh999 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure that this is a cropped version of the original, or perhaps 2 photographs were made within a short period of time, some have derided this photograph as being deceptive, but I'm sure someone else will mention this
Bleh999 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Bleh999 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Click "show" to read copyright discussion →
Oppose. This image is copyrighted. It is only marked as "unrestricted" in the NARA archive because it is misfiled as created by the Office for Emergency Management (presumably they just hold a copy of the photograph in their archive).Unfortunately, it is not true that Nazi photos are automatically public domain in the United States.-- Pharos 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)- See the rest of the discussion regarding the copyright of the image on the image talk page[ [29]] Bleh999 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop this nonsense. It's PD in the US, and that's all that matters. You can't win this argument no matter how many times you rehash it. —
BRIAN
0918 • 2007-06-05 13:55Z
- But the thing is, unfortunately, it isn't. I wish it was. I've looked extensively, and there's not one statement from the US government that Nazi stuff is PD.--
Pharos 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- ignorance in the law is not a valid defense, you didn't prove that statement that NARA mislabeled this photograph (your original claim)
Bleh999 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Huh, "ignorance in the law"? I suppose the US government is "ignorant" of this law too, because, despite a widespread misconception, it just doesn't exist. About the mislabeling, do you really believe that the
Office for Emergency Management is the creator of this photograph, as clearly labeled in the NARA record?--
Pharos 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Interestingly the Department of Defense has the same photograph on their 'war and conflict' collection [30]
- The DoD claims that all the photos on those CD rom collections are : are cleared for public release and are approved for unrestricted use and publication
[31] are the department of defense wrong too?
Bleh999 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- And yet again: it is fairly irrelevant what third parties say about public release. The page above doesn't even mention copyright issues, just that the DoD has no objections to publishing. The rights of the copyright holder are not touched by such statements. No clear source is given, no tangible or even plausible argument is made for the pic being free. --
Dschwen 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are wrong, they would never distribute high resolution copies if they were a copyright infringement, the statement regarding unrestricted use is clear and it can't be that everyone is wrong except you. I think the circular reasoning presented by you and Pharos is disruptive to the FPC nomination page, therefore I request both of you contact the National Archives or DoD to provide some concrete proof of your claims before replying here. People on wikipedia have contacted NARA before to clarify what unrestricted use and access means, it does mean public domain.
Bleh999 14:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it just does not mean public domain. Quote from recent e-mail: "Quite frankly, we do not make the determination of whether our records are in the public domain." It can't be clearer than that. I am currently in the process of researching this area extensively, and I -hope- to discover actual legal justification of public domain for some of the seized German records in the next week or two. Suffice to say, the situation is very complicated.--
Pharos 05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- please forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, clearly stating to what image(s) this email refers. Why do I have the feeling this selective quote has nothing to do with the image in question?
Bleh999 07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- AGF here. Pharos is a well-respected administrator and licensing issues are not to be trifled with. It's better to absolutely sure than to just assume it's public domain (even if only limited to the U.S.).
howcheng {
chat} 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- of course, but the information must be specific regarding this image, because pharos is suggesting that most images from the national archives should be deleted because they aren't really PD, that would mean 1000s of images maybe more Bleh999 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- AGF here. Pharos is a well-respected administrator and licensing issues are not to be trifled with. It's better to absolutely sure than to just assume it's public domain (even if only limited to the U.S.).
howcheng {
chat} 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- please forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, clearly stating to what image(s) this email refers. Why do I have the feeling this selective quote has nothing to do with the image in question?
Bleh999 07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it just does not mean public domain. Quote from recent e-mail: "Quite frankly, we do not make the determination of whether our records are in the public domain." It can't be clearer than that. I am currently in the process of researching this area extensively, and I -hope- to discover actual legal justification of public domain for some of the seized German records in the next week or two. Suffice to say, the situation is very complicated.--
Pharos 05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are wrong, they would never distribute high resolution copies if they were a copyright infringement, the statement regarding unrestricted use is clear and it can't be that everyone is wrong except you. I think the circular reasoning presented by you and Pharos is disruptive to the FPC nomination page, therefore I request both of you contact the National Archives or DoD to provide some concrete proof of your claims before replying here. People on wikipedia have contacted NARA before to clarify what unrestricted use and access means, it does mean public domain.
Bleh999 14:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- And yet again: it is fairly irrelevant what third parties say about public release. The page above doesn't even mention copyright issues, just that the DoD has no objections to publishing. The rights of the copyright holder are not touched by such statements. No clear source is given, no tangible or even plausible argument is made for the pic being free. --
Dschwen 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Huh, "ignorance in the law"? I suppose the US government is "ignorant" of this law too, because, despite a widespread misconception, it just doesn't exist. About the mislabeling, do you really believe that the
Office for Emergency Management is the creator of this photograph, as clearly labeled in the NARA record?--
Pharos 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- ignorance in the law is not a valid defense, you didn't prove that statement that NARA mislabeled this photograph (your original claim)
Bleh999 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- But the thing is, unfortunately, it isn't. I wish it was. I've looked extensively, and there's not one statement from the US government that Nazi stuff is PD.--
Pharos 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Image_talk:Anschlusstears.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=HDSN9902652&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/1999/DoD/HD-SN-99-02652.JPG){kind=link}
- Copyright issue clarified. I would like to drop my opposition to this photograph on copyright grounds. It was difficult to get an explicit statement on the copyright status of these photos from NARA, but I finally got one, which I much appreciate. Please see User:Pharos/NARA.-- Pharos 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Support, conditionally with the assumption that this is copyright eligible, if it ends up that it isn't and I don't get a chance to change my vote please disregard.
Cat-five -
talk 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion reopened. I took the liberty of moving this back to the top of the nomination pile, since we didn't really get much comment on it due to the copyright clarification. howcheng { chat} 06:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Provided that the caption (image page and in article) do no inaccurately represent the image one way or the other. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-06-19 14:51Z
- Support If the copyright works out. 8thstar 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support A good historic depiction of something that couldn't be re-created. Jellocube27 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Yes, a good historic depiction of something, but of what? Perhaps it's a good historic depiction of an emotive scene that was photographed and served opposing propaganda roles? Do we have an article on that? This is a powerful image, no doubt, but it's a propaganda image first, and a historic one second. Would be a good candidate on Commons. — Pengo 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have to admit, the fact that the photograph was (perhaps deceptively) cropped does lessen its encyclopedic value... Bleh999 05:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support Emotive and very high on enc. value, but the crop leaving a "floating arm" really destroys it in terms of the picture itself. Pedro | Chat 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I was going to support until I saw Pengo's post. Considering we do not even know whether she was crying from joy or sadness, this picture is of low encyclopedic value (unless the use of the image as propaganda is being discussed in the main text, which it is not). It can't be used to show what the normal emotional response of people in Sudetenland was to Nazi occupation, or even really as an example of one woman's emotional response, because the photo is ambiguous without some sort of accompanying interview, which we obviously don't have. Calliopejen1 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Interestingly the same photograph was used by the nazis as evidence of her being overcome with emotion at the entry of German soldiers, while the allies used it as propaganda that she was crying out of sadness, the truth may never be known Bleh999 09:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support: A photo used by both sides? One worthy of discussion in and of itself? Definition of encyclopædic.
Adam Cuerden
talk 10:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, that said, though, maybe we could crop it a bit tighter? That would remove (most of) the hand. Adam Cuerden talk 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Anschlusstears.jpg -- Raven4x4x 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
McMath-Pierce Solar Telescope
- Reason
- An esthetically appealing picture, scientifically important. The background gives a definite sense of scale here - this is a truly huge scientific instrument. DS 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Kitt Peak National Observatory, list of astronomical observatories, McMath-Pierce Solar Telescope
- Creator
- user:JohnOwens
- Support as nominator — DS 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not outstanding in any respect other than the nature of the subject. Average quality, fairly compelling, averagely encyclopedic.. good, but not exceptional. mikaul talk 09:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This fantastic subject deserves a better pic than this. -- TotoBaggins 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose , per above; nothing special here. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 01:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, definately nothing special. Perhaps as a diagram with labels, or a different angle? -- Thelb 4 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: I kinda like it, but I actually find it hard to get an idea of the scale: shrubs and trees are similar in shape, and there's not enough detail to tell which they are. A slight angle might be more dynamic. It's overblown a bit on one face, but having been to Tuscon I'm not going to hold that against you. Adam Cuerden talk 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Tyler Davidson Fountain Closeup
- Reason
- This is a very clear, and original photograph, with good nighttime lighting providing encyclopedic value to the fountain article by demonstrating one of the outer figures with animals in a closeup view.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tyler Davidson Fountain
- Creator
- Joy Schoenberger
- Support as nominator — MamaGeek ( talk/ contrib) 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The picture is actually not "very clear" but exhibits camera shake. Also I'm not convinced that a night time shot helps showing the details as much as propper lighting would. Plus the closeup is fairly arbitrary, as little context is provided for the figurine. It could be lots of fountains. -- Dschwen 12:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, night photo is the wrong choice if you want to show something like a statue in an encyclopaedia.-- Svetovid 12:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. At 100%, the image isn't sharp, most likely motion blur from the .5 sec exposure. The colour is nice, and the lighting is dynamic, althought I think the highlights and shadows are a little too extreme (especially the subject matter's face), which is pretty unavoidable at night. Something about the crop and background bother me. Maybe being further back and having a bigger focal length would have helped. Or getting closer and going wider.- Andrew c 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 08:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Mehndi body art
- Reason
- Very enc. for Mehndi, high-quality pic, and a striking photo.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mehndi
- Creator
- User:Zainubrazvi
- Support as nominator — TotoBaggins 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Composition is uninspired, and the hand position looks somewhat unnatural. Calliopejen1 02:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality
- oppose looks awkward, distracting backrond. Maddie was here 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose distracting ring, and as above Matt Deres 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Matt, the ring is extremely distracting - Adrian Pingstone 10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 08:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Jorge de Aguiar compass rose
- Reason
- It is a beautiful and high quality depiction of a 15th century compass rose, typical of the portolan charts of the time. This is a modern replica of an old drawing, in the sense that some imperfections were corrected and the lettering improved in order to make it readable and more easily interpreted. A copy of the original is here. A svg version is also available here but the Wikipedia system is not able of showing it correctly (however it can be downloaded and used).
- Articles this image appears in
- Compass rose
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- weak support - I like the concept, a lot. I am sure many people with prefer an svg - I'm fine with PNG. I think the caption is much too focused on "how I made the image" and not enough on what makes compass roses interesting, the map it appeared on, or, for example, how long compass roses pre-existed this one on other maps.
Debivort 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, was the compass on the original aligned in parallel with the vertical and horizontal edges of the map, and if so, did it point to geographic north or magnetic north? Such details are much more interesting than fixed up letters :-). Debivort 17:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info - OK, here it is some additional information (I will write an article on the subject when I have the time :)): Compass roses (or wind roses, as they were known at the time), have been part of nautical charts almost since its appearance, in the end of the 13th century (the Carta Pisana, of about 1285, is the oldest known portolan-chart of the Mediterranean). A chart normally contained several wind-roses from whose centres a series of straight lines irradiated (usually, but wrongly, known as rhumb-lines). With the help of a pair of marine compasses, these lines could be used to measure and mark the routes between places (no pencils existed at the time!). Magnetic declination was unknown until the beginning of the 16th century and the pilots were convinced that the magnetic compasses indicate the true North (as well as the wind roses in the charts). It didn’t really matter because the navigation was based on magnetic directions. The only visible effect of this error was the variable tilt of the lands represented on the charts, which vary according to the spatial distribution of the magnetic declination. Only in the middle o the 18th century was the phenomenon sufficiently known so it could be taken into consideration, with the necessary accuracy, in nautical cartography. The chart of Jorge de Aguiar is one of the last Portuguese “portolan-charts”, based on magnetic directions and estimated distances only. It was replaced, in the beginning of the 16th century, by the “chart of equal degrees”, or "latitude chart", based on observed latitudes, after the introduction of navigational astronomy by the Portuguese. The oldest known latitude chart is the famous Cantino planisphere, made in 1502 by an anonymous Portuguese cartographer. The wind roses have survived, in the nautical cartography, from the 13th century to our days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvesgaspar ( talk • contribs) 11:06, June 22, 2007
- Support Interesting and encyclopedic. Cacophony 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Encyclopedic and very fine picture. – Esurnir 12:59, 24 June 2007
- Support, well done and encyclopaedic.-- Svetovid 09:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great image. Bewareofdog 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Comment Support if SVG will be corrected and properly done --
Mothmolevna
( ©
® ) 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:WInd Rose Aguiar.png -- Raven4x4x 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Chinese child soldier, Burma 1944
- Reason
- An intriguing and iconic image for Child soldier, it's a clean, sharp scan of a quality print, with beautiful shading and opportune composition. I can certainly envisage it making a worthy Picture of the Day, with the advantage of raising awareness of the continuing plight of conscripted children in certain parts of the world.
- Articles this image appears in
- Child soldier, China Burma India Theater of World War II
- Creator
- US Army Signal Corps
- Support as nominator — mikaul talk 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support This is a beautifully exposed and composed encyclopedic and historical photograph. The lighting is superb and the subject matter definitely deserves Featured Picture exposure. MamaGeek ( talk/ contrib) 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Enc, as was the previous child soldier, and very striking what a baby that is. -- TotoBaggins 15:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Striking encyclopedic shot. utcursch | talk 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Support Fascinating image
Booksworm
Sprechen-sie Koala? 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Good image for an encyclopedia. -- Underneath-it-All 03:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support.-- Mad Max 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, encyclopedic, well illustrates as an example. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Striking picture that well-illustrates the subject. CLA 03:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support per all of the above. Spikebrennan 17:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Chinesechildsoldier.jpg -- Raven4x4x 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Taj Mahal
- Reason
- This image is a beautiful depiction of not only Islamic architecture, but also its influences. It shows the monument and its surrounding areas very well. The walkways and ponds around the Taj are also skillfully depicted. The time this photo was taken allows for the best lighting possible. This image beautfully illustrates Indian architecture and the influences of Islam on India. It is not only beautiful, but carries much encyclopdic value.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tourism in India, Taj Mahal, Islamic architecture, New Seven Wonders, Mughal Empire, Indian architecture, Islamic empires in India
- Creator
- Alma Mongia
- Support as nominator — Nikkul 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Gorgeous picture. I won't oppose it but can't really support due to the cross-processing, which has rendered the scene almost surreal, like a painting. For me, that's a major obstacle to the accurate representaton of the subject for the encyclopedia. Certainly submit it for FP at commons, I think it's really beautiful. mikaul talk 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Meant to mention: a slight crop and minor retouch for dust specks would give it a better chance at commons. mikaul talk 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. Agree with Mikaul. The foreground is quite underexposed and has a lot of dust/scratches, but the Taj Mahal itself is brilliantly exposed. Would love the opportunity to take a stab at photographing it one day, but the light makes or breaks the shot, I think. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pretty, but too surreal. It looks like a watercolor painting. The image quality is on the low side, plus the size is barely above the threshold. Borders are highly discouraged as well... -- Dschwen 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, Per Above. 8thstar 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is still a photo, and it is the surreality makes this picture so great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose That's a nice image to hang on the wall but that also makes it useless for Wikipedia's front page.-- Svetovid 09:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Processing trickery means the pic is not enc anymore. May be good for Commons, but it is not FP stuff for an encyclopedia. -- Janke | Talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Janke - Adrian Pingstone 10:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Argon ice
- Reason
- It's a fine picture that nicely illustrates three common phases of matter in an interesting way (even if argon gas is colourless). It's not the prettiest but it is elegant.
- Articles this image appears in
- Phase transition, Argon
- Creator
- Deglr6328
- Support as nominator — Waerloeg 09:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Nominated before, less than two months ago Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Argon_ice, and failed. Nothing much has changed since then, and renomination comes too early. -- Dschwen 10:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that caption is correct. You can't see gas; that "vapor" pouring out to the right may be little liquid drops of argon, or even little liquid drops of water condensed from the air (as you can also see around the tongs). Either way, not a gas. Read about
this common misconception, and also see
Condensation#Condensation_of_water_in_nature. —
BRIAN
0918 • 2007-06-22 13:44Z
- I believe some gases are visible. For example, chlorine gas appears yellow/green. However I don't think argon is one of those few that are visible in a gaseous state. -- Moondigger 02:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above discussion. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Punch Rhodes Colossus
- Reason
- This is one of the enduring images of the British Empire and the rush to "colonize" Africa. An iconic symbol of imperialism when first published in 1892, the image remains one of the most recoginzed pictures of the 20th century.
- Articles this image appears in
- British Empire, Imperialism, Cecil John Rhodes, Scramble for Africa, British South Africa, Company, Cape to Cairo Road, Anglo-African, Decolonization of Africa, Cape-Cairo railway, The Rhodes Colossus
- Creator
- Edward Linley Sambourne
- Support as nominator — TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice, crisp scan. Adam Cuerden talk 22:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- support. Per nom. Debivort 04:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose, the line quality at 100% bugs me. I agree the image is historical and interesting, but this particular image (like the London News one below) seems to have been digitially cleaned up. I would have liked to see the image on paper, not simple a black and white field (I think the lack of greys is partially what makes the line quality bad in my opinion, in addition to the jaggies and the weird gaps).- Andrew c 04:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, Per Andrew. 8thstar 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I thought this was an iconic enough image that I've tried to start an article on it at The Rhodes Colossus.-- Pharos 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support The subject matter compensates for the line quality. I agree with you, it does lack some sort of 'feel' yet I think this is secondary. Chris Buttigieg talk 19:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Punch Rhodes Colossus.png -- Raven4x4x 08:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hurricane Katrina flooding in New Orleans
- Reason
- Striking image of important historical event.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hurricane Katrina, Pontchartrain Expressway.
- Creator
- AP Photo/U.S. Coast Guard, Petty Officer 2nd Class Kyle Niemi
- Support as nominator — and Support Edit-1 Spikebrennan 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - historical significance outweighs relatively minor technical flaws like grain. Debivort 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think there are much better examples (much higher quality and more striking) on the NOAA page here. For examples: [32], [33], [34] — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-06-21 15:48Z
![[32]](http://www.katrina.noaa.gov/helicopter/images/katrina-new-orleans-flooding3-2005.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](http://www.katrina.noaa.gov/helicopter/images/katrina-new-orleans-flooding-2005.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](http://www.katrina.noaa.gov/helicopter/images/katrina-new-orleans-flooding2-2005.jpg){kind=link}
- I was all excited for much better examples, but the ones you link are not sooo great - jpeg artifacty, narrow scope. Also, the nom'ed image is the iconic image from the disaster - the one that appeared on multiple newspaper page 1s. I still prefer it. Debivort 04:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- The pictures in User:Brian0918's links are good (and are less grainy), but I agree that the nominated one is more striking-- there is so much water in the foreground, the continuous band of water in the straight line upward illustrates the widespread scope of the flooding, and the fact that the image depicts a highway overpass illustrates the depth of the flooding. Admittedly, the nominated image is grainy. Spikebrennan 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Debivort Jellocube27 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This picture is too grainy, and there are higher res pictures online, as pointed out by Brian0918 Z1720 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the new picture, I still think it is too grainy. My oppose stands Z1720 06:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too grainy 8thstar 21:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's not even close to the historical significance outweighing the negatives. -- Phoenix2 ( holla) 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support -- Vircabutar 08:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The technical problems seem easy to fix (basically grain reduction). Can someone upload a cleaned-up version? Thanxs.
Jumping
cheese 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Thanxs for fixing the pic up, Debivort! The edit contains much less noise and grain...and only a bit smaller. Not a perfect pic per se, but I believe the historical significance overrides any minor technical shortcomings. Very striking and encyclopedic. Jumping cheese 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Iowa-26-03-2006.jpg
- Reason
- A large, sharp, high quality photograph. Unique and close view. Eye catching.
- Articles this image appears in
- USS Iowa (BB-61)
- Creator
- User:Check-Six
- Support as nominator and creator - Check-Six 06:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose looks like a harbor boat tour snapshot. Busy background makes it nearly impossible to say which superstructural parts belong to nthe USS Iowa. -- Dschwen 09:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dschwen - Wutschwlllm 11:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: Before I say this, realise that I don't think you could actually have acted on any of them. Photography, in the end, has a strong element of luck. That said, there's no real sense of scale, as there's not enough resolution to make out details on the deck that might give scale, or, say, a smaller ship for comparison; details of ship behind it cause confusion as to what, exactly, is on the Iowa's deck; and, finally, it's just not that exciting of a picture: we have no sense of scale, so awe at the size can't happen, and it's just sitting there, not doing anything especially interesting. Adam Cuerden talk 12:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite a bit of JPEG artifacts in the water, on the handrails on the ship. vlad§inger tlk 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality. 8thstar 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Raven4x4x 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Portland Skyline
- Reason
- A large, sharp, high quality photograph. Plenty of ENC value. Eye catching.
- Articles this image appears in
- Portland, Oregon, Downtown Portland
- Creator
- User:Fcb981
- Support as nominator and creator — Fcb981 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support It looks very nice.
Althepal 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Update I like the original most, but if not that, the third panorama also has my support. Althepal 23:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is oversaturated and ideally would've been taken closer to the Morrison Bidge so that the Hawthorne doesn't obscure Wells Fargo Center and KOIN Center, two of the most prominent buildings in the Portland skyline. That angle would also give a better view of the Hawthorne and the pillars at the bottom right wouldn't be a distraction. Having the Spirit of Portland docked would also be an improvement. In other words, it is highly reporducable and could be improved. Cacophony 05:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't compose this on some whim. At that location on the waterfront trail there is an ideal vantage point to avoid dock pillars, trees, shrubs and fences that obscure parts of the city from almost everywhere. Idealy, I'd be able to go up on the marqum bridge and take it from there, thus avoiding the Hawthorne, but standing in a 8 inch space between cars and the water is not going to happen. I did try closer to the morrison but couldn't get nearly as much of the north part of downtown. So I figured, koin center and wells fargo building vs. all of north downtown. As to the saturation, I shot with a polorizer to saturate a bit and by camera is set to +2 saturation which I prefer. In other words. Its the best composition I could find in 45 min of looking. Its big and sharp and free of stitching errors and lit well. So please by all means try to take a better shot but I am confident that we will have to wait a while. - Fcb981 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The colors look too vivid, like it was printed for a tourist brochure rather than an encyclopedia. The resolution could be higher. Bleh999 07:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Oversaturated, contrasts too harsh (bridge is under exposed and the buildings in the bg are overexposed), and for the picky: the verticals could be corrected a tad better (but that's really just for the picky). -- Dschwen 09:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak opppose: It might be possible to tweak the levels a bit to get an FP out of it, but the buildings look like chalk drawings because they're a bit low on detail (up contrast a bit?) and over-saturated. Adam Cuerden talk 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)- Support Edit 2 - That fixed the problems nicely. Adam Cuerden talk 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit two - per above. Schcambo 19:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2 Beautiful. SingCal 05:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2 Very nice work. Great job the second time around! — BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2, with urging that Edit 2 be substituted for the original nom in the articles in which it appears. Spikebrennan 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Portland panorama3.jpg -- Raven4x4x 08:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)