Oppose - Sharp image but very awkward angle. Is it possible to shoot from straight ahead from a location further away (telephoto)? --
Janke |
Talk 19:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)reply
New versions not FP quality. You need a nicer day!
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 10:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, I actually like Alt. 2 - the overcast lighting prevents blown highlights and sooty shadows. The sky could be better, admittedly. Some careful levels/curve editing could improve this one quite a bit, though - as is, it's too dark IMO. --
Janke |
Talk 11:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have made levels/curve editing and some other minor adjustments as advised above. The edited photograph has been uploaded as a new version on the same image (Alternate Image 2). Pl share your views on this latest version. -
Subhrajyoti07 (
talk) 12:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Definitely better now. Suggest you ask for this nom to be closed, and nominate the edited Alt 2 as a new nom. --
Janke |
Talk 13:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose would be nice to have the whole statue in frame, not just a part from strange angle.
Mattximus (
talk) 03:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am submitting two alternate images of the same statue taken from a different position. Alternate Image 1 is in wide angle covering the entire statue and portion of the compound in which the same is situated. Alternate Image 2 is taken in telephoto from the front covering the entire statue in line with what is advised by Janke. Pl share your views on the alternate Images whichever one is more appropriate. -
Subhrajyoti07 (
talk) 07:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 03:04:34 (UTC)
Reason
The image is clear at depicting the state assembly building which has a unique architecture and its landscape . It is also an icon of the state of
Sarawak.
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 21:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Support – nice and sharp. I don't know why the sky has a fine grain though!?
Bammesk (
talk) 02:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes the sky is weird. I had a similar problem (all over the image) when converting RAW using Photoshop CS6 rather than the latest Canon Digital Photo Professional software. 17:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Charlesjsharp (
talk •
contribs)
Comment I see the same grain all over. It's simply more noticeable in the sky. --
Janke |
Talk 05:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support However if you want here
[1] i have upload a version with lose noise and vignetting if you want --LivioAndronico(
talk) 09:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - Frankly a bit crowded, but given the layout of this chapel I don't see any way of avoiding it. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 02:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – I uploaded a slightly denoised version and removed the fine grain. If anyone disagrees, just revert.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Needs one more, so here we go! ;-) --
Janke |
Talk 11:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose The graining is much improved, but I don't see this as an FP composition.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 07:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment It is only one of many images in the Wikipedia article and isn't the main one.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 21:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I just switched it with the existing infobox image on the
Billie Holiday article. It's also been the lead image at
song and
women in music since 2015, and the lead image at
Billie Holiday discography since 2011. Although it's true we have several pictures of Billy Holiday, this is definitely the best one.
Kaldari (
talk) 02:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 14:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - Nice image. I do wish that it had a little bit tighter of a crop on top or more space to the right... go reshoot it, will you? :) Regardless, it's a great pic. Thanks for restoring. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Billie Holiday, Downbeat, New York, N.Y., ca. Feb. 1947 (William P. Gottlieb 04251).jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you
LivioAndronico for your effort in improving the photo. I have taken the pointers here and added some additional changes and created the Edit 1 version. Pl share your views on the same. -
Subhrajyoti07 (
talk) 16:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support now, since brightness is fixed. The sky is still a bit ominous, though... --
Janke |
Talk 17:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - Saturation may be a tad high for an overcast day, but I think this is still a good representation of this statue. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 12:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)reply
colours have been much improved, but the weather and technical quality, possibly limited by the camera's capabilities, are not FP.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 07:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – agree with Chris and Charles. I would change my vote to Support if saturation, and perhaps even contrast, are reduced. (the clothing of visitors at the base of the statue are too colorful, not real)
Bammesk (
talk) 02:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose – Per previous two. Colors look over-manipulated to me. Saturation has been toned down but to me it still seems rather too pronounced. Sca (
talk) 13:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC) –
Sca (
talk) 13:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Thanks for the feedback received till now. I have created a slightly different version of the original uploaded picture as Edit 1. In this version the saturation and the global contrast has been dialed down a bit in line with the feedback. Also the sky looks more natural. The new version has been uploaded along with a link to the original image (at the top). Pl share your views -
Subhrajyoti07 (
talk) 14:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support – better now, I struck my oppose. At full size the bright boundary around earlobes is distracting, especially on left side, can it be improved?
Bammesk (
talk) 01:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Thanks for identifying. I have made some changes on the edges of both the ear lobes and some body part edges to rectify the issue. Pl check and let me know if the same has been resolved. -
Subhrajyoti07 (
talk) 02:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Subhrajyoti07: Do you have unedited raw original to compare? I see that the original has also been edited.
Brandmeistertalk 08:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
Brandmeister:[4] - Straight out of camera, Raw file converted without any adjustments/post processing applied to jpeg format as requested -
Subhrajyoti07 (
talk) 14:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Ok, although I'd prefer less harsh retouching.
Brandmeistertalk 16:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 10:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Large Gautama Buddha statue in Buddha Park of Ravangla, Sikkim.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'll eat my hat if this is the work of a random Wikimedia Commons contributor, who only ever uploaded this photo in this 2010 before never posting again. It's an aerial shot of a military exercise, and so highly unlikely to have been taken by a member of the public. I note that the image also lacks metadata. This is almost certainly a Canadian Government photo uploaded under a false claim.
Nick-D (
talk) 11:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Nick-D while it had crossed my mind that this could be a Canadian government photo, my quick Google search does not show this in top results which would be surprising if this is an official Canadian government photo. There are alternative explanations that would make sense, such as the photographer being a Canadian Armed Forces person or the employee of a government contractor who took this photo in a personal capacity. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think that
AGF should apply here. --Pine✉ 18:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't see how anyone could take this image in a personal capacity, and the pattern of a single-use account posting a professional-grade image on Commons which has no metadata is almost always associated with a copyright violation.
Nick-D (
talk) 22:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
(That said, if it can be established that this is PD - for instance a US military image - then I'd definitely support it, as it's an excellent photo).
Nick-D (
talk) 23:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose must surely be military or military-authorized press image.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 07:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Good photo, but not significant EV right now, because it is in the "gallery" section of the article. It would have more EV if it is moved to the "infobox" or to the "remodeling" section of the article.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 23:27:38 (UTC)
Reason
I'm happy with the sharpness of the monument itself, the colors of the plants/trees, and the park scene in the background. Technical quality and EV seem worth a shot at FPC.
Oppose - composition is very messy and restless. --
Janke |
Talk 11:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - Yes, the composition is messy, but I don't see any way to address that. The statue is in a permanent location (and obviously a very busy one). We can't just up and move it. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 08:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per
Janke. Due to the setting in which it's found, it's not a good subject for main page promotion.
Sca (
talk) 13:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my nomination clearly not going anywhere. Thanks for the comments, all. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 18:18:54 (UTC)
Reason
Nominated recently (
here). Updated based on feedback, but uploaded the new version shortly before the nomination period ended. I should've just opened another nomination at that point, probably. Alas. On the advice of someone who abstained last time, and since there were no opposes, I'll give this another shot. It's a dark purple Trichoglottis orchid (Trichoglottis atropurpurea) at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden.
Support although I do recognize a focusing issue on the flowers, it has very high EV.
Mattximus (
talk) 22:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 15:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – I think the background is now too dark. It was better was good in this version:
[5]. Also some cropping of the top and right sides would highlight the flowers as the main subject, I think it would be an improvement.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support A very lovely picture that adds a nice touch to the article as well.
Goveganplease (
talk) 01:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 15:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: How high up is the bust displayed in situ? I would usually expect to view such objects from a more-or-less eye- or face-level angle. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 11:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
With stand, the bust was about 3–4 cm taller than me (if I'm remembering correctly). —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 08:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – is the face slightly out of focus?
Bammesk (
talk) 14:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support – face looks slightly out of focus, but not too bad at full size (100%). It has EV in
Charles Summers as the only example of his work.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – Scant EV. Subject and artist both shy on notability.
Sca (
talk) 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 15:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
A bit fuzzy, but considering the date, I'll support it.
Kaldari (
talk) 00:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Some serious motion blur. By the 20s, exposure times had gotten down to the point where such a problem shouldn't happen in a professional setting. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 02:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – @
Yann: I uploaded a sharper version on top of the existing image. I now see that the image is assessed in Commons, so I probably shouldn't have done that. Please review and take action if necessary. Feel free to upload the sharpened version as a new file.
Bammesk (
talk) 17:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support – technically not high quality, but an exception for it being a historic image applies IMO.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support this photo is almost 90 years old .... it is a rare document for me the quality for a photo of 1926 is good .... I do not think it would pass as an image of quality but as a cultural document is more than enough for me --LivioAndronico(
talk) 20:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Er, make that 92 years old.
Sca (
talk) 14:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 23:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Is the category OK?
Yann (
talk) 23:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – leaning to support but too much contrast correction, too bright, IMO.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Bammesk: The background is supposed to be white, yet there is no white pixel in the background.
Yann (
talk) 11:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The background (in the drawing area)
[6] has a fine shade, that shade is too muted in the restoration IMO. Also the physical paper (the border) has a texture, I think retaining some of that texture could be an improvement.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support – Nice. Better than grayscale. (sidenote: FYI, I would also support a brighter version, somewhere between the initial nom version and what you have now. Also would support less color saturation.)
Bammesk (
talk) 13:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 06:51:07 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution, unique photograph, taken while wearing awkward and unforgiving equipment in an unforgiving environment. Has a free license. File has description.
Support Great image with high EV, high quality. –
Yann (
talk) 11:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Are there other versions/frames? This one has a focussing error and/or camera shake, clearly seen in full size. (The scan is OK, since the fiduciary crosses are tack sharp.) --
Janke |
Talk 14:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Images. Closest equivalent would be
this I reckon, but I think it is worse off. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Looking at this:
[7], I'd say it's a better choice, Schmitt is in focus, and there's no camera shake. If I were you, I'd close this nomination, and nominate that one instead... --
Janke |
Talk 09:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Hm, I am not a huge fan of the sun reflecting off the helmet in that one. I do see the camera shake when I zoom in. Just to make sure, you think the camera shake is worse than the helmet glare? Kees08 (Talk) 03:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think the shake is worse than the glare. You don't see the face in either picture, anyway. Also, the tilted composition of this one is pretty awkward. --
Janke |
Talk 06:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 23:06:15 (UTC)
Reason
When I came across this in a tide pool near Monterey, California, I had no idea what it was. In fact, it is a
pyrosome, a colony of little creatures that floats around the ocean, connected by a gelatinous "tunic". Strange things. I think EV is the main thing here -- we have very few pictures of these, and this one depicts its unusual form/texture pretty well, I think.
Support –
Yann (
talk) 13:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – nice photo but it doesn't have the alive-pop of the infobox photo in
Pyrosome, puzzling!
Bammesk (
talk) 13:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Bammesk: FWIW that picture in the pyrosome article may not actually be a pyrosome. The file name called it a comb jelly, its description called it a salp, and it was in the pyrosome article. :) Still there because I'm not 100% certain but see
this thread for more. This of course does not change that this picture is indeed by a tidepool and not a living specimen out in the open ocean. :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I understand. I checked some google images... About "a tidepool and not a living specimen": is the nom image a good representation of a living pyrosome? (as opposed to a dead pyrosome) If you think it is, then this is a Support vote.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Bammesk (
talk) 15:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 18:22:26 (UTC)
Reason
This 1907 photograph is a stunning image that, in a single frame, captures the transition from pre-consumer to consumer culture; from the American
Old West to the American modern era. Prominently seen behind a troop of horse-mounted cavalry on the western frontier is an advertising billboard for Coca-Cola. The subjects of the image are in focus (there is some slight blur in the guidon where the wind has caused it to flutter as well as the rearing heads of horses, however, I think that's ameliorated somewhat by the fact this is a 1907 un-posed photo taken outdoors) and it is of greater than 1500 pixels; it is freely licensed; it is present in five articles, forming the infobox image of one; it is verifiable (both the image and its caption originating from the official state archives of
Washington state); aside from some slight leveling, it has not been manipulated. (As an aside, this is my first FP nomination so please bear with me if I've made any errors.)
Comment - Could use some slight restoration. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 03:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – agree with Chris, also may be a larger crop to include the horse's feet.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Withdraw as nom -
Chris Woodrich and
Bammesk - thank you very much for this feedback! I think these are great points and I'll withdraw this for now until I can correct them and then resubmit. Sorry for wasting everyone's time but thank you, very much, for the edification!
Chetsford (
talk) 05:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply