Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 23:59:57 (UTC)
Original – The Westminster Bridge with the Westminster Palace in the background.
Reason
Found this while reading up on the most recent incident overseas (well overseas for me anyway); this image struck me so I thought I ought to list it here to see if it had a chance at an FPC star. Presently this image adores the article Westminster Bridge, where it holds the distinguished place of honor as the lead image in the article's infobox.
Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Could benefit from a bit of shadow work... --Janke | Talk 07:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Unfortunately does not illustrate the subjects well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Poor lighting, shadowy. It's not bad as a mood shot and would be fine as an additional photo at Westminster Bridge, but a lighter, more conventional photo would be better in the infobox there. Sca (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 01:07:18 (UTC)
Original – The Castle of Zafra is a 12th-century castle located in the municipality of Campillo de Dueñas, in Guadalajara, Spain. Built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop in the Sierra de Caldereros, it stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory.
Reason
High quality. Gives a stunning view of the castle and its surroundings.
Support – Another finely detailed shot of an interesting avian species. Sca (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – but prefer a wider crop on left. Bammesk (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Nice and sharp (I don't have a problem with the crop). —Bruce1eetalk 06:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the subject is facing and, so to speak, pointing right, it makes sense in terms of composition to have more space on the right. Sca (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it's always a matter of choice I usually upload a 3x2 then overwrite a cropped image, then everyone can choose the crop they like. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Sca (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful for an explanation of 'Fails some points in 3rd criteria' please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very sharp & clear to me. Sca (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Entire body should be visible, instead of only the head. The article is Red-legged seriema, not Red-legged seriema's head. --MarvellousSpider-Man 11:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should never use mug shots of people. It's an interesting head. Sca (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this red-legged seriema pic. is more interesting than the one of Ms. Spears in her infobox – her massive (15,400-word) article notwithstanding. Sca (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only interesting thing about this bird is its head. We could also have FP of the whole bird, but since it runs along the ground, it's tricky to get a very special shot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – pity the ends of the feelers are out-of-focus, but overall very nice with good detail. —Bruce1eetalk 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they always will be with a macro shot I'm afraid. DoF is only a few mm. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The only way to get more in focus is to use a smaller aperture (f/14, for example), which would mean less detail on the scales, or focus stacking, which wouldn't work well with a live subject (File:Mealybugs of flower stem, Yogyakarta, 2014-10-31.jpg was the only decent result I got out of 50+ shots). This is great. I would prefer the image saved with less compression, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris. After reading your comment, I checked a DoF chart and did a test. I reckon I took the picture 25cm away from this 18mm butterfly. With my 100mm macro lens at F11 I have 1.6mm DoF which is OK if you can get the insect absolutely square on to the camera. 1/400 sec was needed for hand held crouching near the ground. I then cropped to 60% of the original 5472 x 3648 pixels. At F14, the DoF only goes up to 2.0mm. F14 is two stops and also, my camera (like most) produces better images at F11 than F14. ISO 800 is the highest speed I can sensibly use, so it would not have been possible to use F14, even in the excellent lighting conditions I had. I'm not sure what you mean by 'less compression'. This image is not downsized, it is just cropped, then saved as maximum quality JPG. If I could get closer to the subject to use full frame (therefore no cropping), I reckon I would have been 13cm away. Unfortunately that would cut DoF to 0.3mm which doesn't work at all. Also, the butterfly would have flown away! And if it didn't for some reason, me and my camera would block out too much light and usually throw a shadow. Obviously there is no chance for proper focus-stacking in the field though one can sometimes manually stitch a couple of images together. It's all a carefully calculated compromise! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. My comment "less detail on the scales" was meant to refer to the diffraction issues which leads to the camera (lens?) producing better images at F11 than F14, but in a way that non-photographers can understand. I didn't go into ISO etc. for the same reason.
I just opened the image in PS. It showed that you saved at a quality level of 10 (out of 12). That shouldn't lead to any noticeable JPG artifacts. Hmm... I'll PM you on your talk page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 05:45:47 (UTC)
Original – Letter from Theresa May invoking Article 50
Reason
In lieu of the referendum last year in the United Kingdom which confirmed the exit of the Britain from the European Union, it was announced that the Prime Minister would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union sometime in 2017. As it happens, yesterday was that day, so I am presenting the copy of the formal invocation of Article 50, giving formal notice to the Council of the European Union of a member state's intention to withdraw from the EU in order to allow withdrawal negotiations to begin as required by the Treaty on European Union. Since this is the first time that such paperwork has ever been formally invoked, I am listing it here for FPC consideration.
Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible – Sorry, hasn't been on any page long enough, thus doesn't fulfill criteria. --Janke | Talk 07:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: My apologies; I was unaware that the criteria had shifted again. Well that leaves us with two options: prematurely closing this nomination or moving this to the suspended nominations section and waiting it out for 7 days. I leave that choice to you and yours. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria have been like that for ages. We'll make exceptions for new articles, sometimes, but I really can't see any consensus to support such an exception here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support it if re-nominated. Valuable document but not FP. 18:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Agree with previous comment. Significant event but the letter itself is basically a bureaucratic document. Sca (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It's the content itself that is noteworthy, not the actual letter itself. So I don't see any EV here.Mattximus (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have nothing against FPs of documents, including historical letters (Bixby letter, for example). However, this does not meet quality standards by any stretch of the imagination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't do flowers Petar, but if I did I wouldn't choose F7.1. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp i do focus stacking. Because of that, my f is merely uninteresting stuff. And dont worry, i know what i am doing. Nothing is missing on this flower. By the way, made of 32 shots. That is a lot lot more than some...how much, f !? And in better quality than all single shots of flower. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand the F7.1, but shouldn't the image say that it is a composite of many images? You are right that a focus stack should produce very sharp images, but in this one the definition doesn't seem to be quite there, though I'm not opposing the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added stacking into description. --Mile (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Mile (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No way for this composition... Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp - sorry, this is food photo and this compo is used mostly at food photo. These are not animals. --Mile (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My issues with the composition: odd angle and cropped table mat. Technical issues: generally over-exposed, particularly right side of white plate is blown out, as is some of the cabbage. Food itself is not very sharp (taken at 1/60) with odd choice of F4, so little depth of field. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, dont go into food photo. ;) --Mile (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quite a high quality photo of the food, I just find the composition to be jarring. Specifically how the placemat is cut off at strange angles. Mattximus (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A high-resolution image of a Mesa, a common geological occurrence on Earth, as it appears on Mars. Useful in the understanding of common geological processes on both Earth and Mars.
Comment Hmmmm - sure it's eye-catching, but it looks more like a carbuncle than a mesa. Additionally, there are some unexplained dark blue spots that I think might be imaging artifacts - maybe they should be removed? --Janke | Talk 07:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Eye-catching, sure, but to most people a mystery photo, thus lacking readily accessible visual information. Sca (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates California State Route 108 and its surroundings as it passes through Sonora Pass. It is high-resolution and aesthetically pleasing, and shows the meadows along the highway.
Support as nominator – Rschen7754 20:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful sunset picture, excellent quality. Dough487210th 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Overprocessed, very noisy. Looks like the photographer just hit "tone mapping" in Photoshop and said "Done". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Low EV, could be any other route in a similar environment. A good candidate for Commons, but not here. --Janke | Talk 08:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's not super-crisp, but it's still very good quality and has excellent EV Mattximus (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Detail looks quite good to me. (Perhaps it could benefit from a little more contrast?) Interesting history. Sca (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2017 at 17:16:48 (UTC)
Original – A passenger/freight train on the Bernina line near the top of the Bernina Pass at an elevation of over 2,100 metres (7,000 ft); pulled by two ABe 4/4 multiple units
Reason
Good composition illustrating the scenic route of the Bernina line with the Piz Alv, Piz Minor and Vadrets Minor peaks in the background; FP on Commons.
Oppose - Scenic beauty and comp, I agree. But I am concerned with EV. Subject covers just 30-35% of the frame. Majority is just the background. I would support a cropped version giving emphasis to the locomotive itself...-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A moderate crop might be OK, but I think the photographer's intent probably is an environmental shot showing the train in very wintry mountainous country, so we wouldn't want to take too much of that away. Sca (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The picture is not about the train, but about the scenic landscape the railway passes through – hence the EV for Bernina railway. A crop will take away that EV. —Bruce1eetalk 06:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say it's about the train and the landscape, showing the conditions under which the plucky Swiss run trains. Train without landscape or landscape without train wouldn't be nearly as interesting. Sca (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm a bit prejudiced due to family history. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course, the train is important, that's what makes the picture interesting. But it's the landscape (with the train) that gives the picture its EV, and a crop would kill that. —Bruce1eetalk 17:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the composition is fine just the way it is. Showing the subject in the context of its environment is precisely what creates the EV. A closeup of the train itself would be much less valuable I think. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jobas (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Janke | Talk 13:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For caption use: Bernina Pass article lists elevation at 2,328 m./7,638 ft., while Bernina railway says 2,253 m./7,392 ft., and calls it "the highest railway crossing in Europe." At any rate, this photo evidently shows the train at over 7,000 ft. (2,300 m.). Sca (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've added the elevation to the caption – feel free to reword if necessary. Obviously the railway doesn't quite get to the top of the pass. BTW 7,000 ft. is 2,134 m. not 2,300 m. :-) —Bruce1eetalk 17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with precision in conversions - numbers should be converted with a similar precision (see MOS:CONVERSIONS). "Over 7,000 feet" is clearly an approximate measurement, so it should be converted to something like 2,100m. Converting from 7,000ft to 2,134m implies more precision than actually exists. TSP (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've adjusted the conversion to be less precise. —Bruce1eetalk 11:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 09:37:05 (UTC)
Original – Male komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) on Komodo Island, Indonesia. A reptile's forked tongue allows it to sense from which direction a smell is coming.
Reason
Through to second round of Commons Picture of the Year 2017
Support as nominator – Charles (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Impressive with good EV; I'm not too fond of the black shadow (a little too harsh), but it doesn't detract from the picture quality. —Bruce1eetalk 12:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry to vote against this one, but the combination of harsh shadows, and the fact that most of the animal has been cut off (the image looks like the animal is very wide, but in reality is quite long) means low EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Very striking and aesthetically pleasing picture of a komodo dragon. I'm not keen on the shadows for EV purposes, however. They seem almost black — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally the harsh shadows are intentional to show menace with the extended tongue. I took other photos of the whole animal and of males fighting, but I chose this one to feature. The animal is so large, if you show it all you don't get the menace, nor the detail of head, tongue and front leg. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I get the menace. My issue is that this choice, though very appropriate for a more aesthetics-oriented site like Commons (not to mention hard to avoid this close to the equator), limits the image's EV in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think shadow isnt good option here, to strong contrast. --Mile (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Janke | Talk 20:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes.--Jobas (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The dramatic, constrasty sidelighting makes for a striking image and doesn't detract at all from the EV. Genuinely not sure what the problem is. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can clarify. The main function of a photo on wikipedia should be encyclopedic: does it accurately portray the animal? In this case, having more than half the animal out of frame, and the half that is in frame obscured by shadow does not fit this description. It certainly is articistic, and "menacing", however it's not encyclopedic. For example, would you know that it is shaped like this based on this image? Mattximus (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it shows its forked tongue very clearly, the role of which is discussed in the article; and it's the only picture in the article showing its tongue. So there's EV. —Bruce1eetalk 06:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken both photos, I can explain further. The full length picture is good for the header photo as it illustrates the whole animal. But it cannot do justice to this most fearsome of reptiles. For that you need the nominated image. Think about human portraits. Do we reject all of them? Think about education. Which image would you use to talk to children about this creature? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took the liberty to replace the old version with a gamma-corrected one, please see if this might fare better... If you don't like it, feel free to revert it on the file page! --Janke | Talk 14:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, but I prefer the dark shadows. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a great photo of the Komodo dragon because it is a close-up and is very crisp and clear. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the shadow is a bit too strong on its right. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Charles (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Should be more in focus. f/6.3 is small even for m4/3. Unless you do stack, which isnt obvious here. --Mile (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of depth of field limitations in wildlife macro photography does you no credit. It is laughable to even mention focus-stacking. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree, f/6.3 was too open. Working with angles and a bit higher f-number (f/8 or f/9 would still have relatively minimal diffraction) you could get a bit more of the animal in focus. There's a reason why most of our dragonfly pictures have the animals on a flat plane (either as dorsals or side views). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point about 'a flat plane' @Crisco 1492:. The body of this damselfly is at 90 deg to the camera and perfectly in focus from its eyes to end of abdomen. F8 would have made some difference here, but not much Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the orientation of the dragonfly to what's already been featured and you'll see what I mean by "a flat plane". Directly from the side, or directly from above. This is closer to a 45 degree angle. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what you mean, but it didn't stop you voting for others like this! 1, 2, 3 or indeed your own nominations 1, 2Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this image is that the dragonfly's wings are severely out of focus, which is not so with the images you quoted. (Except for the wasp, but that's a different kind of image). --Janke | Talk 12:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This particular damselfly's wings will always be out of focus in a macro image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Janke said, and I need to emphasize, the issue was with the DOF. The flat plane was a recommendation for reducing DOF issues, as was the higher F-number. You could also take a step back and then crop. The grasshopper image you cite (the only one of these I took myself) was not at 1:1. I think it may have been 0.5. Been a few years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is already featured. Isn't it?? Goveganplease (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons. Not on the English Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a nice shot of the damselfly because it is very detailed and clear. The focus could have been adjusted better to capture the wings, but overall a nice photo. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm concerned about the depth of field, the wings are quite blurry, unlike other photographs of insects. Mattximus (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
_head.JPG)
_P.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_3.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_male_3.jpg)
