Original - A historic photograph taken from one of the mountains surrounding the city of Bergen in Norway. Visible are the Korskirken in the foreground, the historic harbour Bryggen with its boats and the Bergenhus Fortress in the background.Edit 1, Current Candidate - It is sharper than the alternate and doesn't contain the scratches.Alternate - This version has not had the original caption removed and has been cleaned and had the pink discoloration removed.
Reason
It is an historic picture possessing a great quality, a high EV and it can't be retaken. It is very illustrative in the article it's in. Please compare it to the original file, which is present on the picture's description page.
Comment Ah, I was going to walk up that hill when in Bergen this summer, but unfortunately I got struck down with Salmonella before I had the chance. I like this image, Poking around in the other versions, I found a restoration by CarolSpears which I am adding as an alternate as I prefer it for the restoration (assuming that the pink coloration was not original and or desired. Mfield (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could tell me how to get rid of the pink coloration, I could remove it from the tif file, which I still have. My version is sharper and doesn't contain scratches and spots, so it is preferable above the one of Carol Spears I think. Sorry to hear about your infection. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the software you are using, and even then there are several ways to approach it. I would personally use a color balance layer adjustment in Photoshop. Either "Layer > New Adjustment Layer... > Color Balance..." or Just click on the little black and white circle at the bottom of the layers palette and select "Color Balance..." Then use the sliders to correct for it in shadows midtones and highlights. You may get OK results with some of the (auto) level adjustment tools, but exercise caution with them that they do not introduce any other problems. Mfield (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advise, I've inserted another version. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good restoration... but one question, is it a painting? —Ceran♦ (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a photochrom, which is an artificially colored black and white image. So kind of in-between. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Preference slightly to Edit 1 although it seems somewhat inauthentic from the original aged shot. Cat-five - talk 18:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - This image of Saturn's Moon Mimas was taken by the Cassini orbiter/satellite in August 2005. It remains one of the most detailed pictures of the heavily-cratered moon.
Reason
Good res, high quality. Sharp, with good EV in just Mimas (moon).
Support as nominator --—Ceran[speak] 22:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Distinct white line around the edge which almost looks like an outline; it's also very pixelated. Distracting and takes away from the quality of the photo. Sorry ~ Wadester16 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would like to see a color image or a higher resolution grayscale. Also, one of the defining features of Mimas is the shockingly large crater, which does not appear in this image. If the largest crater isn't shown, then what is the EV in this image? Wronkiew (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 04:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A sea otter nurses her pup from nipples on her abdomen. Unlike most marine mammals, sea otters rest floating on their backs and carry their young on their bellies. The fur of young pups is fluffy and highly buoyant, whereas in adults it is sleeker and extremely dense.Edit 1 by Fir0002. Sharpness and minor levels tweaksAlt 1 Tail is not cropped
Reason
A beautiful intimate moment, showing one of the marvels of marine mammal adaptation. Well-lit and clear, showing the detail in the fur of both animals. This picture is from the wild (not an aquarium).
Good arguments for Alt1 below. It's my favourite now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrates the unique behavior of otters in great detail, has high resolution and focuses on the subject at hand. – Jerryteps 06:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent image! If I was forced to be critical I'd point out the softness on the right hand side of the image, but given the subject matter and excellent quality nearly everywhere else, I barely think it is worth mentioning. --Leivick (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The mother's tail is cut off, and it's soft throughout and very soft everywhere but the mother's head. Interesting a valuable shot, though.--ragesoss (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1, which is sharper and in which it is easier to tell the two animals apart.--ragesoss (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 This one doesn't have the problem of the cut off tail. That said I'm a little disappointed with the quality of the shots given the camera/lens which was used ot capture it! --Fir0002 05:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Support Alt 1 per ragesoss and Fir0002. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 - I didn't realize the first one even included a baby at first. Tho I wish the face of the adult was facing the camera in Alt 1. But I still support.
Promoted Image:Sea otter nursing02.jpgMER-C 05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - NGC 2207 is in the process of colliding and merging with IC 2163. Unlike the Antennae or the Mice Galaxies; they're still two separate spiral galaxies. They are only in the first step of colliding and merging. Soon they will collide and appear like the Mice Galaxies. In approximately one billion years time they will merge and become an elliptical galaxy.
Reason
An excellent picture of NGC 2207 and IC 2163 merging, it is descriptive, focuses on the galaxies at hand and displays a unique phenomenon.
Support as nominator – Jerryteps 05:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's high enough resolution. Sure it is interesting and has wow, but then all pictures of DSOs have wow. What it does lack is size. Mfield (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)strike that I have replaced with the full size from NASA. Mfield (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks heaps. I really appreciate it. – Jerryteps 10:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that it is full-size. --Janke | Talk 15:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support another great galaxy photo. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yep good encyclopedic content. M.K. (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent photo. --Carioca (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great enc and rez, but I'm worried about the chromatic noise. I believe my phrase from the last galaxy nom was "more color splotches than a Jackson Pollock painting". Again, if this is from the Hubble, it's about as good as it gets.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:NGC2207+IC2163.jpgMER-C 05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - G'day, nice to see you still around! I can't really make my mind up on this pic - obviously an amazing, rare shot. But it's a bit confusing what's going on (took me a while to figure out which was which :p), and the narrow DOF is slightly distracting. This would be a fantastic image if we had Dragonfly reproduction - but we don't seem to have much more detailed than Sexual reproduction#Insects. Stevage 03:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great quality picture, displays it's purpose (albeit somewhat confusing to tell which one is male/female) and is focused on the subject at hand. – Jerryteps 10:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much per the above, it's a little but confusing but overall it's a great shot and there would be no real way to effectively mitigate that confusion that I can think of. Cat-five - talk 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since everyone seems a little confused about the picture, perhaps a more detailed caption would be helpful. Remember (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this the male is the one higher up in the image --Fir0002 10:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not among the best of Fir's works, I would expect a slightly larger dof, to cover the head of the male. Also, the unfocused wings are a bit distracting. Finally (this is an old issue), why is the picture so small? But I like the composition and don't find it confusing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't really see how Alvesgaspar expects the wings to be in focus. The male's head is somewhat in focus (although the eye is not), but I dont think that detracts hugely. I agree Fir's images could be larger, and deliberately uploading downscaled images is not exactly in the spirit of GFDL or the encyclopedia. —Pengo 09:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect the wings to be in focus, I just say they are a bit distracting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Yellow striped hunter mating.jpgMER-C 05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom --Fir0002 12:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The left side of the species are not sharp, the overall tone is a little dark and the composition is not attractive.--Caspian blue 14:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Yes, the composition is a little unfortunate, but it would be unacceptable to rotate the image to imply that the cones grow sideways from a branch going up, rather than growing up from a sideways branch. I'd support cutting a little bit of the far right background, though.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 19:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dust spots. Lycaon (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed one in the background, any others you can spot? Noodle snacks (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was the one. Lycaon (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Caspian blue, and the picture is no longer used in the Picea pungens article. Lycaon (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it dropped off due to someone reverting a somewhat mouldy IP blanking rather than an editorial decision (looking at the history seems to support this). I've put it back for the time being, let's see if it sticks. MER-C 02:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Picea Pungens Young Cones-emphasis background.jpgOpen up the image in full and look closely at the background, and to me, it personally doesn't look quite right. (Note: There may be some artifacting in the cropping process, so look at a similar area in the original as well).SpencerT♦C 15:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutralWeak support I agree with Capsian blue. Also, I'm dissatisfied with the background, which looks fake odd when viewed somewhat closely at 100%. SpencerT♦C 03:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also anything is possible with Adobe photo shop:-Adam (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, fake is not the word I'm trying to use. Struck that and used odd. I've uploaded an image which shows some of my dissatisfaction with the background. Also, changing vote to neutral. SpencerT♦C 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that white thing you are refering to? I believe it and the other similar line on the RHS were lines of lines of silk (see Ballooning (spider)) catching the sunlight at some distance in the background, but as far as the rest of the green. I can't seem to spot anything else. I thought I added it already, but here is a raw screenshot. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Changing vote to weak support after clarification...sharpness issues prevent a full support.SpencerT♦C 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I did try a focus stack originally, but there was just enough of a breeze to make later alignment unsuccessful. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppopse I concur with Capsian blue. Also, I am scepticle with the background, which looks fake when viewed somewhat closely at 100%. Although it is a great image I think that anything is possible with Adobe photo shop :-Adam (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stillnotoveryourtantrum evidently. I would like details on how the background is "faked" and I can provide a RAW to a trusted user as strong evidence to the contrary. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like for me to change my vote to support:-Adam (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that comment really make sense? Who wouldn't want a support if your pic was on FPC. However, if there was a clear misunderstanding, I would want that cleared up, just as Noodle snacks clarified my comment. SpencerT♦C 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The skyline of the City of Manila at sunset, as seen from Harbour Square.
Reason
Good quality, high resolution, encyclopedic image of the skyline of the City of Manila. The composition and lighting is quite nice, and I don't think I've seen a better image of the Manila skyline anywhere, commercial or otherwise.Note that a slightly cropped version exists at Image:Big_Manila.jpg and is used on more pages.
Support as nominator --TheCoffee (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately I have to oppose this otherwise high quality image. It looks like the left most images used in the panoramic stitching where of lower contrast than those on the right. The boats in the foreground are where this is clearest. This could probably be easily fixed by either adjusting the contrasts of each image or using a different stitching program. --Leivick (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a keen eye. I have adjusted the contrast at the left and reuploaded over the old image. TheCoffee (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching is not so good, generally noisy image and not so sharp, too small file size for such a large image. —Krm500(Communicate!) 05:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could... increase the file size... TheCoffee (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't really a strong requirement for the criteria at this stage, I have approximately geocoded the image. Do you think you'd be able to pinpoint the exact location and edit the tag appropriately? I also wonder why this wasn't uploaded to commons. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was taken here... not much familar with geocoding, I'll figure out how to tag it later. I just felt like uploading it first to en-wiki cuz I'm an admin here and have flexibility to delete it if necessary. The other version is at Commons, I could put this on Commons too if you insist. :p TheCoffee (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons would be a good idea, they have prettier geolocation templates for images for a start, and it lets the images be used on the other projects. I'll update the tag when its moved. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Louis Armstrong playing trumpet in 1953. Armstrong has been described as "perhaps the most important American musician of the 20th century."Unrestored version for comparison
Reason
High-quality and just plain awesome photo of Louis Armstrong performing.
Support - I was going to nominate this picture! Great minds think alike. —Ceran♦♦ (speak) 12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I solid cleanup on a fine photo, which has excellent EV and visual appeal.--ragesoss (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Any reason why the 3rd slide (Armstrong's left pinky) is upside down? Otherimages show him having it the typical way, so I was wondering if this was usual for Armstrong to do this. SpencerT♦C 17:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture of an important figure in music. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support great and possibly even iconic photo of Armstrong. My only worry is the removal of the picture frame (?) in the upper left corner but I suppose that's not really any ethics violations since we link to the original and it isn't changing the subject at all. Nice restore. grenグレン 06:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I can't make my mind, I usually prefer untouched pic originals, however black frame in the corner bothers me. M.K. (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per above. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a very gripping picture that captures his ability, I can hear him just by looking at it. Garkeith (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This image is too small to meet the Featured Picture requirements. The severely distorted perspective and unnatural HDR effect are also generally not what we look for in Featured Pictures. It's an effective shot aesthetically, though.--ragesoss (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it was still too darned small. Well, never mind. How do I withdraw it, so as to not waste everyone's time? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just write Withdrawn in bold like with a vote and sign it, and someone will close it shortly. --jjron (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator— Preceding unsigned comment added by Almighty11 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too small, a little oversharpened. I also fixed your nomination since you deleted half the code for this nom page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanderdecken. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great subject, but lacking in quality. I don't believe that saturation reflects reality, and a better framing would include the whole tail in the centre (another standard complaint). Definitely a good image to have, but not as an FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much image processed --Caspian blue 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An aesthetically pleasing image illustrating the vegetation and sunrise over the mountains. Some parts are overexposed becasue I was shooting right at the sun. QI at commons.
Oppose Sorry, the glare and the straw in the middle just kills it for me. Enc is low - just two hillsides and a overexposed mountain, where all detail is lost. --Janke | Talk 21:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - overexposed.--Caspian blue 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Made during the peak of Rembrandt's career, the Night Watch combined the effective use of light and shadow, tremendous dimensions, and the illusion of movement to create one of the Dutch Golden Age's most famous artworks. It currently rests in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.
Reason
This picture is a crystal-clear shot of one of the best Baroque paintings.
Support as nominator —Animum (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is a minor problem with the reflections off the paint, but all in all, it's a very good scan that looks as though the colours are accurate (I think I've seen either this painting or a historical copy of it, in real life). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it looks kind of fuzzy to me... and... the crop looks really tight... any pictures of it in the frame to compare? grenグレン 06:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info Having seen this painting numerous times in real life, I can testify that this is the right color scheme. Further more it is a masterpiece of the Baroque-era, not the Renaissance-era. Last but not least, the crop looks tight because the edges of the painting were cut of some 300 years ago. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, thanks. I'm afraid art history isn't my forte. —Animum (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Schematic representation of the two methods with which to assemble a fission bomb
Reason
It is a drawing of the two methods of assembly for a fission bomb. It is well labelled and to the best of my knowledge accurate as well as being clear and easy to understand and in a format (svg) that can be easily scaled as needed for any needed uses as well as being under a PD license making it acceptable for that.
Support I can remember this diagram from when I was doing my own reading up on fission bombs. It is simple, informative and doesn't fall into the trap of over complicating matters. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LOL I'm pretty sure this exact picture was in one of my Physics textbooks... Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent example of FP-quality information graphics. Bonus points for using Myriad and not falling prey to the temptation of gradients ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat and readable. SpencerT♦C 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Fission bomb assembly methods.svgMER-C 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Seems to tick all the boxes. The only negatives are the small branches obscuring the feet and partly crossing the tail, and the shallow DOF, but focus is spot on. BTW are the dates right - you say you in the nom you took these before you bought your 400mm, but the dates on the image pages say it was taken Nov 08, and you've nominated a number of other images during this year taken with the 400mm? --jjron (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right - got confused with the current month! --Fir0002 09:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Essentially per jjron and I agree that the only negatives on this are the brances with the tail, other than that I think it's a spectacular shot. Cat-five - talk 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I know first hand how difficult wild birding with 280mm generally is. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAn excellent image of a difficult subject, with encyclopedic value too. Elucidate(light up) 12:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per above. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Visually, I actually prefer the alternative (reminds me of Charley Harper's work :), but I guess the original has more encyclopedic value since the subject is clearer. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Tourists swimming in the Devil's Swimming Pool, located at the edge of the Victoria Falls. The Waterfall is located at the border of Zimbabwe and Zambia in Africa.
Reason
High-res image displaying one of nature's most amazing natural occurrences - a natural swimming pool at the edge of a waterfall. The photo also contains some educational merit when focusing on the creation of certain natural anomalies such as this.
Support as nominator --Tha prez (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I like the idea, but to me this just doesn't quite nail it. It looks a bit tourist snapshotty as its taken, with the swimmers as the central feature looking to be posing for the picture (good for their photo album, but not so good for WP), and unfortunately they are poorly lit as well. As this is used to illustrate Victoria Falls, I'd think it should be taken from further back or more wide angle to give more context to the falls while showing swimmers in the pool without having them posed for the shot. I wonder if the creator has any alternative versions? --jjron (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anybody fancies a retake, I think the correct way to depict this is with an 2/3 underwater perspective, from the river towards the falls, and a person standing in the pool, fall-side, for scale. Apparently, conditions are usually good for this in December. The pool can be reached from the tip of Livingstone Island, which is on the Zambian side. Somebody is going to suggest a different composition, but I think the one I mentioned should definitely be tried. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Excellent idea, but not the best quality. —Ceran♦♦ (speak) 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per jjron, though I regret doing it. I love this image and its context. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSnopes.com clearly shows there's better ways to photograph this subject. - Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are available under appropriate Creative Commons licenses, unfortunately. And I doubt snopes got permission to display those pictures... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this unique location can definitely be photographed much better both in terms of encyclopedic value and technical quality. --Leivick (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A full page from the very important comics "Little Nemo in Slumberland" by McCay. Shows well the imagine used by the artist for themes, the use of flat colors and panel layout. "Little Nemo in Slumberland" was the first comics strip to enter the collection of the Louvre. Very encyclopedic.
Comment I'd love to support this, but there are just too many blocky JPG artifacts - all the original crispness is gone. A better, less compressed scan, please! --Janke | Talk 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. Unacceptable reproduction quality.--ragesoss (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it looks like jpeg artefacts, but it is not. Those are due to the low quality newspaper. Keep in mind that those strips where published before 1920 and all the recent reprints of those are from scanned newpaper. PYMontpetit (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a file size of 550 Kb for an image size of 1,720 × 2,380 pixels, there are jpg artifacts! ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Glad I'm not the only Little Nemo enthusiast around here. I love that old style of graphic design. Pity about the scan quality-- is this from a reprint in a book, or from newsprint? Spikebrennan (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Why are the colors dramatically different in this version than the previous version of the image? Also, does anyone know how much was changed in the restoration for the book? We may run into copyright problems if the images were edited significantly. Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Cherokee syllabary is a syllabary (a set of written symbols that represent or approximate syllables) invented by Sequoyah in 1819 to write the Cherokee language. By 1824, most Cherokees could already read and write in the Cherokee language. Very few changes have been applied to the syllabary since 1828. The development of Cherokee literacy was a key factor in maintaining the ethnic identity of the Cherokee population.
Oppose - With obvious EV but not an image in the strict sense of the word -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good info in the article, but I can't see this as a featured picture - it's just a list of symbols that happen to be in an image format... it's also in unicode on the image page, and is not much different! --Janke | Talk 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Clegs (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but if the user uploaded an original translation paper that has these symbals on it, I would fully support that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A pity we don't have a better scan of this lithograph. This [1] is a scan from a book and would need extensive cleanup. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Diego_pmcTalk 07:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support the original Love the dog!!!! (as well as the wonderful picture, of course) --Caspian blue 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The species is originally from a "wild wild snowy environment", and the cropped version diminishes its surrounding.--Caspian blue 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm unless it's a bird then I doubt the large tract of sky I cropped out diminishes much from its surrounding! The component of land I cropped out is quite minor - I mostly cropped the sky --Fir0002 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose original too much dead space. Support Edit 1 good lighting and interesting subject. That said I agree that the angle isn't particularly good for EV --Fir0002 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really feel like there should be more coordination between the projects. I mean the original is a QI and about to become a FP on Commons, then on en.wp another version of the image is selected—it can get quite messy. (Just mentioned, I'm not against the edit.) Diego_pmcTalk 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FP here on Wikipedia, and QI or FP on Commons are entirely different entities. There is, and should be, no connection. On Commons, a "pretty" image can be featured, here, the main consideration is its enc. We're building an encyclopedia, not a poster collection... (Just as an example: "Sunrise over Uluguru", below, is a QI on Commons, but I can't imagine it becoming a FP here.) --Janke | Talk 08:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the difference between WP and Com's scopes, but that was not my point. Diego_pmcTalk 08:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is your point? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he concerns about "stealing a thunder" from the original creator as supporting the edited version. I feel the edited version is a bit confined. --Caspian blue 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. I think that in cases where the image is suitable for featured status on both projects, there should be some kind of coordination so that there wouldn't be a separate version of the image for each project. Of course that doesn't apply to all cases. Diego_pmcTalk 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit The original is much better IMO. --Lošmi (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all purely because of the angle. Apart from that, it's an excellent picture. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unedited version The extra space around it is not something that distracts. I kinda prefer it as it makes the image a bit less busy. Furthermore, I think the angle is not really a problem for it's intended use. Fransw (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The chill-factor is a bit lost with edit --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit. I think the angle adds to the picture, IMO. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both, as at commons. —Ceranthor 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Bad angle. Looking up at the dog feels rather strange, and having the dog from almost precisely the front makes it hard to see its body plan. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Good photos, but low enc due to angle. Does this breed have a curved tail like some "northern" dogs? No answer... --Janke | Talk 09:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Mount Redoubt of Alaska eruption column on April 21, 1990. This eruption caused lahars, large mudflows that result from lava mixing with snow and ice. For this particular eruption, sudden melting of snow and ice by the summit by pyroclastic flows and dome collapses caused these mudflows which flowed down the north flank of the mountain.Edit 1 - full size, 2,980 × 1,996 pixels, slight level correction, but still grainy.
Reason
Another totally irreplaceable image of a volcano erupting (see Image:MtCleveland ISS013-E-24184.jpg) which I found. Since few people are willing to go near a volcano while it's erupting, let alone try and take pictures of it, is incredibly rare. This one isn't great quality, but it has a really, really good view of the eruption column, which has huge EV. It is small, at only 1,024 × 689pix, but the EV totally surpasses that.
Support as nominator --—Ceranthor 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source link is dead... MER-C 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Pretty grainy, even for such a notable image. The caption also needs a lot of work. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Edit 1 is better and I will support it on EV only. The caption needs work and I offer a new caption below:
Volcanic eruption at Mount Redoubt in Alaska on 21 April 1990. The eruption caused lahars, large mudflows that result from lava mixing with snow and ice. Dome collapses and sudden melting of snow and ice by pyroclastic flows caused these mudflows to be created on the summit and flow down the north side of the mountain.
I will only support if the caption is updated. I don't require mine to be used, only a new one that is rewritten.
Weak support The caption could indeed be better, and if some post-processing could clear up the noise that would help alot. Overall though, it is an extremely rare image of an extremely rare and fascinating event. It definitly invites viewers to learn more about the subject. If the caption and/or the noise-issues could be corrected, I'll change it to a normal support. 82.74.125.34 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, I definitely have to remember logging in before these kinds of posts. Above weak support is mine. Fransw (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but I can't support on EV alone. I realize the circumstances in which it was taken, but the technical quality is just too far below our FP standards in my humble opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral. That's a considerable improvement, and I believe it's enough to meet the WP:WIAFP exception for unique images, so I can't really oppose anymore :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak SupportOppose (Original), Support (Edit 1) - although I wish you would have taken it to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop first, it's got a big huge EV and am willing to throw a weak support behind it
Support (Edit 1) solely because of high enc. Yes, it's grainy, the cloud is cut off at left, but you can't reshoot this. Please fix repetition in caption, it needs to be corrected for redundancies, there are repeated words, so this problem of tautology should be addressed... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a higher resolution version here (exotic file type warning, though Photoshop should be able to open this one). MER-C 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks - I uploaded the full-size "Edit 1", no grain reduction, but a few dust spots removed and slight level correction. Be sure to check full-size version, grain causes artifacts on image page. Re. grain: This was shot in 1990, and reckoning from the few white dust spots I removed, probably on hi-speed negative film. If someone wants to downsample and reduce grain, go ahead, you have the link... ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support edit 1 Good, but as Janke says above, there is a lot of grain. SpencerT♦C 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:MtRedoubtedit1.jpgMER-C 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:SolOline-2005-04-27-095150.jpgOriginal - An M1 Abrams of the 1st Armored Division participating in Exercise Ready Crucible driving through the snow-covered Taunus.Edit 1 by Fir0002 - sharpening
Reason
A detailed shot of an imposing snow and mud-covered Abrams tank operating in a clear and apparently pristine winter environment, one not often associated with the tank in the media, but nonetheless part of the design considerations of the tank.
Oppose The perspective at 18mm is a bit to exaggerated for my liking, a view from a more side on position would have enc greater value. The amount of detail present isn't also anything to write home about. There are also blown highlights here and there, but on nothing of importance Noodle snacks (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is not sharp, and I'm distracted by the too beautiful white snow background which casts some ironic image to the subject.--Caspian blue 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 1 The 18mm is not ideal but it's not too bad and personally I think the background alleviates this from the mundane to something quite interesting. Also I think there's quite a bit of detail in the original, although it hasn't been sharpened much in PP --Fir0002 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either - I agree that the snow adds artistic merit to the picture. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support edit 1 It's good enough in this edit for a weak support. Frankly, I find it interesting. SpencerT♦C 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not illustrate the Abrams particularly well. The snowy background isn't a problem but it doesn't add anything valuable in my mind either artistically or more importantly encyclopedicly. --Leivick (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very good angle, loses enc. --Janke | Talk 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Archaeologists prospecting Santa Ana Cave (Cáceres, Extremadura, Spain), searching for new archaeological levels and the end of the sediment deposits.
Reason
A very difficult shot. It shows the depth of the prospecting in the cave (12 metres from the photo). There are 6 people, three well seen and three relatively hidden.
Support Many tools of excavation visible. Foreground rocks on the bottom help give us some context. No major technical flaws.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 13:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not eligible until it is placed in at least one article Noodle snacks (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The flash in the foreground seems to contrast nicely with the warmer lighting down below and the image has obvious EV Noodle snacks (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support 18mm means the photographer could have used a slower shutter speed and a smaller aperture - f/4 doesn't have sufficient DOF and sharpness IMO. I think something like 1/20s and f/6.3 could have been used - and possibly (I'm not sure on the circumstances) a tripod and an even smaller aperture (f/8 ideally) and lower ISO --Fir0002 06:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough picture taking in consideration the technical difficult. Shooting at slower speed may cause the workers appears blur.--Jf268 (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High enc. Shows the working environment for archaeologists in an interesting way. --Janke | Talk 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Needs a better caption. Do you have any info on what they're looking for? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Makeemlighter, how about this one?: Archaeologists prospecting Santa Ana Cave (Cáceres, Extremadura, Spain), searching for new archaeological levels and the end of the sediment deposits. If you prefer this caption instead of the other, change it. User:Mario modesto
Promoted Image:SantaAnaCave.JPGMER-C 02:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original 1 - Greater Hobart area from Mt. Wellington, TasmaniaOriginal 2 - Greater Hobart area from Mt. Wellington, Tasmania
Reason
I'm submitting these two as a set as they are complementary and used in one article each. One or the other (or both) might fail, or they could be promoted as a "featured set", which has been done a few times before. The first image offers better context for the location but the second offers greater detail for the greater hobart area, a crop which is clearer in articles and a levels adjustment which combats the haze better. I waited weeks to get a particularly haze free day. The two images are seperately stitched with different lenses and not crops of the same thing.
Comment. I detect some apparent stitching signs in the sky in both images. In number one, a very faint vertical band, about 3/4 of the way to the right. In number 2, a set of horizontal smears that span the sky top to bottom, around the first(?) stitch from the left. Both are interesting and well-composed as thumbnails, but the intermediate level of detail in the city in both shots leaves me unsatisfied when viewing them large. --ragesoss (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haze was the primary limiting factor sharpness wise. I spent some time adjusting levels etc to minimize the effect. I picked one of the rare days with good weather on the mountain and relatively low haze levels before going up. Short of using an infared camera I think it'd be difficult to get a considerably sharper shot. Bear in mind too that these are quite considerably bigger than the minimum size. Thanks for spotting the wierd artifact(s), I've uploaded a pair of fixes, let me know if there is anything else. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those new version are improvements to my eye. In number 2, I detect one poor stitch, a vertical band in the sky about 3/5th of the way right, a little bit left of the the right-most bridge.--ragesoss (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another fix for number two uploaded. Let me know if there is any more Noodle snacks (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That mostly took care of it. I can still detect the stitch in that same spot in the sky, but it's so faint now that I don't think it's worth worrying about.--ragesoss (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support both, per my first comment.--ragesoss (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Original 2, Neutral Original 1. It's already been said but the haze really is a bit of a killer and I think (although I've never been to Hobart) the haze would be reduced if you took the shot in January/February and an hour or two before sunset or just after dawn. Also I think a UV filter or a circular polarizer might have been helpful. As for "Original 1" I don't think its particularly illustrative of Mount Wellington as you can't actually see it and if you were wanting to place it in context of Hobart a view such as this would seem a better option --Fir0002 06:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was using a UV filter, I have a polariser but opted not to use it because the degree of polarisation in the sky varies considerably with angle so you tend to get wierd effects both in the sky and on the water. As previously stated I have been waiting around for considerable time for a low haze day.
Fair enough about the polarizer, but if you're shooting no more than 100 degrees you can often get away with it. Regardless I was thinking you might be able to do something along the lines of this (although maybe an hour earlier) as it seems the haze is not as bad about that time on a summer day. That said after looking through flickr for a bit your pano is a lot better than most images in terms of haze so I'm switching to full support. --Fir0002 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The field of view on 1 is around 165 degrees, so I'd expect the polariser effect to be obvious. My argument for 1's EV would be the geology and vegetation from the top. I have no idea if you realised or not but the flickr photograph you linked to was the Mount Wellington in New Zealand. I have seen a similar pink sunset here before though. I suspect that you'd loose visible detail in the surrounding hills and other unlit areas in particular though. It would also be a battle to pick a day that doesn't have clouds on top at that time of day. On an ancillary note if you ever come to Tasmania there is a wide variety of easily found grasshoppers and other insects on the summit. I haven't tried too hard to photograph them as my macro gear isn't particularly suited to insects in the wild due to poor working distance as a result of the physical length of my macro setup. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah fair enough I guess a polariser wouldn't have been practical. Ah but if you were after the geology/vegetation of the top then I'd have to argue that the view of Hobart is superfluous and that the composition could have been improved to make this the more obvious focus of the shot. Hehe no I didn't realise it but it's really immaterial what was in the photo as I just was linking to that to illustrate the time of day I though would have low levels of haze - but it's probably unreasonable to demand such perfection because it would, as you say, be likely to be a once in a year evening when it would work. Ok thanks for the heads up - I guess otherwise I'd only have brought a wide angle to the summit. That said not sure when I'll visit Tassy - probably not this year anyway as my pennies are all going to a Mk II :) --Fir0002 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion 1Discussion 2
Comment. I've looked at these a few times and remain a bit undecided. I'm not so concerned about the haze, as I know from firsthand experience that can be a real issue, and these have less haze than what I've taken. However I'm not sure if either of them quite do it for me. I would certainly argue that they don't merit being featured as illustrations of Mt Wellington. Yes the first one does provide some context, but it is pretty limited. Something like the image I've put up as Discussion 1 gives more context, though I still wouldn't suggest that would be sufficient. The EV for Hobart is better; if was choosing I'd tend to go for Original 1, in which case I would oppose the other one, with the proviso that it go into the Hobart article. Again however I feel that more of the valley could have been captured, as with my Discussion 2 image, as from this distance it's probably more illustrative of the Derwent valley itself, which includes Hobart but extending right down to I think Bruny Island as well as further north, while still showing some context of the mountain. (Note: I took these a few years back on a very hazy day with my old A95; they are just there for discussion, not as Alts as they are not up to FPC standards). --jjron (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mount Wellington article has one image showing the mountain from a distance, which gives its appearance from Hobart (the profile is quite different from up river due to the organ pipes though). A second image details the organ pipes and shows the location of the main radio tower and lookout. A third image shows what the lookout looks like. The panorama is the only image in the article which gives the reader any information about what the view from the mountain looks like. Every person that drives to the summit will, weather allowing go to the point that the panorama was taken from and look (most of them take photographs as well!). The shot is approximately 170 degrees as it currently stands. It was not able to be wider from that location due to obstacles in the foreground. Your second discussion image suggests a wider vantage point is possible, but I am not sure that'd be possible with the foreground intact. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that shots from the top of mountains show what the view is like, but I personally don't find the EV for the mountain article itself so good. It would be like if the Melbourne pano just put up at the top of the page was being used solely to illustrate the Rialto Towers - just not enough EV for mine when you can't see the building. I'd thus stick to my point that it should also illustrate the Hobart or Derwent article. I would prefer a wider angle for full support, but will Weak Support Original 1 if it replaces the other one in the Hobart article (or goes in the Derwent article) as it has a wider range of view, shows some of the geology at the top of the mountain and shows the foothills better, and Oppose Original 2, simply because I don't think we need them both as FPs. --jjron (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Hobart from Mount Wellington Panorama 1.jpgMER-C 02:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Almost looks computerised - certainly does in the thumbnail. Seems a bit soft when viewed at full size, and a few of the cars in the foreground have streaks of light in front of them which much have come from other cars that did not make the edit... but there's something about the colours that really attract me to it... Gazhiley (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the "computerised" look is the result of high ISO noise reduction. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The moon looks like it's been dubbed in for two main reasons: size and exposure. Unless this was shot with a 300mm lens (unlikely for a streetscape - I'd say this was shot at no more than 100mm) then the moon should be much much smaller. Next as far as I can tell the moon should really be blown out to get the required exposure of the street scene. Instead it's perfectly exposed (verging on slightly underexposed). Now I'm not 100% sure on this but it does look a bit suspicious --Fir0002 06:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with you. One thing you didn't mention is how much sharper the moon is than the rest of the scene. Unless the photographer used a wide aperture and focused on the moon instead of the cityscape, I can't see how it isn't fake. Also, the shadow side of the moon doesn't look perfectly smooth as it should. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to fakery of the moon. Also, I don't know how easy it is to get a better shot, but the composition is a little messy. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice pic aesthetically, but clear digital alterations like the moon are a problem. --Leivick (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I thought the picture looked great and loved the way the moon turned out, but after Fir's and Dliff's comments, I withdraw. Muhammad(talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High quality image of Citreon C4 Hatch. Although some may not like the somewhat dark lighting of the image, I deliberately choose to photograph just before dusk so that I'd be able to capture the car with its lights on.
Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - License plate? —Ceranthor 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --Fir0002 22:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's different about this car as opposed to this and this that it merits "dark lighting"? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the nom, I wanted photograph the car with its headlights on (for something different) --Fir0002 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you also particularly choose for the car to be a dark colour, in the dark lighting? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely, but I'm pleased with the result. If it were a light colour such as yellow or white or even blue the darkness of the scene would be much more apparent. A black car should, by definition, look close to black even in sunlit conditions. Therefore shooting it at night doesn't detract at all from the colour rendition and so it makes good sense to photograph a black car at night IMO. --Fir0002 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrates vehicle well. I do have one question though. Why are the Citroen logos on the wheel hubs not blurred? Does this vehicle have some kind of bearing system to keep the wheel not covers from spinning? If so the image has extra value for illustrating this feature well. --Leivick (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are blurred. Think of angular velocity vs. radius, and you can figure out why they don't look blurred... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, sharp image. Muhammad(talk) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low enc because of choice of lighting. For a good, high enc picture of a car you need to see all details. Fender and bumper are almost totally featureless here. --Janke | Talk 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for exposure; don't think a darker image is merited just to show headlights, unless there is something really impressive about them. They look pretty normal to me. Not to say it's a bad shot; just not a FP in my mind. Fletcher (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and composition, looks like it stepped right out of a commercial. Clegs (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting combined with the fact that it is a black car leaves the image lacking pop. I don't think this image would attract readers interest. Mfield (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWeak Support Same for me as prev FP's of similar cars - It's just not very interesting... Doesn't make you stop as it's grabbed your interest... It's a mass produced, commonly seen car... Maybe in 20 years if this becomes a "classic" car this would be worthy of a FP but for now its just another car... for me a FP of a car needs to be a classic car, something with a bit of wow, something not seen that much hence need to see on wiki what it looks like... Sorry, but this is just a boring pic - excellent quality but boring... Gazhiley (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually there's nothing in the WP:FPC criteria which demands unusual or rare examples of things. For instance we have an FP of an everyday tomato. The EV of an image is of primary concern at en:FPC so as long as it's well photographed.... but I guess "wow" factor is inherently subjective so I guess you're free to hold that opinion --Fir0002 09:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so... I've changed my vote to weak support then as I still think for a "featured" picture it's rather plain, but it is excellent quality and meets the criteria... Gazhiley (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it looks like the pictures I can see when I open up almost any magazine. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good thing as far as quality and so on go? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 02:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Schematic showing retention of speed but change of direction in the video game Portal.
Reason
We don't yet have any FP related to any video game, and I thought that this might have a chance. Placed in the right context the image can be quite informative. First of all it illustrates a feature of the game's engine (passing through a portal will not alter your momentum, but only your direction), and it also represents the sort of schematics used by the developer to advertise Portal. This type of drawings have also become quite iconic for the game.
Support as nominator --Diego_pmcTalk 08:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simplistic, not very exiting graphic. Not FP material IMO. --Janke | Talk 08:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose - the image is iconic, but only to those who watched the Portal trailer (it wasn't in the actual game). The license is quite dubious - the image is a tracing of a still from the copyrighted trailer of a copyrighted game, the portals themselves are not stylised in the Portal way, and to many people this image wouldn't make any sense. Sorry. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone feel like raiding Category:Ubisoft screenshots (on commons)? MER-C 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somewhat per Janke, although I don't think diagram FPs have to be exciting. I think diagram FPs should be explanatory, simplistic, and beautiful (in the scientific sense of 'it explains a lot in a little space' if not in the sense of a aesthetics). In other words I should be able to look at it and with little or no explanation be able to figure out what's going on, and that's not the case here, because I don't understand what's going on even after reading a bit on it.D-rew (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much expected the image to be confusing t for a lot of people. It's pretty obvious that it has little chance of passing, but I would appreciate if you could also mention modifications that would improve the image in any way, especially by making it self explanatory (maybe an animation would be better suited?). Diego_pmcTalk 19:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that animation would be the way to go here, but I wonder whether that would run into copyright problems. I'm no copyright expert, but I'm honestly not really sure how this image doesn't. Is it not just basically a copy of a screenshot? I would also like to know if there is an historical/iconic nature to this image in regards to the game or gaming and if so why?D-rew (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'm pretty sure it doesn't violate any copyright laws. You can have a look at the official game trailer to see how the official schematics look like. Diego_pmcTalk 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it does. The game is iconic, this image isn't particularly so. It would also help if the arrows were labeled to show which event hapens first - it basically illustrates that momentum is conserved between portals. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough EV in my opinion. Fletcher (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an animation within this theme. As it is, the image requires too much explanation to be an effective diagram. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a picture, this doesn't really explain what's going on. An animation would work much better. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this graphic could be a whole lot more informative, but even so, it may still not be FP material. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 22:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is a lot of noise and jpeg artifacting. Mfield (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mfield. Also, limited view of building hurts EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I could like it to be sharper/less artifacted, but I think it's good enough. It focuses on a part of the building I can't remember seeing before; composition is cut off in order to focus on it.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison 1
Oppose per Mfield. The jpeg artifacts can even be seen at small scale. This is more snapshot material. To the right I offer a comparison (also a snapshot), shown as Comparison 1, which has greater saturation (bluer sky-yes that's what it looked like that day; more realistic colors for the fountain - i.e. the fountain looks more like that shown Comparison 1 IRL than it does in the FPC) and shows almost the same view (though at a more acute angle. I wouldn't nominate this image either b/c it doesn't meet FP requirements. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually your sky isn't particularly realistic given the strong vignette --Fir0002 05:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'm not sure why that happened; no other photo I took that day came out like that. But I'm not a professional and I only use a pocket Nikon, so I take what I get (or get what I take?). I still think my previous comments stand. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't think EV concerns about not showing the whole building are valid. This is a shot of the west portico and fountain where presidential inaugurations have occurred since Reagan.D-rew (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wasn't sure I liked the composition, but the technical quality makes it a moot point: just too noisy and artifacted. Fletcher (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very poor quality and little encyclopaedic relevance. The angle is not the best either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A lot of raindrops on a glass window of a building.Edit 1 - A simple level correction accentuates colors and very faintly shows secondary bow top left.
Reason
I think this phenomenon is well captured with this picture. Yes, it is a simple concept, but that doesn't mean the EV is low. It is a sight familiar for millions of people around the world and as I said, photographed in a decent manner. Further more, the picture is of a large resolution and doesn't contain technical flaws.
Abstain but suggestion: Edit 1 level correction brings out the colors, and even shows secondary bow. --Janke | Talk 14:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I also tried it myself, but the picture seems to become very pixelated. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the rainbow in the background has any relevance to the section in Rain this image appears in (especially given the caption which describes how rain saddens people). Aside from that it seems to be a fairly mediocre rainbow (compare the current FP) - Janke's edit is a step in the right direction but the quality is too much degraded. Also it looks like this was taken at a bit of an angle to the flat glass which left only a few drops in focus despite f/10 which is a bit of a shame --Fir0002 06:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what this image illustrates exactly, it doesn't show rainbows all that well. --Leivick (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject are the raindrops. The rainbow is purely to give it something extra. This picture is a lot better than the current FP:
The current FP illustrates more than just the raindrops. Muhammad(talk) 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current featured picture illustrates raindrops on a window (if they really need to be illustrated) better. The image with the Golden Gate bridge shows the distortion more clearly. --Leivick (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not as attractive as the Golden Gate bridge raindrop picture. And not a great deal of EV either. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 00:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as the removed/replaced nom: because we have a practically identical one already featured, the only difference is measuring by molarity vs. mass. I don't think we have two FPs of the same bird, taken 3 seconds or 30 cm apart... and if we have, one of them should be delisted. ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. If molarity is more commonly used, perhaps this image should replace the other as FP. Muhammad(talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is like taking a picture of the same bird, but from a different angle. I've no reason to oppose on that ground. However, this one contains much less of the information available in the version describing mass ranges. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; It is true that substances are less commonly measured by molarity, and that explains why there are less ones in this one. Still, however, there are several substances included here that are not seen in that mass one, since they are usually measured by molarity only. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 00:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The buildings on both sides tilt towards the middle-- perhaps the image can be corrected to fix this. Is there distortion of the stern of the ferry, or is the ferry really shaped like that? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original with spherical projection has the rear curved. The restitched version I think fixes that. Muhammad(talk) 18:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Doesn't add significant value to the articles -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does its share of illustrating the Ferry article particularly the docking section. Muhammad(talk) 04:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see a whole lot of EV in the ferry, and I find the framing a bit tight. The ferry looks quite distorted in the restitched version, too. Fletcher (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated original with better crop and slightly different stitch which removes the distortion. Muhammad(talk) 06:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Bengal Tiger, also called a Panthera tigris tigris, roaring showing its vicious teeth in the Hall of Biodiversity at the American Museum of Natural History. WP:FPC
Reason
good resolution, striking image, picture taken at a good angle.
Support as nominator --wikiraw31 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is dark, making the lights, reflections and shadows distracting, especially when the foreign object is the only thing that is flashed. As noticeable, the face has more brightness than the body, and the EV is quite not there. In addition, the stripe shown to the right of the face is distracting. ZooFari 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor encyclopedic value and photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for composition, lighting, sharpness. Cool pic but not FP material. Fletcher (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support user already !voted, above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC) - well thanks for the feedback guys and criticism, but I took a bunch of pictures at the American Museum of natural history using a Cannon 7.0 mega pixel, so I already assumed I am not going to get the best picture, I really focused on how the object would look at a certain angle. This was also for an assignment. And I'll leave with this being said, I am not a professional photographer with all the lighting gear or whatever it is with the nice expensive cameras. This image is temporary, It can be removed by whoever by next week, thank you. WiKiRaW31 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to remove this image, even if it isn't fp material. It still makes a good image accompanying an article. ZooFari 03:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix the double voting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting picture, but low encyclopedic value. The flash causes too much light in the face, and distracting reflections in the background. Rmacker 1:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Has a number of flaws, but the flash used is the cause of several of them. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The barred spiral galaxy NGC 1672, displays clusters of hot young blue stars along its spiral arms, and clouds of hydrogen gas glowing in red. Curtains of dust partially obscure and redden the light of the stars behind them. NGC 1672's symmetric look is emphasized by the four arms, edged by eye-catching dust lanes that extend out from the centre.Alternative 1 - hi-res, 5,302 × 3,805 pixels
Reason
A great spiral galaxy, has EV value. Has plenty of wow, the arms are very unique and the dust arms compliment it's distinctive shape. It is currently a featured picture on commons, it was a candidate for picture of the year 2007 and it was picture of the day on the English Wikipedia (but it isn't featured here?).
Support as nominator --– Jerryteps 11:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Higher res should be available. Also fixed creator - it's not the uploader... --Janke | Talk 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support Alt 1I'm not aware of the technicalities highlighted by Janke as I don't understand half of what he's talking about, but as a high quality picture, with good EV and hard to re-take I'm supporting this picture... Much better edit - crisper and a lot more detail... and thanks for saying what you meant - I just couldn't get my head around it! Definate wow... Can't help but think of left over tomato soup being washed down a kitchen sink though............. Gazhiley (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt. 1 I added the hires version. I was talking about an error in the nom, Jerry got it wrong. --Janke | Talk 14:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, sorry, i'm new to FPC. – Jerryteps 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem (others will fix any errors). Stay here a while, and you will learn a lot... and get to see fantastic pictures! ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Stay here a while, and you will learn a lot..." I second that - I didn't even know how to add comments or edit pages until I came here... And the pics are pretty good too! I've learnt a fair bit about photography too - almost tempted to go and take pics of random stuff near me as a consequence! Gazhiley (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then in your case, I think the FPC project has performed its second most important function - the first, obviously, is building a better encyclopedia! By all means, go and shoot pictures that can improve articles, and upload them, but don't be disappointed if at first, you don't succeed here at FPC. Try, and try again, until you succeed, is a good motto (except in skydiving... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i've really enjoyed FPC, there are some really great pictures here. – Jerryteps 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Andromeda Galaxy in infrared, by the Spitzer space telescope. The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy 2.5 million light-years away in the constellation Andromeda, making it the nearest spiral galaxy to the Milky Way. The exposure time of this image was 100 sec/pixel, and its scale is 2.8 x 0.8 degrees.
Reason
High res, great quality. Enormous EV, this is one of the best known galaxies in the universe, at least to us. Definitely the best quality image we have of it from the project.
Support as nominator --—Ceranthor 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the source of the colour in this image? Is there a larger version available? (Note the "halfsize" in the file name). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image appears to be colorized (arbitrarily - it could have easily been green or blue) based on incoming light at λ = 24 μm. See here. Higher resolution image. MER-C 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support high rez The one MER-C linked to above.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support high rez: Plenty of EV. But for me, the wow factor is lacking, i'd prefer a regular colour picture. (Striked because people mistook what I meant. (it was worded poorly) – Jerryteps 08:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infrared by definition doesn't have a visible colour, so I guess what you are really saying is that you'd prefer a real-colour image of the galaxy rather than infrared, but the actual information gained from it would be completely different and not comparable. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood what I was saying (It was worded poorly). It's that in my opinion, the infrared picture does not have as much visual appeal as a real colour picture would. But the picture has information that a real colour picture could never capture, it's that i'm taking a few "points" off because an infrared picture does not have the same visual appeal in my opinion as a real colour picture does. I shouldn't really of mentioned because it's not really that relevant since i'm still supporting and nothing could be done to fix it without loosing current detail. – Jerryteps 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Conditional support and comment You cannot get a "regular color picture" of this - it is an image of one single wavelength of infrared (24 micron)! This is a dramatic contrast to the traditional view at visible wavelengths, as the source page states. This info must be in the caption for me to support (only the hi-res version) ! --Janke | Talk 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was about to upload the high rez to a new file name when I realized it's about 21MB, whereas the halfsize is about 1KB. I expected it to be bigger, but not by four orders of magnitude. Can someone explain this discrepancy? (And upload a possibly compressed version of the hi rez to Commons?)--HereToHelp(talk to me) 13:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1,014 KB means 1.014 MB. Some countries use commas as thousands separator, others as decimal point. So, it's only 2 times 1 order of magnitude... --Janke | Talk 13:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes more sense. (Even so, 20x the size for about 4x or 5x the area?) Oh well.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 15:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support High Res The high resolution version when it gets uploaded. I think the arbitrary colouring needs to be mentioned somewhere though. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Full version uploaded, but can we move the file so that it's not "halfsize"? —Ceran [ speak ] 12:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A 180 degree view indicative of the geology and landscapes of the eastern side of the Grampians National Park, 3 hours west of Melbourne. The primary accomodation and services town of the Grampians, Halls Gap, is visible in the valley on the left side of the image.
Edit 1 - Reprocessed from scratch. Takes into account feedback by Debivort, Fir0002 and Janke. Main changes include slightly more saturation, slightly warmer colour balance, corrected overexposure of clouds in far left sky, slightly de-saturated blue colour cast on shadows, corrected variation in luminance of bushland in centre (assumed it was due to HDR exposure blending) and fixed stitching error. Phew!
Reason
Very high resolution exposure blended panoramic image of the geology of the Grampians National Park in Victoria, Australia. Please be aware that the panorama is essentially horizontal with no significant tilt (see horizon for confirmation of this). I know that the image appears a little tilted but this is an optical illusion caused by the perspective and the landscape of the right hand side.
Oppose for now Can you do something about the washed-out colors of the vegetation and the blue tint of the shadows? I know it's most probably due to light and haze, but it looks unnatural. --Janke | Talk 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a fair criticism IMO. The blue tint of the shadows is because the image is white balanced for the sunlight. Shadows are inherently more blue than sunlight on a clear day because the light they receive is scattered. The reason why we don't usually pay much attention to this fact is that usually shadows look much darker because a camera usually doesn't have the dynamic range to exposure 'in the middle' for both highlights and shadows. The main reason why it's more obvious here is because exposure blending was used and the shadows were lifted a bit. I know this isn't to everyone's tastes but it does allow you to see shadow detail clearly without sacrificing the rest of the scene. Also, I don't think the vegetation is really washed out. This is pretty typical for gum trees during the dry summer months in Australia. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom and explanation above, another great pano.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Per all the photography jargon, it simply looks better.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSupport Edit1 It looks some of the blueing effect is atmospheric. Even ignoring the shadows, it seemed to me as if the image was bluer to the left - putting an eyedropper on the the sunlit rocks on the left confirms more blue channel than those 180 degrees to right. I'd say it's a completely normal effect given the 180 degree FOV - if it turns out to be objectionable and it wasn't visible to the naked eye, a left-right graduated LBA warming filter in PS makes it go away completely. Mfield (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, it could well be partially atmospheric, as the backlit clouds on the left side of the frame would probably have some effect on the shadows on the right side. Whatever it is, I don't believe it was introduced in post-processing, anyway, since they were all identically (and fairly accurately, IMO) white balanced from RAW files. I couldn't tell you if it was visible with the naked eye or not, but obviously our eyes are pretty good at ignoring slight differences in white balance. I don't personally find it objectionable, but we'll see what others think. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:1000px-Grampians Panorama from Pinnacle - Nov 2008.jpg
Not for voting! Low-res example with selective de-blueing of shadows at left, slight saturation boost in green
Comment I'd like to see something with this color balance - more pleasing to the eye, and hopefully not too far from the real-life scene... Can you do something like that, maybe not quite as strong? --Janke | Talk 19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, although I would agree with you that it shouldn't be that strong. Australian bushland does not have as much green as european forests do. Given Fir0002 also has some reservations, I'll go back to the RAW files and see if I can reach a compromise on exposure/colour somewhere. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are some stitching errors on the ridge on the right, about a third of the way up. deBivort 20:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 I couldn't spot the stitching error(s) (but would want them fixed if they exist). I think the white balance is fine frankly, and the colour of the vegetation etc is realistic. What was the non exposure blended left side like? You could selectively burn it just to make it more realistic but keep some detail. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found one minor stitching error where the foreground meets the background on the right hand side (will correct this) but I suspect what Debivort could have been refering to is the slight movement of the tops of the trees in the foreground (it was pretty windy up there, dispite looking tranquil in photos). The movement was captured between the 3 exposure shots, and ends up looking a bit similar to how some stitching software deals with gaps or parallax faults (it duplicates detail over the seam line - poorly). One particularly bad example is this, although I've never seen a stitcher make such a hash out of the bottom of the image like that, so it may actually be a dodgy photoshop job (especially considering he feels the need to claim there is no photoshopping in the image and considering the obvious and similar photoshopping of his other images). ;-) Anyway, unlike a stitching fault, this is far more difficult to fix and is somewhat analogous to motion blur during a long exposure, I suppose. In any case, I think it is pretty minor fault and difficult to notice without pixel peeping. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 03:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mistated where I saw it. A third from the top, not the bottom. I also misspelled your name in the temp file (sorry!). deBivort 09:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, complaining about the tree thing would be nitpicking imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Grampians Panorama from Pinnacle - Nov 2008 edit small.jpg
Not for voting! Low-res example with some editing
Comment I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the blue shadows, and in fact the whole image seems a little washed out. Also given this is a HDR is there any chance of recovering the blown clouds on the LHS? I've also put up an edit - see what people think before I upload a full res one --Fir0002 07:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Yeah that's better --Fir0002 06:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to Janke above, I'll reprocess the RAW files and see what I can do to address your concerns, although I think my explanation above regarding the colour of the shadows is completely reasonable. We don't see it with our eyes because we unconciously adjust to local white balance differences and we don't usually see it in photos because they're far more underexposed and colour is harder to distinguish when dark. That said, if it 'looks wrong' (even if it is fundamentally accurate), I suppose it can be adjusted. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Re your comment above: Explanation reasonable - yes. But the image is definitely more pleasing to the eye with that blue cast removed. --Janke | Talk 17:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Looks just as I remember it - better now it's regrown after the fires a few years ago. I do note that there is a soft patch on the rocks about 6800 pix in from the left (440 in from the top)...is this a stitching software issue ? - Peripitus(Talk) 04:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 looks good to me now. deBivort 05:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 nice panorama with a view! Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Grampians Panorama from Pinnacle Edit 1 - Nov 2008.jpg --Fir0002 07:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you supposed to close stuff you vote on these days? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter when the consensus is so clear as in this case and someone had to do it because shock horror it's already a day overdue! --Fir0002 08:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Eritrean Railway, showing mountainous terrain traversed between Arbaroba and Asmara. Photo taken on 4 November 2008.Edit1 by jjron. Adjusted levels, reduced highlights, and sharpened.
Reason
Self nom. After discussion at Picture Peer Review, and with User:jjron, I have decided to nominate this image. I believe it has good composition, and well represents the mountainous terrain traversed by this remarkable railway. jjron has made some digital tweaks to improve the contrast, which can be seen in this image.
Edit 2 of original, by Papa Lima Whiskey. Reduced fade, a touch of white balance. No sharpening.Edit 3 by Fir0002. Downsampled as well as sharpening/levels
Support as nominator -- — Tivedshambo (t/c) 12:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Loved it at PPR, and it's still (somehow, ;)) quite good. —Ceran♦♦ (speak) 13:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of high enc, and because it just looks so cute - like a model railroad! Technically, it could be sharper, but we can't always get all we want... --Janke | Talk 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What does this illustrate about Eritrean railways? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a steam train crossing one of the many viaducts on the Eritrean Railway. The line runs from sea level at the port of Massawa, climbing severe gradients to a height of over 7,000 feet (2,100 m) at the Eritrean capital, Asmara. Whilst a railway like this is not unique, it is certainly very unusual. This photograph helps to show the terrain the line runs through, and give some indication of how high the line climbs. Hope this answers your question! — Tivedshambo (t/c) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, preference to Edit1. As per my comments at PPR; no it's not technically perfect, especially with sharpness, but to me the minor technical flaws are not deal breakers, given the good composition and EV, and its illustration of places and things somewhat under-represented in FPs. The edit just adds a bit more 'punch' (hope you don't mind me adding it for consideration). --jjron (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: Support Edit1 in preference to Original, Oppose Edit2 & Edit3. --jjron (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original the sharpness is just about acceptable. I can't support edit 1, sorry - the sharpening doesn't really add any detail and just emphasises the noise. Time3000 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either any edit Levels adjustment makes a bigger difference than any adjustment in sharpening etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edited images -Great shot! Very good composition and high educational value although if the image has more clear tone, it would've been perfect. How did you take it, just from a higher road?--Caspian blue 01:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is now geocoded, so you can see for yourself, but the most likely candidate is a higher road. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was from the beside the public road from Asmara from Massawa. — Tivedshambo (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 07:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I quite like this scene - makes me want to go photograph Puffing Billy - but unfortunately the technical quality is rather poor --Fir0002 06:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 3 --Fir0002 06:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a downsample too when I first did my edit. As I commented at PPR "A downsize to about 1600px wide helps and still easily makes the FPC size limits, but consequently makes the central feature, the train, a bit insignificant in size." That's why I eventually decided the bigger version was better despite the technical concerns that get more 'hidden' when downsized. --jjron (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 3, weak support others Definitely captivates my interest. Not to many FP's from Eritrea. SpencerT♦C 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Support edit 1 after further viewing. SpencerT♦C 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 3 Down sampling was a good idea as were the adjustments to contrast ect. Unusual subject matter overrides minor technical problems. --Leivick (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 In this case I prefer to see the detail even if it exposes more of the flaws. Don't really oppose the other edits, though. Fletcher (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way, that edit was explicitly rejected by two, and only explicitly supported by three. Additionally, you have to exclude any of the !votes that supported "any edit" before edit 3 was nominated. I just can't see how you can come to the conclusion that edit 3 is the supported version in this case. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be reopened due to a premature closing. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is unclear, relisted for further discussionWronkiew (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you need extra input, I prefer original or edit 1. --Janke | Talk 14:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC) (Moved from above to correct position)[reply]
Comment - my preference is for original or edits 1 or 2. Sorry Fir, but I find edit 3 a little bit over-bright, and I prefer images to be as large as possible. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - EV and quality are good. I like the original because the view shows more of the insect rather just from one direction (what we engineers like to call isometric versus plan view). Isometric typically offers a better overall viewing in my line o' work. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Good sharpness and DOF on this macro, and the exposure seems about right, showing the shiny wings without any major blown highlights. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 06:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for quality and EV. Fletcher (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Original They are reasonably sharp and so on but I don't however think the lighting is ideal. Due to the relatively large size of the subject (110-120mm wingspan) the light is pretty much on-axis and resultantly not particularly pleasing. The alternate in particular has that direct on axis flash look to it due to the glossy leaves. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --ZooFari 03:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Clean picture, good amount of detail. Vegpuff (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose By the looks I'm assuming this image was a scan? This has the problem that the DOF is extremely shallow to the degree that there are several odd blurry bits. Also the leaves are unattractively folded. This was a not bad effort but I'd like to see you have another go at it as it should be fairly easy to redo --Fir0002 22:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was scanned, as I didn't like the results with my camera. I definitly could aquire a better one, but all my celery have aged and only good for eating. I will have to wait for a while to nominate a new one. Thanks again in advance. ZooFari 04:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF issues. Also looks a little wilted, like it has been sitting out for a while. For such an easy to acquire subject there is no reason to promote an image with technical issues. --Leivick (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the celery leaf itself is rather unattractive, some of the leaves are folded over and most are somewhat shriveled. Icewedge (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I quite like the composition though.D-rew (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Fine EV but poor technical quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SvinayaGolova 08:07,5 April 2009 (UTC) That is not a picture of the celery. This is picture of leaves of the cilantro. Image must be removed from the article "Celery" —Preceding unsigned comment added by SvinayaGolova (talk • contribs)
Support as nominator --Zoharby (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure how to add the FPC template to the image, since it was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia and the page was then deleted after moving to Commons. --Zoharby (Zoharby 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposethis version "previous original", but would support the 12 MB version, previously uploaded but overwritten with this. This 4 MB version has lost a lot of detail in the compression, and has a noticeable oversharpening halo. --Janke | Talk 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that should be reverted to the 12 Meg version. Any edit that severe should be uploaded as a completely different filename. Mfield (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the original and uploaded the edit separately Noodle snacks (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original and the edit above direct to the same image. Muhammad(talk) 10:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 12 MB version, now labeled as "original". --Janke | Talk 14:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 12 MB version. FPs from this part of the world are pretty much lacking. Sorry about the labelling but i couldn't really be bothered uploading 12 MB as I have limited up bandwidth, so revert and upping the smaller one was easier. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support consensus version as per my comments on the PPR nom, and as per Noodle Snacks. As I pointed out there, it's possibly not perfect, but in the unlikely event a better version comes along we can delist and replace. --jjron (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Resized_pan-flaming-cropped2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question How big is it? The article gives no size range. Mfield (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's approx 20mm in size --Fir0002 07:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose decent image, but I feel EV is low as the rear portion of the spider is out of focus. --Leivick (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, and yes I've said this numerous times, due to physical limitations this is as good as is possible in terms of DOF (20mm just isn't going to happen). There's no way (apart from focus stacking which is not practical for wild non-sedated insects) of getting a better photo. --Fir0002 09:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there definitely are ways of getting a better photo. An overhead shot where the spider is more or less at one depth would be one that I can think of. Right now this is only a FP of half a spider. --Leivick (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider the overhead view but the downside there is that you lose one of the jumping spider's most important features - its eyes. --Fir0002 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also it would seem, based off this relatively recent nom, that even explicit "half an insect" shots do not fail on EV. Given that in this image you can quite clearly get an idea of what it's abdomen looks like I think this is still a very nice shot. And it would be a shame to see all spider shots regaled to a top down view... Just some thoughts --Fir0002 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I really wish the back half was in focus. But I'm willing to overlook that because this shows a lot of detail up front. I don't think an overhead shot would be much of an improvement. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Depth of field is a serious problem. I don't agree with the prospect of yet another overhead shot of a spider, and I like the view of the spider in this image. I understand the physical limitations of taking a photo such as this, but the image loses significant EV due to a lack of focus. Elucidate(light up) 08:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough you consider the DOF a problem, but the rest of your comment seems a direct contradiction to it. 1. You like the front on view (I'm glad and agree that it makes an agreeable change from the conventional perspective) and 2. you recognise that it is physically impossible to improve on the DOF if this perspective is to be employed. Yet you still oppose this nom? --Fir0002 10:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite possible to do a focus stack in the field, even if you just put your camera in burst mode and slowly lean in (or out) to get the set of shots. You need decent software to put it together though. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offence but have you tried? Unless you're shooting a beetle or a large spider then the insect is almost constantly in motion. Jumping spiders in particular are very active (especially their pedipalps) and this specimen was no exception. Also unless you were extremely careful with your leaning you're likely to end up with missing bits which are not nice and you will probably motion blur your shot to boot (not to mention issues with burst and flash recycle time!). I wouldn't go so far to say it's impossible, but it is very difficult indeed and not something to risk when the spider is likely to disappear at any second! :) --Fir0002 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, you do need an inactive subject, Image:Unidentified_Caterpillar.jpg was a hand-held focus stack, the stitcher got a bit fooled by all the hair though. I wouldn't try a complete stack, just can be sparingly useful if you get 2-3 shots. I don't think motion blur would be an issue with a 1/8000th sec or whatever flash burst. I don't know what the recharge time on the MT-24EX is like either. I can shoot my 430ex practically indefinitely at 3fps and 1/16th though. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a guy that says he regularly does them handheld. He has a website here and seems fairly prolific in various forums etc for macro photography. I believe he uses a beanpole for support. Doesn't mean it would have been practical here though. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah for sure that guy has plenty of nice shots but I still maintain that a successful focus stack would have been unlikely here. I only managed to get three or four other shots of him (with stuff in the way) before he disappeared and they were all obviously in different positions --Fir0002 10:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF isn't ideal, but frankly I think the out of focus half is similar enough to the front that you can still tell what is going on. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A ~180 degree panoramic image of Melbourne's Hoddle Grid (CBD) and Southbank on the right side, as viewed from the Rialto Observation Deck
Alternative 1 - As above but stitched with a slightly different projection (equirectangular) which compresses the vertical extremes.
Reason
Probably the most complete view possible of the Melbourne skyline (short of hiring a helicopter), taken from the observation deck of the Rialto Towers. Sunny and clear conditions make visibility excellent. It replaces this image in the Melbourne article and this image in the Rialto Towers article.
Support great image, looks near perfect technically and illustrates downtown Melbourne very well, lots of great detail. --Leivick (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Detail is great, but I find the distortion in the lower parts of the image very off-putting and not really representative of reality - the river doesn't curve like that, the grid doesn't curve like that... Is there anyway to reprocess without this problem? It's possibly due to a big variation in the vertical orientation of the camera as you took the photos? I'd actually prefer a far smaller field of view if it meant a more realistic representation of the location. --jjron (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're right, it is simply the fact that you're practically looking straight down at the bottom. Straight lines and extreme wide angle images with ~180 degrees or above horizontal projection are simply mutually exclusive and something has got to give, so not much can really be done about it. It is perfectly representative of reality if you can visualise the projection. ;-) Well ok, there is one thing that I can do. Equirectangular projection minimises the perception of extreme projection by compressing the image vertically. In other words, the further the image deviates from the horizon vertically, the more compressed it is. I originally stitched it with cylindrical projection, which doesn't do this, as I thought it was actually a good thing that you appear to be able to 'look straight down', but you may prefer the equirectangular version, which I have just uploaded and placed alongside the original. Does this alleviate your issues? If not, I don't think there is anything that can be done, short of cropping out the bottom of it (and I don't think we should, personally, as we'd lose valuable detail). I do think that most viewers would be clever enough to appreciate that the city streets don't really curve like that though. All wide panoramas to some extent exhibit this issue. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that maybe this image is trying to do too much. For example, if we take looking east down the Collins St/Flinders St block as pretty much 'straight ahead' here, the Crown Towers (the tall oval building at far right for non-locals) is about 135° behind you (correct me if get this wrong). And the Yarra River that does a right angle turn at the right of this image in reality goes pretty much straight ahead. I've mentioned before that I don't like 360° panos, and it's largely for the same reason as this - they just seem to be doing too much and end up leading to confusion rather than clarity, thus costing EV. I may be particularly unimaginative, but I just struggle to (as you say) 'visualise the projection' on these things. Maybe a crop would help, say to the right of the Eureka Tower and a similar amount off the left, and a bit off the bottom. I know it would lead to a greatly reduced scope of view and would sadly lose some good distant info, and that's maybe not what you want, but I think it would be more comprehensible on encyclopaedic grounds. --jjron (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The cylindrical projection looks better at full size but it looks odd at any thumbnail resolution, stretching the buildings vertically. (including resolutions typical for the image page), my preference would be for the rectilinear. I think there is a levelling problem with both images though, all the verticals on the buildings lean to the right. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rectilinear is impossible at or beyond 180, and impractical anywhere close to it. Thegreenj 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was half asleep, equirectangular Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess technically there's not much you can do about the bending, but as jjron mentioned I'd have preferred some cropping (particularly on the RHS to avoid the bending of the Yarra) at the expense of detail/scope. Nice day for it! I'm really interested too on your experience at the Rialto, as it's a venue I've been planning to visit for years - how good was it photographically? Eg were the windows clean etc? I'm also planning a ride on this when it opens --Fir0002 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good building but the day I was there the windows were a bit dirty but it has open area on two of it's corners (IIRC). Bidgee (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with Bidgee, the windows were quite dirty. It wasn't a problem though as you don't need to stop down as DOF isn't really an issue at infinity focus. As Bidgee said, there are two open areas (facing east, the direction this was shot from, and also west towards the docklands) with bars that you can shoot through (makes it slightly difficult to shoot through them at an angle though as they're only just wide enough for big lenses, I could just squeeze the 24-105mm and 17-40mm through and turn them enough to shoot this 180 degree pano). I tried to do a 360 degree pano but it really didn't work as there was too much parallax error, not to mention that I found that unless I shot literally against the glass, I got a bit of reflection/refraction in the glass. That was fine for a single shot but you simply couldn't stitch multiple images properly. Worth a visit, definitely (they let you re-enter so you can shoot both daytime and evening on the same ticket, although I didn't have time to do that unfortunately), but not ideal shooting conditions. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fir, it could be worth trying the Eureka Towers. Since you're looking from across the Yarra you get a better view looking north right across the city centre from a quite different angle and you're higher up, and also fairly good photo ops across to the east and south-east of the city. Something like this may work OK from there if you can get the camera right. Negatives - it's more expensive, the outside area is, I'd say, even more limited than this (there's only one out on the eastern side with a bit of a northerly aspect, and if I remember correctly it's fully caged so you have to shoot through the 'grid' rather than poking the lens thru), and from inside the windows are heavily tinted so it's tricky to shoot thru them, much as Diliff mentions for the Rialto. It's not great for photography, but could be worth trying if you want something different. --jjron (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original: The alternative makes the buildings too small, also, I don't really like the low level buildings/houses in the background, but if you crop it, you would lose the sky. – Jerryteps 00:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original: Been up there and know how hard it can be and not much can be done to fix it (Unless you spend some time in Photoshop). Bidgee (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative 1 looks much better as thumb and at full res. —Krm500(Communicate!) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both are fine.--Avala (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original: The alt-1 shows unusually small building sizes. Gr8 work! --GPPande 13:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Fire activity during the 2006-7 bushfire season as observed from Swifts Creek on the 11th of January 2007.
Reason
A powerful image of a very large approaching bushfire. This was taken on a scorching day from the top of our property in Swifts Creek looking towards Dargo. Fortunately the fire never reached Swifts Creek but the threat was very real --Fir0002 10:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some parts of the smoke is a overexposed but that can't be helped unless you have a filter (such as a polarizer) but other then that displays the power of a major bushfire every well. Bidgee (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - All we can see is smoke coming from behind the hills. Not exceptional EV in my opinion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't actually depict fire activity, more like distant smoke activity. Wildfire in contrast has some livelier pics. I can see why it would be exciting to the nom, as a local resident, but it's less so to me. I actually prefer this surreal landscape also by Fir0002, assuming the color balance reflects actual conditions. Fletcher (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Were there is smoke there is fire! It's impossible to get near a major bushfire such as the one above but it does display the power (Stronger the fire more dense the smoke is and high it goes) also wildfires are not really the same as a bushfire since it's a different country, different plants plus a different climate. Bidgee (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to say I would expect Fir0002 to put his life in danger for a FP, but it isn't impossible to get close to a bushfire, just reckless. It happens all the time and plenty of impressive photography has been taken of bushfires, albeit probably by firefighters and brave journalists embedded in fire crews. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, time to rip out that 400mm... Noodle snacks (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to concur with Alvegaspar and Fletcher. In a FP of a bushfire, I want to see the fire... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yeah, for the same reasons as above, I agree. It does add to the article, no doubt, but this image won't set the world on fire *cough*. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very "pretty" picturesque photo, but has low educational value. You can try quality photo at Commons.--Caspian blue 19:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --CaSclafani (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The blue hue is the major problem for this image. ZooFari 04:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Zoofari, who knew Brazilian Porcupines were so sad?D-rew (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Water selectively adsorbs and scatters parts of the light spectrum. The effect is increased with depth. Therefore you need to provide a light source (eg flash) to get realistic colour. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally confused by the hue of this picture! I'm pretty sure it's not water... I've never heard of a porcupine underwater. 65.112.12.39 (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there any way we could remove some a lot of the blue tint? it's still a valuable contribution to the project. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you'd just end up with something practically monochromatic, one might as well convert it to black and white... Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the blue was the actual lighting at the zoo exhibit. I dont think it's normally a day light creature so they make it work for the animal, that being said i enjoy the effect it gives the picture. CaSclafani (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken on a canon 350D. If the photographer took the picture in RAW it's just a matter of clicking a button to correct white balance. If it wwas taken in jpeg then all is lost(literally).Victorrocha (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this was taken in RAW it would be unrecoverable to an acceptable level - the colour data just isn't there. Oh and Oppose per above --Fir0002 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... I've taken pictures with a completely different white balance and even with tinted lights and it seems to come out just as good as any other... Perhaps a different method of RAW conversion? Victorrocha (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly use DPP for RAW conversion. I take kindergarten photos and have used bounce flash on painted ceilings which obviously casts a tint on the pictures. And from my experience, and I flatter myself that I'm fairly adept with post processing, you can never recover a natural light/colour balance. Yes you can improve the image, but you'll always be able to tell. In an extreme case such as this I highly doubt you'll even get to a reasonable degree of colour accuracy. I've never worked with such an extreme case however so I might be mistaken --Fir0002 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I work on editing images, and I am well experienced with the physical science of the visible spectrum. This image doesn't reveal much true color, therefore it can not be restored. As mentioned before, it ends up monochromatic because the only color here is really just blue. In other words, it contains only the contrast, brightness, and hue of cyan shown in the color spectrum (you'd understand if you know deeply how the visible spectrum works). Unless photographly acquired a RAW compatible image (image with little or more color), there is no way this image's color will be improved. Even if you try, you will see that the hue will always remain blue. ZooFari 04:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me summarise as I understand it: basically the issue is when the light source is literally missing part of the visible light spectrum (eg with sodium lights, bounce flash off a coloured wall, etc) then it doesn't matter if you try to correct it with white balance, it will always be missing that spectrum component. However, if it was just a white balance issue when processing, then yes it probably could be corrected if you went back to the RAW file. So really, without knowing the lighting conditions, you cannot really know for sure whether it is recoverable. Certainly though, it looks pretty unrecoverable from the JPEG. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well RAW is very interesting in the fact that it saves an image uncompressed by saving the actual "colors" of the photons that hit the sensor. The white balance is just a change of the tint made to the overall picture. Diliff is right in saying that once it is converted to jpeg all hope is lost for recovery (which is why I switched to RAW). Victorrocha (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the problem here is that the blue is almost certainly not coming from a white balance problem but from the zoo's lighting for nocturnal animals; to use your words, "the actual 'colors' of the photons that hit the sensor" are blue. Thegreenj 03:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assuming that the blue tint is the actual lighting at the zoo exhibit, this photo shows the animal in its natural (domesticated) environment. The picture is of high resolution, focused nicely, and the subject is well placed in the frame. Rmacker 6:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
File:1040px-Coendou prehensilis 2 - Buffalo Zoo.jpgNot for voting - there is some color in it... ;-)
Comment re spectrum, monochromatic light etc: There is some info in all RGB channels, but R is severely degraded due to its underexposure. There is no way of correcting the colors and maintain image quality, but the color info is there. (I use to edit images, too... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The EV is poor without a reasonable amount of colour. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The colour is not an error but the real light they use in the zoo. It has high EV to show how are the living conditions of the Brazilian Porcupine recreated in the artificial environment.--Avala (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if this is how the lighting appears in the exhibit, the image is in Brazilian Porcupine, where it has drastically reduced enc. SpencerMerry Christmas! 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 21:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yet another, another, etc., excellent restoration. —Ceran [speak ] 22:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral. —Ceran [ speak ] 20:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support kind of a small image but definitely historical, high EV. Fletcher (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image and historically significant. Epson291 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Even though the portrait depicts an important figure, that does not justify the poor quality of the image itself. The image is too blurry, and the overall tone could've been adjusted to warmer tones given the image is a historical one.(brownish tones etc) A feature article deserves a featured picture, when possible -> If we're lucky, that would be great for readers, but I don't believe this image deserves to be "featured picture". Just because of the fact that the picture is placed on the featured article does make the picture a "feature picture". --Caspian blue 03:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The color balance of this image has not been altered (compare to the original). It wouldn't be in keeping with the purpose of restoration to introduce sepia tones where none existed (generally one tries to reduce that in images where it does exist). Regarding the rest, there were technical limitations to photomechanical print reproductions 98 years ago. This isn't an etching. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not an etching work, but details are missing in the image. Yes, many old pictures have excessive sepia cast, but well, that would be my preference. If you, instead nominated another portrait placed at the top of Emma Goldman even though it is more blurry than this image, I would support you because that is more "interesting" and "artistic" as well as capturing her character well. Also it is not used on the mentioned article.--Caspian blue 06:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that historical EV does not make up for the image quality is a valid objection, but arguing we should doctor images to make them look old is not, IMO. I don't think we should add sepia or B&W software filters as those are artistic effects (which have their place), but this is an encyclopedia. Fletcher (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood me. I'm not happy with the cold and pale tone of the image which could be adjusted as adding warmer tones. --Caspian blue 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is very poor. It might have a better chance at VPCMuhammad(talk) 08:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm with the opposers. Good EV and well integrated in the artcicle, but the image itself is not good enough to reach FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose - Although the restoration is excellent, the original image is rather poor. As you can see from an alternate version of the image[2] (which is also poor but for different reasons), the contrast on this image is blown and many details are missing or intentionally blurred (compare the edges). Both versions of this image that are housed by the LoC seem to be poor reproductions of an earlier image that is lost. Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cropped a bit tight at the top of the head and full of the sort of faults that were common of photography at the time, but an interesting portrait and a good restoration. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good finding of a good portrait of Oscar Wilde. The dreamy and narcissistic mood convey the author's image very well.--Caspian blue 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Encyclopedic subject. —Ceran [speak ] 22:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thinking, with that outfit, the placement into the sexuality section of the article is entirely appropriate. Fletcher (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Epson291 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:A Wilde time 3.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. In case you were wondering I am strongly opposed to snake handling, based on Matthew 4:7 as well as common sense. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposetoo small per criteria. Higher quality image is better, but I don't see the historical value which would require a B&W image. --Leivick (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel J. Leivick. Since this is demonstrating snake handling, not historical snake handling a newer, better quality photograph could be produced. There seem to be a few new people around at FPC, welcome! Noodle snacks (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that someone also needs to crop out the border Noodle snacks (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose No historic value in this picture, to be Black and White. A better color picture would add encyclopedic value. Vegpuff (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if there was a historical value I would support it but this way I don't see anything special in this image.--Avala (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With a little restoration (fixing scratches) I'd support this image-- I think it's well-composed and encyclopedic. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Certainly large enough to fit the criteria (I wonder whether Leivick misread the information), but no particular reason is given why this needs to be a historical depiction; the practice still exists. Not enough photographic merit to stand on its own as an FP independent of special historical context. DurovaCharge! 03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to defend my initial oppose, I have to point out that a higher image was uploaded since I cast my initial vote. I still oppose do to lack of historical context. --Leivick (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, thanks. My oppose stands unless a unique historical context emerges. DurovaCharge! 22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - From Gustave Doré's illustrations of the story of Noah's Ark: Doomed men and beasts try desperately to save their children as God floods the world.
Reason
It's by Gustave Doré, usually considered a master engraver, and scanned at very, very high resolution. As I now have a genuine original-plate Victorian printing of the Doré Bible, there will be a number of plates from this, but I will try and choose just the best 10-20% for FP.
This image is a powerful depiction of the doomed men and beasts in the story of Noah's Ark trying desperately and futilely to save their children. A much-lower-resolution version of this was already used throughout Wikipedia (I've replaced it), this high-res version improves on that, while retaining the encyclopedic value.
Support Good EV and just a beautiful picture. Makeemlighter (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wonderful find and highly encyclopedic, but the coloration of the paper bothers me. I realize that you've scanned this from an antique book so the paper will have yellowed, but can color correction or brightening be done to improve contrast so that this looks more like it did when the book was originally printed? Spikebrennan (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it could be, but I thought I'd try a more minimal restoration for once. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportdeBivort 08:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have liked a better colouration, but its not enough to make me oppose. SpencerMerry Christmas! 02:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Gustave Doré - The Holy Bible - Plate I, The Deluge.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A panoramic view over Camp Cove beach, a site of historical importance as it was here that the first landing of the First Fleet took place in Port Jackson while searching for a suitable site for the initial convict colony in Australia. Watsons Bay is now a wealthy harbourside, eastern suburb in Sydney.
Reason
An informative photo that provides a good view of the houses, beach, bays and recreation of Watsons Bay in Sydney on a warm sunny weekend.
Comment Is the picture tilted? Muhammad(talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, I've looked at that before and it seems to be an optical illusion from the coastline and also because the horizon is not visible. All the vertical lines (edges of buildings) seem vertical everywhere. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 18:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's an optical illusion. The land around Sydney Harbour is quite hilly, and the land on the 'horizon' in this picture looks to slope down quite a bit to the water, thus giving it the illusion of being a bit tilted. --jjron (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Technical quality is there but I'm less sure of the EV -- it looks like almost any resort beach. Plymouth Rock at least has a rock (which itself is rather underwhelming!) but I don't see anything historical depicted here. If the geography is what is encyclopedic I'd prefer a wider view of the surrounding area, if possible. The picture of The Gap for example shows some of the topography of the area and the relation to Sydney. Fletcher (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It illustrates the location Watsons Bay, not the history of Sydney. Anway, I don't think you need a rock or monument so the tourists can have their photo taken next to it, for the site to be historical. It just happens to be a historic site. Oh, and I've been to the Plymouth Rock too, and I agree, it is very underwhelming! Perhaps the caption is slightly misleading for the nomination, as the mention of historical significance is not to 'sell' the nomination, but just as a little interesting aside, so yes, the image mainly to illustrate the location/geography. It isn't a beach resort, it is a normal (albeit nice and quaint) harbourside suburb in Sydney. No hotels, no resorts. It is basically 100% residential. If you say it looks like any resort beach, so be it, but it is what it is, a local relatively non-touristy beach. I took another photo (see other versions on the image page) that was a wider angle but I wouldn't say it really shows more of the geography, as it shows less of Watsons Bay, but does have the bonus of showing the location relative to the city. I can't think of a location or way of showing more of the local geography than this image does. Yes, the image of The Gap (slightly misleading as The Gap is the space of water at the entrance to Sydney Harbour which is behind the photographer) shows more of the topography, but the composition is a little messy, has a number of stitching faults and doesn't show the beaches. Ironically that photo was taken by another random contributor on exactly the same day that mine was taken on. You can see the clouds over the same part of the city as in mine. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're mistaken Diliff. The Gap is the name used for the cliffs visible in the other image, best known for being a favoured suicide location, not the space between the heads at the entrance to the harbour. See The Gap, New South Wales. FWIW I can't help but wonder why the other contributor didn't add his picture to The Gap article (which is without an image), rather than the Watsons Bay article. --jjron (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I stand corrected, you're right. I always assumed it was the actual gap (logical to assume I suppose). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd always thought it a bit of a funny name for the cliffs, though never thought of it as a possible term for the opening to the harbour, but when I read your comment I thought that it probably was a pretty logical assumption to make. --jjron (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Nom. --Fir0002 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the busy nature of this type of picture its excellent quality and the colours are brilliant... Damn you tho Diliff every new pic you put on here makes my longing to go back to Aus even greater... If you happen to venture to the north west at any time feel free to stop in on Broome and go crazy with ur camera! Mind you, I may ACTUALLY quit and emigrate after seeing those pictures! Gazhiley (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not sure how this location could be photographed much better, therefore seems to hold good EV, and quality is of course very good. If I'm not mistaken we can see a part of the city in the background, therefore also provides a context to Sydney - if so, then perhaps a little more to the right would have shown more and helped to satisfy at least one of Fletcher's concerns. --jjron (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with the picture; I guess I am just not convinced the location itself has a lot of EV. Fletcher (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. I can see stitching errors on the waves in a place or two, but I think its practically impossible to avoid and no great loss Noodle snacks (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It took a long time to download, but worth it. Good quality and composition Muhammad(talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Caption in image shows me enough EV, good quality. SpencerMerry Christmas! 01:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Watsons Bay - Camp Cove Beach, Sydney 2 - Nov 2008.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical problems mostly. Blown highlights on most of the flowers in the blue channel, not very sharp even with heavy downsampling, a narrower aperture may help, but there is quite visible motion blur. Composition is a tad "cut off" at the bottom too. Since you are probably between a rock and a hard place with higher ISO performance I'd probably recommend a cheap tripod and the countdown timer on a still day to get a sharp shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noodle snacks, especially because of composition issues described above, as well as some technical ones. SpencerMerry Christmas! 02:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 15:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good close up, in natural environment, of a native Australian specie. Exemplifies the line: "Despite being so brightly colored and having distinctive marks it blends in well with its rainforest home".
Support as nominator --Zoharby (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the encyclopaedic value would be greater without the "cut off" composition. The technical quality also leaves much to be desired, it is fairly soft, noisy and the levels need adjusting. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added an alternate version, with almost all of the body showing. Background has some blown out highlights though. As for noise and softness, that's the quality my camera gives out... Zoharby (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative version is better, but it still doesn't meet the technical requirements I am afraid. You might try valued pictures if it has been stably in the article for a month. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative version I think that shows the camoflauge effect well which makes for an interesting picture, not just a portrait of the animal. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Though enc is much higher in the alternate, softness, noise, and blown highlights (especially in the alt.) prevent me from supporting. SpencerT♦C 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with you otherwise, but the blown highlights aren't really relevant in the background where they look fine in my opinion. If anything it is a tad underexposed Noodle snacks (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to address some of the problems. Uploaded Alternate Edit1, which was processed with noise cleaning and sharpening. I think it's quite better. As for the blown highlights in the background, there was really nothing I could do. Rain forests tend to be shady, with small patches of direct sunlight penetrating through the thick vegetation. Using flash with a lower exposure would have caused the rest of the background to be way too dark, missing the whole camouflage effect. Zoharby (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only the technical quality stops me from supporting as the composition and EV are very good. I agree with Noodle snacks that blown highlights in the background are not very problematic and not distracting. Only if the blown highlights are in the subject or ruin the composition (ie completely washed out white sky) should it really matter. I think that should probably be cleared up in the criteria, if we can agree on it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded Alternate Edit3 - Selective extra-sharpening on foreground only, same noise reduction as Edit1. This is my final attempt to get it to a higher quality. Hope you find it good enough... Zoharby (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added edit 4, using what probably are superior denoising and sharpening algorithms. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redid my edit - less yellowish green cast now, no more dead space in histogram. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shadows are much too dark. Has a "drawing-like" feeling, probably due to over-aggressive noise cleaning. Doesn't really look natural anymore. Zoharby (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, may I congratulate you on having taken such a noisy photograph? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you adjust the black point a bit? Maybe that's what he is referring to. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original is swimming in green, which may be roughly representative of the setting (or not, hard to tell), but an image free of cast is better for illustrating the subject imho. Dragging up the exposure afterwards should be easy enough - I don't know if this camera does RAW, which obviously would be ideal to go back to. Someone may also have the opportunity to edit the existing jpeg in 16 or 32 bit colour space before going back to jpeg. The only program I have available here only does 8 bits, sorry! (On that note, I don't think I've ever seen anyone upload a RAW file, and I can't think why...) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On another side note, I'm very tempted to clone the first picture into the second. Why wouldn't we use all the detail we have of this subject? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the camera listed in the exif would be capable of raw output. Four edits starts making things a bit confusing but I think at this stage 4 is looking the best. It is just about passable at a reference size of 1000px wide or so. Since you probably have a PSD or similar, could you selectively remove the last bit of the grain from the background? You can get very aggressive there with the NR without problems since there is no detail to preserve. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Zoharby already made a mask for this - maybe I could use it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have it saved as a Paint Shop Pro (PSP) file, can try to convert it something else if it helps (probably just save it as a black/white raster image). It's not 100% accurate, but pretty good. Zoharby (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest format to use would probably be a greyscale copy of the mask (jpeg/gif/png/bmp, whatever). Can you make one with PSP? I'll upload any changes I make to the mask. Thanks, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. Zoharby (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added extra background blur using your mask. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that dark patches are now almost completely black. Look at the eye for example (Edit3 vs. Edit4). Some of the detail is lost in edit 4. Sorry for the noisy original, but that's what this camera is capable of... Back in 2004 when I bought it, the only alternative was a really expensive DSLR... It is capable of saving RAW, but as memory cards were also very expensive at the time (the 2GB card I bought for the trip cost me more than 200$), I didn't take any RAW files... Thanks again guys for all the effort you're putting into trying to make it look better :) --Zoharby (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my suggestion above. If you want detail in the eye, that's the best way. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be pushing the limits of criteria 8 (Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation). I don't think the two images are similar enough to blend together seamlessly, either. The angle is different, the toning is different, the level of detail is different (which is the point of the exercise, although I think it will also make it look pretty fake when combined). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we can promote stitched landscapes, we can in principle promote stitched animal portraits. Obviously, some conditions have to be met for good stitching. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Alt Edit3. Tried to remove the green-yellow cast, but a bit less aggressively than Papa's version. I think it looks a bit more natural than Edit4, and has much more detail in the dark areas. While it's somewhat more noisy than Edit4 (foreground only), I think has a bit more fine detail that was lost in the noise cleaning process in Edit4. Zoharby (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 15:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support We definitely need a strong image of the NYSE. My biggest gripe is the blurred flag in the middle. If you had a version that was not blurred, that'd be great, but otherwise I still think the strengths of the picture outweigh that fault. I also wondered if the columns (blue especially) are vertical, but I think maybe the lighting equipment takes up enough space that it makes the column seem to bow outward... not sure. Still though, I think this is a difficult building to shoot, despite its high encyclopedic value, and you've done a good job. I'll be curious to see how much others are bothered by the flag. Fletcher (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the other pictures of the NYSE I took. They all have blurred flags in them. Not very surprising though, since a storm had just passed Manhattan. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fletcher. The flag is annoying but not a deal breaker.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 22:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Questionable EV. Angle and lighting prevent this from really showing what the NYSE building looks like. There is a lot of beautiful detail on this facade but you can't make any of it out in this picture. The streetlight in the foreground is distracting as are the flag decorations. This has very limited EV in American Flag and New York City. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose generally a good image but I agree with Makeemlighter; I don't think it adds a lot to New York City or American Flag and I think that the building itself could be better depicted for its use in NYSE. Guest9999 (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, If those are your arguments... there will never be a FP of the NYSE. The building can't be depicted any better, since the street is too narrow to take a picture from across the building. If you don't believe me, I would suggest using Google. This is the best image of the NYSE you will see in a while on Wikipedia. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be very difficult to take a featured picture of the building at night with the Christmas lighting. Most of the issues I have relate to how the flag lighting affects the view of the detailing and shadowing of the main structure and other features that wouldn't be an issue in daylight; such as the distracting street lighting mentioned above and the highlights in some of the windows. For me the value of having an image showing the December lighting does not overcome those pitfalls. Having said that I agree it's a good image taken under difficult conditions that adds to the encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it might be a nice image but we have to think about the EV. As for the building, it doesn't really show it as the flag light keeps half of the details in the dark and the other half overexposed. So for both NYC and NYSE it bears no EV. As for the flag article, it's a nice addition but hardly enough for FP as the article could very well be without this image. I think it has better chance to become a FP on Commons.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the comments about the lighting obscuring detail are entirely fair, considering that most of the time, for the past several years, the NYSE has had an absolutely gigantic American flag plastered over the columns, obscuring far more than the Christmas lighting does (see here, or browse the Commons gallery). Maybe there's a local around to clarify, but the last couple times I've been to NYC, the giant flag has been there. In looking at the Commons gallery, it seems they take it down during the holidays and put up lights on the columns. So you actually see more of the building during the Christmas season, even with the Christmas lights. I agree however the image doesn't have much EV in the American flag article, but it definitely has EV for the NYSE. Fletcher (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for that. In the five times I've been to NYC since 2002, I've never seen the building without a giant flag on it. Further more, there is a blind wall behind the columns, so what detail are be actually talking about... --Massimo Catarinella (talk)
I've seen a few pictures without anything covering the columns, but they might be older. So I'm willing to give you that. I'm more interested in the detail in the Entablature and Pediment. Those are the major architectural features of the facade, and they are obscured/distorted by the lighting and shadows. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Massimo. Every time I've been there it has had some variation of an American flag. Enough so that it would have to be considered vital in any modern depiction of it. See my two images as examples. First is August 2004 (Athens Olympics, hence the greek flag), second is January 2006. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated before, the American flag depiction adds little to the EV of the image. Further, the building would be depicted better and with much more detail through an image taken in the daytime. I also think that the ideal framing would have the building represented from the front straight-on, but not at such an extreme angle--though it may be difficult to capture-- mcshadyplTC 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little distracting of a background - Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door would be more appropriate - but I love the eye, and - admittedly, I'm not good at evaluating photographs - but I think it's high-quality and well-done, though a little soft at full zoom, as photos often are. It's within the size guidelines. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The red eye kind of remind me of the Tasmanian Native-hen. I think it is a bit soft. The shadows aren't clipped, but it seems like it would benefit a lot from (more?) fill flash to bring out the shadow details. I generally find that fill improves birds under high contrast lighting dramatically. You would probably need a Fresnel extender (better beamer or DIY for $5) however. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fill can be quite useful (and yes this has some fill flash) but can easily create unsightly shadows from twigs (in this case the branch) and the bird itself so IMO it's best to rely mainly on natural light. But I have been thinking of getting a better beamer and seeing how well they work... As for sharpness I think it's pretty good - maybe not my sharpest but IMO up to standard and at least as sharp as the silvereye FP you mentioned in the ruffed grouse nom --Fir0002 05:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sharpness isn't a huge issue in my book. If the fill is set with the FEC to -1 to -2 EV then the unsightly shadows aren't a huge problem. I think all of my bird photos post about silvereye use it to some degree as there rarely isn't an improvement. I get 2-3 stops more effective power out of my better beamer rip off, definitely recommended. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, but aren't you opposing because of sharpness concerns? Fair enough about the better beamer - and I think Mdf would also recommend it too - so I'll probably get/build one over these holidays --Fir0002 08:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral original, Weak Support Edit 1 The shadows bother me in the original but not enough to oppose it. I think I like the edit better, but I could really go either way. I'm only weak in my support because I'd like to see more of the white wings which give the bird its name. An in-flight picture would be needed to capture that, but we'd probably then lose the great look at the eye. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. The contrast with the background is just not there, even after lifting the shadows. Unlucky composition - any alternatives? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Avala (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the picture adds value to the first articles but should be removed from the third. It's a shame that the technical quality is only regular for a night shot. The problem is we are spoiled by the images of Diliff and Benh -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is even just regular for a night shot as it is incredibly soft and the foreground is significantly out of focus. I don't think f/5.6 was ideal, especially considering it no doubt needed a tripod to begin with, so any shutter speed would have worked, it didn't have to be wide open. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to sharpness I don't think the verticals are vertical. Interesting idea though. Fletcher (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin edit.jpgEdit 1 by Fir0002 - Mild sharpness and levels tweaks, converted Adobe RGB to sRGB for compliance in web browsers
Weak Support - I just don't have a feel for this image. —Ceran [ speak ] 13:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please someone translate the copyright notice from Russian (?) into English, thank you! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The babelfish translation which has now been provided still doesn't explain why this image is believed to be under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Is this indicated anywhere on Medvedev's site? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the translation (sorry, forget to mention I had done so), but will let someone else determine what it means, or search through the site to work out the proper licensing. I really have very little interest in all that copyright mumbo-jumbo. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support first edit 1 then the original. --Avala (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 — about the license, it is okay with Commons' policies, but there's nothing in that disclaimer that would indicate it's cc-by-3.0.Diego_pmcTalk
Sorry, how did you determine that it's okay? So far, I've seen no evidence that this isn't the most blatant of copyvios. Please elaborate! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder allows anyone to use the image as long as he is credited, which is perfectly fine with Commons. Diego_pmcTalk 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could the OTRS ticket mentioned in this image be relevant? Guest9999 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Diego wrote.--Avala (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the OTRS ticket be displayed on all pages it applies to? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. High quality portrait of two interesting and influential men, so good EV. Diliff | (Talk)
Support Edit 1. Great quality and the edit brings life to the photo. BarberJP | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many things going on in the picture--Caspian blue 23:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit... surprising. Unless you want a studio white background shot then I honestly can't see how there can be "too many things going on" - this is nature! --Fir0002 10:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find any element of surprise from my oppose comment. You could take pictures on a living creature with different backgrounds like this example.Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Metriorrhynchus rhipidius.jpg The bug has a very complicated pattern, so the background adds more complexity to the picture.--Caspian blue 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK well the thing is you're very unlikely to find one of these away from a flowering plant (see these examples: [3][4][5]), so any other background would be contrived. Would you prefer a white background (for future reference as there aren't any around this year)? --Fir0002 04:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the plant in the examples look fine because the color and form are not conspicuous like the one in the current picture. I'm not a big fan of white background, but if you try black or yellow backgrounds, that would be interesting.--Caspian blue 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, I think caspian's oppose is a little silly I disagree with caspian's oppose IFF the beetle is feeding on the flower, however I'd like to actually see the front of the thing if it is. Therefore the image has EV for identification but not for feeding. I didn't spot any glaring technical issues. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with my argument, that is fine. However, do not use such offensive language which does not make you credible nor "smart". Evaluation of photography also include "capturing a right moment". My oppose is less about its technical issues". --Caspian blue 01:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify it is in fact feeding and what is the "thing" you wanted to see the front of? --Fir0002 10:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is the insect, so I'd prefer to see it from an angle which makes the feeding component clearer. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that thing! :) Well this reminds me a bit of that Painted Lady nom - I fear if I made the feeding more prominent it will lose all EV! :) But yes the primary feature of the image is to show the beetle as a species, but it also (IMO) shows it feeding fairly clearly (given it's got it's head buried in a flower and has an appropriate caption) --Fir0002 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and good EV. I don't have any problem with the background or the angle:I think they're just right. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ideally I'd like to see more of the mouthparts but enough of the beetle is visible to clearly identify it - adding value to the article - and the technical and aesthetic quality is up to scratch. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - All Religions Temple in Kazan, capturing both Russian Orthodox and Muslim architecture.Edit 1 - Edit to correct pincushion and perspective distortions, crop, clone remaining powerline and reduce noise by Mfield
Reason
At first glance this is just a normal church, but look closer and one can see that it is combo between a church and a mosque, with both religions represented in the overall design of the building.
Oppose. Serious perspective distortion, and subject is cut off on both left and right.--ragesoss (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ragesoss, plus it seems over saturated and there is lots of wierd artifacting going on (even visible at thumb size) Noodle snacks (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The power lines are also unfortunately placed. Would support a better picture of this place in an instant though, especially if there was an article on the actual building rather than just the city it's in. It's a great looking building. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ragesoss. Magnificent building deserves a magnificent photo. Edit helps but can't stop it from being cut off at the sides. Fletcher (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know which I dislike most: pincushion distortion, or "fixing pincushion distortion" distortion. Great building - I'd love to see another photo of it as an FP. On a side note, is it ethical to just clone out the wires? I mean, I understand it makes it seem like a better image, but it's not true to life. After re-reading (ok, quickly skimming) the criteria, I didn't notice any blaring comment on editing to this degree. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "pincushion distortion distortion"? The pincushion distortion was fairly mild. I think you are referring to the stretching that is caused by correcting such an extreme degree of perspective distortion. Mfield (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you just repeated it for me. Or, "fixing pincushion distortion" distortion. i.e. the distortion caused by fixing already-existing distortion. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I am said was that you cannot see any distortion from fixing pincushion distortion (unless you are referring to a different issue than the 'stretching'). That is the result of correcting perspective distortion and they are not image distortions per se, they are the natural result of trying to view something that tall from that close. You would see the same distortions with a tilt/shift, assuming you could even shift it that far. It's not part of correcting the image as much as it is part of the original problem. Pinchushion distortion is the distortion caused by a flaw in the lens design that results in the horizontal and vertical straight lines becoming curved, perspective distortion is the result of standing too close and tilting the camera upwards. They are distinct issues. Mfield (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definately interesting building but regretful oppose, also on the dome with the blue and white chequered pieces on theres a star of david, indicating it could be a synagogue too --Thanks, Hadseys 11:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The distortion is very visible in both versions. -- mcshadyplTC 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Second mcshadypl and Jjron. --timsdad(talk) 07:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Geitoneura klugii in midflightAlternative 1
Reason
An enormously challenging image of a butterfly in midflight which IMO turned out quite well. Butterflies are well known for their erratic flight pattern and macro lens are well known for their slow focus so I'm quite proud of this shot. There is some motion blur but it doesn't detract from the subject IMO and instead adds an element of motion to the shot.
Support as nominator --Fir0002 08:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Today isn't April 1st, you know... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch that was a bit uncalled for :( I was perfectly sincere in my nomination - this is an exceptionally difficult photo to take and makes a valuable contribution to the project IMO --Fir0002 09:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For little enc relevance. I can't see how this picture illustrates the characteristics of buterfly's flight -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As much as I appreciate the difficulty of this photo (having read the explanation on the guild talk page), difficulty doesn't equal EV. I think it a good shot and perhaps illustrates some of the more creative photographic uses of flash and movement, but trying to illustrate the movement of the subject by blurring it is rarely going to work IMO. Personally, I'm not able to discern anything about how it moves/flies from this image. Possibly if it were taken front-on, the wing movements would be more obvious? Even then, it would probably take an exceptional photo (and exceptional perseverence) to capture exactly the right amount of movement at exactly the right position in flight to have sufficient EV and quality for FP. Some concepts are inherently more difficult to attain FP for, obviously, and this one is up there at the top. ;-) I sympathise about how hard butterflies are to photograph, though, as I've tried before too. You'd probably wear out your shutter before you were ever able to get this one just right. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work for me either, just too blurred. I wonder how something like this would come out with some of the new SLRs that take video (?) Fletcher (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Just to pose a hypothetical, and I stress this is merely a hypothetical, would the following be an adequate shot? A stroboscopic shot of perhaps 3 frames of a butterfly flight? This would need to be done in a contrived situation ("studio" is a bit grand for what I do) and would probably consist of a single flower and a black background. Before embarking on such an ambitious project (getting the butterfly to fly straight and hence stay in focus is going to be the biggest challenge) I thought I'd get some comments... --Fir0002 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. You mean a single exposure with three bursts from the flash, I assume? Do you mean with the butterfly's movement such that each burst captures it in a separate portion of the frame, or do you mean that the butterfly will expose over itself three times? I'm finding it hard to explain. OK, perhaps this is easier. Do you mean something like this image and if so, do you mean movement such as 0 to 4, or more like 64 to 100? I think you'd need to time the strobe so that it captures the correct parts of the butterfly's movements, but ideally in separate space so that there is no overlap. Whether this is logically possible given a butterfly's flight, I'm not sure. I think if you pulled it off and the movement captured was appropriate, it would work well. It does indeed sound ambitious. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking 64 to 100 - I think the 580EX is capable of brief strobe output but as yet this is merely a hypothetical project as I haven't even seen any of these butterflies about this year... --Fir0002 00:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I think a video of a series of pictures would show 1) the irregular motion of a butterfly's flight, 2) the flight technique and body motion of a flying butterfly, especially as compared to birds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catofgrey (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of the blur or the deer-in-headlights look because it's missing texture. I don't see the EV here either. Mononomic (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have found this image a little less confusing if rear curtain sync was used. (or maybe it was, hard to tell) --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurring only serves to see that in fact the subject is moving. A cheap camera short video would be far better to ilustrate the movement that a high quality blurr image.--Jf268 (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - "Indecency", a caricature by Isaac Cruikshank. Published in London by S.W. Fores, 1799.
Reason
WMF's largest file of a work by Isaac Cruikshank, a major Scottish caricaturist of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Also illustrates the urination article in its section about social taboos. Even the cat seems to take offense. Restored version of Image:Indecency.jpg.
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 19:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious EV for Cruikshank and probably the only way to have a picture for Urination#Urination_without_facilities without grossing anyone out. Great restoration too. I feel dirty saying this, but I love this picture! Makeemlighter (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I think we need to add "humor value" to our criteria. That alone could promote this one. I especially enjoy how that cat is looking at the woman in total disgust. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I think that we have a new April 1 frontrunner, given that User:Howcheng has stated that this FP would not be considered for main page status, even on April 1. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this one would be pretty much out of the running for exactly the same reasons... howcheng {chat} 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It's hard to be funny when you have to be clean." - Mae WestDurovaCharge! 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Makeemlighter. Seems quite good quality considering the age. Fletcher (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support reminds me of the quentin blake illustrations in roald dahl's books --Thanks, Hadseys 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I were the cat I'd be offended too. Amphy (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Indecency2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly encyclopedic and shows progression of MRI scans through a human head. While it is a bit small, I think it meets the criteria and is easily comparable in quality (if not better) with regards to, say, this, this, or this.
Weak Oppose Good EV, but it's small and cut off on the sides when the full head is shown. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
size exceptions can be made for movies. deBivort 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think we can do better, especially given how common MRIs are. This isn't big enough to show much detail of the brain. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Oppose per discussion below. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Makeemlighter. The size doesn't really bother me so much as its being cut off, which is both distracting and (probably) fixable. Thegreenj 21:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong support - high detail for its size, tons of information, and it illustrates the brain, not the head, so the chin being cutoff is inconsequential. deBivort 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it inconsequential. It's supposed to be an MRI of the human head. And even if the focus is the brain, cutting off the edges removes the brain from its context. IMO, the viewer gets a better sense of the sizes involved here if he can see, for example, the nose at its full size. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What's the need for animation here? howcheng {chat} 22:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on the subject, and I agree that still frames would better accommodate study of specific features (and could be larger). But in my subjective opinion, animation helps show the brain as a whole. The animation creates a sense of a three dimensional holistic perception of the brain that the viewer can piece together in his or her own brain.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create this file, so can't speak for the creator, but I don't see this as a representation of single images sequentially replaced with time, just like I don't see a cartoon as a representation of single cels sequentially replaced with time. I see this as an animated "fly-through" showing the position, placement, and interaction of many different organs and parts of the human head (including elements from the digestive system, nervous system, skeletal system (this and this), optical system, auditory system, nasal system, etc). With that reasoning, I don't see a compilation of still-framed images begin a replacement for this file, only a supplement. IMO, there'd substantially less WOW factor. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But substantially more EV since you would actually have time to look at the various structures in the brain. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Even for an animated gif, it's small. Still, for reasons I've outlined above, I think it's valuable.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too small and too fast. Probably only a trained medical doctor can understand what's going on. Maybe separate picture are a more enc solution. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect your insights and opinion, I disagree. I think anybody with at least a minor introduction to human anatomy can identify most aspects of the animation. With respect to being small, I do agree somewhat, but based on precedence (see the three examples in the nom above: it's bigger than this and bigger than this in one direction), it's not that far off from previously featured gif animations. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those animations, however, are big enough to illustrate the respective concepts. This one is not big enough for me (and I suspect others) to identify, or even notice, the different parts of the brain. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Bigger still-framed images would seem better here. --jjron (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above question about animation by howcheng. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no idea what I'm looking at besides the brain itself and the animation just serves to confuse. If there's a specific diagnostic reason or something that was adequately explained in the article and/or caption, I'd be happy to switch. howcheng {chat} 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Color image of reflection nebula NGC 1999. The nebula is filled with dust; this dust then shines from the light of the variable star V380. This nebula is located 1,500 light-years from Earth and its star is located in the constellation Orion.
Reason
I've had my eye on this for a while. It provides excellent EV for a reflection nebula, even showing the tint of its reflection. Otherwise, high res. and enticing.
Support as nominator --—Ceran[ speak ] 21:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Need to fix the caption, I suspect it's a bit more than 1500 miles away. :) --Golbez (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Caption is fixed per the image source. What wavelength/frequency is the source if its false colour? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, source says nothing about false coloring. I've removed that bit from the caption. —Ceran[ speak ] 13:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - An adult male chicken, the rooster has a prominent fleshy crest on its head called a comb and hanging flaps of skin on either side under its beak called wattles.Alternative 4 - Larger DOF
Reason
A high resolution good quality image with high encyclopedic value, illustrating features which can not be properly shown in a full body picture. The picture is already a QI at commons and is doing well at Commons FPC
Conditional support Excellent textures and contrast. Good use of depth of field. Could you get information on the particular chicken breed, please? DurovaCharge! 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my best but I couldn't get the breed information. Muhammad(talk) 06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good EV and quality. Maybe it is superfluous in Chicken article (I've just removed 6 irrelevant pictures from there!). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and excellent EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-conditional Support though I also would like to see which breed this is, I don't think that information is critical. Matt Deres (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF is a bit shallow, f/4 for 150mm semi-macro doesn't really work. This should be a relatively easy shot to reshoot (if not I have plenty of roosters and would easily be able to reshoot at f/8 or better). Also what looks like lice above the eye and within the comb are distracting IMO --Fir0002 10:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Alt 1. This one is heaps better on the DOF front, but IMO the lighting is quite a lot worse (dark/dull). Domestic animals such as roosters are typically very easy to photograph (as I just demonstrated!) and should be as perfect as possible for FP status. --Fir0002 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments at PPR, though now Fir has pointed out the lice I can't help but notice them every time I look and feel a bit repulsed! --jjron (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully as it is a nice photo. DOF is too short in that the entire comb is not in focus (which is largely the point of the photo), the lice are distracting even in thumbnail view and as FIR0002 has shown a photo of this quality is easily reproducible...hence for a FP of this I expect a significant WOW reaction which this does not give. - Peripitus(Talk) 06:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully Oppose per Fir. This one is outstanding. Cacophony (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lice IMO are not disturbing but in fact add value to the picture illustrating the fact that the combs are blood filled, hence a potential site for lice habitat. As for the pictures by Fir, pictures 2 and 3 IMO have distracting backgrounds and are not properly framed. The first picture has part of the wattles in shadow and I'm pretty sure I can see some lice in the comb too. FWIW, my rooster picture is also of higher resolution. I think I might have some other pictures with slightly larger DOF. If need be, I can upload them. Muhammad(talk) 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd like to see something with better DOF (as mentioned in my !vote). Also what do you dislike about the framing? Because these were slight crops off the originals - and I took a dozen or so others and can easily shoot a few more tomorrow to mitigate any concerns. --Fir0002 10:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded alt 4 with larger DOF Muhammad(talk) 20:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muhammad's original. Better histogram and it even has some biological reality. Oppose hijacking. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Well done! Spikebrennan (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good illumination and detail, the comb looks natural and not plastic as in Fir alternatives. The lice adds extra EV since they are very common in domestic animals. --Jf268 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User has 10 edits, all on FPC --Fir0002 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose Original and Alts - As stated above, the lice are very distracting. This is an image of a rooster, not a rooster with parasites. Claims of higher EV due to mite presence are alarming, and there seems to be no precedent for it. I also feel that the alternatives are not up to par per jjron's comment below. This, this, this, this, and this are all (FP) head shots of birds that not only are free of parasites but also feature a pretty quality specimen as well. Per Fir's comments, this FP should be pretty close to perfect based on ease of reproducibility (and the population of chickens: they have us by more than two to one); no mites and a better specimen (specifically comb) will get a support from me. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original - So vivid. Kennedy(talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatives
Apologies for hijacking Muhammad's nom but I felt this was very relevant to this discussion. Seeing that Muhammad hadn't responded yet to my comment I went ahead and snapped a couple of (IMO) higher quality images --Fir0002 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's not a very nice move on your part. I suggest you retract it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a constructive edit, not a personal attack and should not be retracted. You continually seem to forget, PLW, that we are here to judge photos not photographers. Any relevant input to the discussion should be welcomed, not treated as an attack on the nominator (I get on well with Muhammad) --Fir0002 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite know what it was that caused this confession, but... wow! :)) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confession? What are you on about this time? You know you're really going to have to grow out of your conspiracy theories PLW. Just in case it's my final parenthesis you're referring to (it seems the only remote possibility) I'll clarify it for the benefit of your jaundiced view of FPC: "I get along well with Muhammad and feel sure that he will accept my contribution in the constructive spirit it was offered" --Fir0002 08:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're linking to that thread. Seems quite random and disruptive to me. The basic fact here is that by now, you should know that a completely new set of images would require a new nomination to be opened, because otherwise it's left unclear what the correct closure time for the nomination would be. It's in your own interest to give your pictures the full seven days. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comb on this bird looks a bit ragged - would be good to have that in good condition. --jjron (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Early Autumn (13th century), by Qian Xuan, a well-known example of bird-and-flower painting, a style of Chinese painting where the subject was birds, flowers, fish and insects. The depiction of decaying lotus leaves and dragonflies hovering over stagnant water are likely a veiled criticism of Mongol rule.
Reason
A well-known example of bird-and-flower painting, a style of Chinese painting that was prominent in the 13th century, (likely) by one of the masters of that style. These types of paintings were popular with the Mongols, who had recently established the Yuan Dynasty, and it was rather subversive of him to include the veiled criticism.
Signed by Qian Xuan, although scholars are divided about whether it's really his work
Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High enc. Ideally would prefer a larger file of a less damaged original, but considering the age of this work we're fortunate to have it in as good shape as this. Excellent step toward countering systemic bias. DurovaCharge! 20:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good ev. Very nice scan, as well. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAm I crazy or are there no birds or flowers in this? Ok, should have read the caption - I guess it is sarcasm that there are no birds or flowers. An ideally high EV would be a more representative example of the type, but it still has good EV, and there are no other images in the article. Fletcher (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive; definitely deserving of FP status. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV and scan. Do you have a source that says this is "a veiled criticism"? Makeemlighter (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as far as the image goes I would rather have an a image of one actually operating for enc. purposes, although that would undoubtedly be difficult to photograph well. On a side note - the caption - I would dispute the vague (and unreferenced) claim that it is the most widely recognized type of sprinkler. There are billions of pop up lawn sprinklers installed in lawns all over the US that are not of this design so the claim is shaky by that measure alone for en:WP. That claim is tagged as citation needed in the totally unreferenced article. Mfield (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, guess who tagged it as citation needed. As you might imagine I am not too keen on getting my camera particularly close to a running sprinkler Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wandered down with my 400mm. For the framing above I get approximately 5 meters away, around 1/3rd the range of this particular sprinkler. I am going to have to justify the purchase of an 800mm f5.6L or a waterproof enclosure I'm afraid... Noodle snacks (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an example where an annotated SVG would be preferable, as it allows cut-aways and transparency where needed to show all features and explain their working; another alternative would be an animation (is that what you meant, Mfield?). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a HQ photo of a common sprinkler and meets all the criteria. EV is reasonable and an SVG could be nice, but nothing replaces a photo of the actual thing. Caption could use some work per Mfield. Wouldn't want to add to the "systemic bias" against sprinklers on WP! :-) ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image, as is, is very high quality. However, it fails as a representative image of the subject. Sprinklers should be sprinkling water. In its current state, the spring is shut and shown from only one side. Would be better to have a view in action, or an animation. Chicago god (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just performed a fair amount of clean up on the article, so some of the comments above may not make sense to later voters as I added some referencing and toned down or competely removed the uncited claims that sounded like they came from someone's (maybe Rain Bird's) marketing material. For the sake of clarity, if you want to see what the article looked like when at the time of the original nom then see this revision. Mfield (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose High quality, but the lack of sprinkling water as well as only showing the head of the sprinkler reduces enc, imo. SpencerMerry Christmas! 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Helpful for understanding how a sprinkler looks and works. Narayanese (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Asiatic hybrid lilium stereogram. To view the image diverge your eyes until four images appear, then allow the image to converge to a set of three, focusing on the centre image.Flipped - Cross your eyes
Reason
Something a bit different. The component images stand up quite well to individual quality scrutiny. Adds value to the article. It may take a little practise to get the viewing technique right. It is best to view this as large as possible whilst still having the entirety of each image visible.
Support as nominator If you are having trouble viewing this then the technique is very similar to that for a magic eye. --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Even though I'm a stereophoto freak myself, I can't support this. The subject is a bit too limited for a good stereo effect (basically, two planes, flower and background), and there's an error in the caption (alternatively, L and R images must be switched)... If you do as instructed, you get a reverse, pseudo-stereo effect. You need to relax your eyes, not cross them. Images like these also don't work in large size (you can't relax or cross your eyes enough on a 1000+ pixel image...) --Janke | Talk 07:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do it with one image each on a seperate 21in monitor :P. Secondly the pixel size is irrelevant, you can choose to view it at any thumbnail size you desire and the pixel size can have a variety of relationships to the physical size (eg print at 300dpi). Caption is fixed. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't 'do it' at all. I'm normally quite okay with those stereograms, but for some strange reason, I simply cannot get my eyes to focus on the middle 'third' image. I can see it clearly as a third image, but very blurry. I can even vaguely see the stereo effect, albeit very blurred. Looks a little bit like this, with the flower standing out slightly against the background, but still definitely blurry, and no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a good focus on the centre flower. Are my eyes being funny (I usually have perfect vision) or are others having this problem too? I've tried various sizes/distances, and it seems to get worse the further away I get, but conversely, the closer I get the more my eyes strain to keep the two images together.
Actually, I just had a re-think about what Janke said. I don't think relaxing your eyes works. Relaxing them causes them to look straight ahead (ie not converge) but out of focus. But I find what needs to be done is that you DO need to cross your eyes, so that your left eye looks at the right image, and vice-versa. This is the only way to get a third image in the centre. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure to be honest, I can see the image either way, diverging my eyes (which is correct) or converging them (which is inverted depth wise). When I do it it comes out clear as day. Try and line up till you get the centre image, then you have to focus on it to get it to come out. Perhaps the instructions need a little work... Noodle snacks (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it even physically possible to 'diverge' your eyes significantly beyond looking straight ahead? I'm not capable of it anyway! As far as I know, anatomically we can only converge them, and it makes sense because in nature, when do we ever need to look beyond infinity? ;-) In any case, if you could diverge your eyes' line of sight, you would only end up with four images, with the two 'ghost' images on the outside of the two flowers, not on the inside. It just doesn't make sense to me. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did manage to (briefly) get them in focus, but only by reducing the size of the image down significantly so that they took up perhaps 10-20% of my monitor (30" monitor that is) or about 15-20cm wide, at a distance of about 50cm. Even then, my eyes were focus hunting, struggling to keep it steady. And I just reduced it further to about 8cm wide and it was even easier and I could hold it comfortable. So from my experience, the smaller the image, the easier it is to see the stereogram. And also, you're right.I'm not crossing my eyes any more to see it, I'm just staring through it. I'm confused by the physics of it now though. It would be simple if I had a better sense of what my eyes are doing in objective terms. I'm assuming that they're still converging, although somewhere between the 'correct' convergence to see just the two images, and neutral (no convergence or divergence)? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)-[reply]
I think what happens is each eye gets pointed towards a different image, but both are in focus, hence fooling your brain into seeing the stereo image. It does take some practise though. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can do either at any practical size, and it is anatomically possible (your eyes have to be able to look both left and right at times, so the muscles are there). I've added a flipped version which requires crossed eyes, try that. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that it is anatomically possible for each eye to point in the respective directions separately, but I just don't know how possible it is for the eyes to both do it at the same time, for the same reason that it seems more difficult (more eye strain and uncomfortability) to cross both your eyes inward to the extreme than it is for you to simply look left or right to the extreme. I just assumed that there is some mechanism that links the muscles in each eye to stop you from looking divergently beyond parallel. I had a quick google search and found this though. I can do the convergent exercise easily, but I cannot complete the divergent exercise properly. If I stare beyond the two seals and balls, I can get them to move inwards towards each other slightly, but never enough for them to touch like the example shows. Can you? Maybe I have some sort of divergent viewing deficiency that I was never aware of until now. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do both the exercises quite easily. The new version I added only requires you to cross your eyes, so try that, I have a feeling it'd be easier for most people. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easier to combine the two images to form a third, yes, but very difficult for me to focus properly on it when cross eyed. The instant my eyes cross inwards, they seem to become short sighted, but it doesn't have any effect if I close one eye and turn the other inwards. Very strange. I did find that if I reduce the size of the flipped image and look at it really closely (10cm from my face), I can focus on it. Anyway, we're throroughly off-topic now, but it would be interesting to see how others go! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The third image formed, does it show something that the individual images don't show? For me, the third flower looked the same. You should have a disclaimer with this image though, it sure makes one's cry eyes water :( Muhammad(talk) 15:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is having any luck evidently, but the third image will appear in 3D when viewed correctly. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I didn't seem to have any problems to get the 3D, whether LR or RL. Just take your time (and practice a bit on a not to large version). Lycaon (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original version is easier for me, but either works. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support After re-reading the above discussion, I got it to work, and I like it very much. I can see it in 3D! SpencerT♦C 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beatiful image and very innovative! Luca (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can people please specify which version they find easier? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, they both work, but the flipped one comes to me easier. SpencerT♦C 03:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cant get it to work on either - at all :( --Fir0002 10:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion3D red cyan glasses are recommended to view this image correctly. If people have trouble and get eyestrain from this, how about an anaglyph image, like this one? (It's a shot of my live steam locomotive in my workshop... ;-) You do need red and green (or red and blue) glasses, but Wikipedia already has an icon for that: --Janke | Talk 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though, an anaglyph and this image demonstrate different types of stereographs. I am not sure how to generate an anaglyph either Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I see no reason for promoting a 3D image that many (maybe even most) viewers cannot even see in 3D. With an anaglyph, you only need two pieces of colored plastic... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that its a bit like opposing an image of a Sulphur-crested Cockatoo because its not a Major Mitchell's Cockatoo. The two image types are fundamentally different and are only related as types of stereogram. If this image were promoted there would still be "room" for a high quality anaglyph FP. I could probably try and generate an anaglyph image, but I don't have easy access to the glasses required. I don't think that some users being unable to "see" it has any bearing on the image's EV or any relation to the FP criteria in general. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the anaglyph and the comparison, the gist in what I'm saying is I see no reason for promoting a 3D image that many (maybe even most) viewers cannot even see in 3D. No offense intended... --Janke | Talk 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anybody else get the feeling that people might be scared to cross their eyes long enough for the cross-eyed image to come into focus? Anyway, I Support both. For me, the diverging image is easy to see at thumbnail, difficult at preview size, and impossible at full size. The cross-eyed is easy at any size, but it takes me up to 2 minutes to get the image properly aligned at eye level and then to get it in focus. Chicago god (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify version preference everyone --Fir0002 10:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the flipped version easier. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support flipped and Comment -- Excellent image! I can see it perfectly and, if some people can't, too bad, I'm sure they can learn if they try hard enough. And hey, I don't believe anyone still believes in the "wind blowing in your eyes when they're crossed, will make you cross-eyed" kind of myth. My comment is that it would be nicer to have a deeper DOF so that the whole image is in focus. The reason for this is that, when you get the image right, you can look at different parts of the picture. In real life, when you look at the back of the picture, it should come into focus, right? Luca (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, a stereo focus stack with one camera is fairly ambitious though. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support very well done. — Aitias//discussion 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture, finally an interesting and useful flower photograph! Mononomic (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning -- mcshadyplTC 05:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality and wonderful details. IMO its not properly placed in the articles, maybe some of the other pictures should be removed. Muhammad(talk) 06:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above - high quality image --Fir0002 10:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture but poor enc relevance, as it is superfluous in both articles. If any of the lead pictures there were to be replaced that should be with an image showing the whole plant. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support after the explanations though I still think we need a better illustration of the whole plant as a lead image -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Gazania rigens each image shows a different sub species, which would only be easily differentiated by flower, therefore it absolutely has enc relevance. For Gazania I just ditched the poorer quality taxobox image in favour of this since you seem to have the idea that only having one image per thing per article is important. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The convention used is that the top image of an article should be the most representative one, and on that criterion, an image showing vegetative parts beats an image of a flower only, any day. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks has argued in favor of enc value, and the technicals are flawless. Showing the entire plant would distract from the flower.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 12:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have to agree with HereTo Help. Lycaon (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For enc reasons, I don't agree with the replacement of the prevoius lead image in Hypericum calycinum, which is an illustration showing the whole plant. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed it anyway, but the previous image is not a realistic photograph. For me it'd still be ambiguous to about half a dozen Hypericum images and the differentiating factor for most species is the flower. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support as long as Alvesgaspar's concern is taken into account, this is a lovely shot. Surely there's enough room for both images. DurovaCharge! 20:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could be mistaken, but it seems a bit dark. Can this be rectified without overly degrading quality? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I mean more along the lines of the location. It seems you either took this in a jungle with a large canopy blocking sunlight or a somewhat dark section of a conservatory or greenhouse. Know what I mean? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Sh1019 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you're looking for advice, perhaps you meant to put this at WP:PPR. SpencerMerry Christmas! 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't comment on the levels until my monitors warm up (they are only really accurate after an hour or so). I think the overall balance is probably reasonable (perhaps only needing a small contrast adjustment). The highlights are blown on the statue which is unfortunate (hopefully you have an unedited jpg or raw to work from). The blown highlights stop me supporting at this stage. It is quite sharp taking into account image dimensions. There is quite a lot of vignetting which may or may not be deliberate as it does draw the eye to the main subject. In future I would suggest peer review as well. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, I just don't think it adds enough to the article, if it was removed I don't see how the readers understanding of the topic would be inhibited. Guest9999 (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Whilst I don't see any convincing argument for the image's usage in Girl, I have placed it in Portuguese people#General_traits where it makes a fairly fitting illustration for the article text. Weak support because the technicals aren't perfect by present standards; There is some noise and softness. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there is nothing exceptional in this snapshot.--Avala (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avala and Guest9999. Amphy (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on its use in Portuguese people primarily, as I agree that a photo of a single girl is going to struggle to illustrate girl. It is a good portrait. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All it really illustrates on the Portuguese page is brown hair and eyes. A decent portrait, but not outstanding enough to be a FP based on its limited EV. --Leivick (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good portrait, though I would tweak the levels a bit. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little EV in Portuguese people. Maybe if you had a shot of her with her family so we could see what Portuguese men and women of different ages look like. But a shoulders-up shot of a young girl just doesn't do enough to illustrate a whole ethnic group. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said earlier, nothing exceptional here. -- mcshadyplTC 01:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely poor EV as well having poor composition. Jerry teps (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 02:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it contributes significantly to the article and technical quality is high, although I am seeing at least four smudges in the sky that could easily be cloned out. Fletcher (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not sure how I missed them as I had already looked in the sky for them and cloned a few out. I found another 6 and fixed them. Hopefully that should be the last of them. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution. Geographic/architectural constraints compel the slightly odd choice of angle (the lighting comes out a bit flat with the camera angle so similar to the sun's angle--but there's not much other way to get this shot within a quadrangle without making less desirable compromises). Would you consider cropping out the foreground shadows? DurovaCharge! 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the lighting is ever so slightly flat, but as you say, there isn't really an alternative angle that does justice to the location. I happen to like the foreground though - the geometry of the quad and the almost perfect grass. Very Oxford University. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original Probably not the most amazing building shot Diliff's taken but definitely still meets the criteria --Fir0002 10:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not so sure of the EV on this. It has a real cutoff feeling, though I'm guessing the chapel itself is the taller building in the middle and perhaps does not include the abutting buildings at all? Maybe if it's just meant to be illustrating that then it is not cutoff. However I am guessing this because neither the article nor image page seem to explain where the chapel begins and ends. As an illustration of Keble College, Oxford I'd say it's definitely cutoff, and if the above about the chapel is correct, then maybe it should be more tightly cropped to that middle building? --jjron (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that given an elementary understanding of what chapels represent and generally look like, you'd pick the numerous spires/crosses on the top of the central building as being the chapel! The arch on the far left side of the structure is actually the entrance (in practice) to the chapel itself, so it would be wrong to crop that out, and if only the right side was cropped, it would unbalance the composition a bit, so I'm not keen on that - I just think that focusing on the chapel while providing a bit of context/visual breathing space on the sides/in the foreground is okay. I also don't agree that it is too cropped to be a FP for the article. Not all photos (even FPs) have to illustrate the subject completely and absolutely. They can just as easily illustrate one aspect of it (example being one of Fir0002's images illustrating the mating behaviour of an insect), as long as that aspect has a significance to the article. I can't actually remember why I didn't take a panorama of this quad, but I suspect there were distracting elements of some sort that prohibited it. I guess you're right, though, that the article doesn't explain exactly what you are seeing, given no caption. Nothing that can't be resolved easily. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been wondering about the EV. Since the image only illustrates the chapel, I'm not sure how much EV this has in Keble College. Is there something about the chapel that makes it especially significant? Nothing is mentioned in the article. Even if the architecture of the chapel is representative of the rest of the college, which I'm not sure is entirely true, I feel that gives this picture only marginal EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does state that the school had an early emphasis on theological teaching which probably raises the importance of this building. Not sure where, but I have seen it before. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every college's chapel is fairly important in an Oxbridge campus, I would say, being both historically and currently one of the primary places of assembly. In any case, as I said above, I don't think an image must represent the entire subject of the article to have EV. It can just as easily illustrate an aspect as long as that aspect has some significance. In this case, I think it does. It isn't as though it is an image of the college rubbish bin, or car park. It is the largest and most visually impressive building in the college, as indeed chapels are in most colleges. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your initial flippant dismissal of my concerns I think you've actually confirmed some of them. Given my 'elementary understanding' of the way these buildings often end up cobbled together I suspected that lower building at the left may serve as an addition to the chapel proper, and/or as you say an alternative entrance, given which it does appear cutoff. You are right that an image doesn't need to necessarily depict the whole subject to have EV or become an FP, but, IMO, while you obviously have to stop the picture somewhere, this comes off looking a bit awkward. I still feel it would be good if at least the image page gave a bit more information on what we were looking at - users shouldn't really have to be making assumptions/educated guesses/whatever about what they are looking at, especially in an FP. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a flippant disagreement with your concerns. ;-) Honestly though, I would have considered it reasonably obvious that, (a) the chapel is the building with the crosses on the many spires, (b) it was a crop of a quadrangle and (c) generally different buildings are joined together to form a quadrangle. I know none of these are self-evident per-se, but one has to assume a base level of understanding and I think most people would be able to understand the composition when the caption states it is a photo of the chapel, and from the geometry of what you can see. I agree that there is no harm in providing as much info as possible about the image though, and I implied that the caption/image page description could/would be fixed, so I don't really see the problem there. It was more the matter of composition that I took issue with. As for the left side being cut off, I still don't agree. Yes, the entire building that the entrance is part of is cut off, but the portion of that building relevent to the chapel is not (the entrance is essentially a hallway which leads to both the chapel and other parts of the college. To include the entire building on the left would be to include more of it than is necessary to illustrate the chapel. The chapel could be illustrated without including that entrance and would still be complete, as the chapel also has another entrance visible but was not in use at the time and is likely only used for formal occasions, but I think the composition would suffer as the path and steps to the 'utilitarian' entrance would be partially cropped out, making it look pretty messy. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...and I implied that the caption/image page description could/would be fixed, so I don't really see the problem there...", and yet still it remains as it was...? --jjron (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas got in the way? I haven't had a chance to sit down and think of what exactly it needs and how best to do it, but besides, it isn't strictly 'my job'. Anyone could do it, particularly those who feel most strongly about it ;-). My point was simply that the caption in the article shouldn't be a significant hurdle. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 14:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per my comments above. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oversaturated greens (lawn), and maybe undersaturated blue? Could be solved by going back to RAW, maybe? And I think the red brick is a tad more saturated as well. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The third one looks realistic. If you look at the blue values both in the lawn and sky areas of both pictures, you'll find that your number three does indeed have higher blue values, which makes the green less saturated and the blue more so, resulting in a more realistic appearance overall. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not really following your logic. In my image, I sampled a pixel in the sunlit grass at random and got R93 G120 B31. In #3, I sampled another random pixel of sunlit grass and got R78, G122, B34. Apart from the red channel, I actually see almost no difference. Certainly nothing that would prove it to be oversaturated. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment: I sample averages. A commonly used color picker size for this purpose is 3x3, which I used. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post an edit that fixes your concerns so it is easier to make comparisons? Noodle snacks (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The edit looks a bit bewildering when you've been looking at the original for so long, but it comes fairly close to reference no. 3. Maybe this version has the "punch" Diliff is looking for? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost impossible to know whether an object is over or undersaturated unless it is painfully obvious, but I don't think it is in this case. As Noodle mentioned, the grass is just naturally very green and well tended in Oxford. And sometimes the sky just isn't a deep blue, due to haze in the sky or for numerous other reasons. And I wouldn't say the bricks are particularly saturated. They look fairly normal really. I would say that if anything, this image is slightly lacking in punch and saturation overall, so I'm not sure I can see what you're seeing. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. SpencerT♦C 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments on the edit please --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not too fussed either way about the edit, and I can see what PLW has tried to do with it, but I did think the shadows seem a bit purple-tinted now and the building slightly too bright so my preference is for the original. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I don't particularly support (see above), FWIW I prefer the original. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Keble College Chapel - Oct 2006.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Very nice and sharp where it needs to be, but it is a shame that low light/use of the flash has given it a slightly ghostly appearance (left leg and just behind the head) as it was, I assume, walking when this was taken. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, what's going on with the leg- is that motion blur? (This is an attractive image, and I have already used it to replace the existing image of the Ruffed Grouse in List of U.S. state birds (it's the state bird of my fair Commonwealth). Spikebrennan (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is motion blur. It looks like it was a fairly slow exposure combined with flash, which allows the ambient light to help light the scene naturally, but allows the flash to freeze the subject in the foreground. At least, thats how it usually works, but if the exposure is too slow and there is a lot of movement you often get a ghost trailing that movement. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to distracting noises on the background, and unattractive composition.--Caspian blue 03:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frankly in Mdf's shoes I would have been cranking the ISO to 1600 or so and reducing the quantity of fill flash to achieve a more natural look. I think he was trying to freeze the motion. My bet is that this was taken with a 300mm F4L IS and a teleconverter. It is a definite VP with an easily added latin binomial. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a cool photo with the pastel colors, multiple textures, and sharp bird. Motion blur on something that is moving seems ok. Quite an achievement at 1/30 with a teleconverter as well. At ISO 1600 I think the picture would be grainy and (with less flash) boring. Tomfriedel (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Silvereye.jpg is a FP at ISO 1600 without noise problems and I kind of think the noise levels of my 400D would be rather outclassed by the 1D-MkIII used to take the above shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's amazing - you must have lucked out with your version of the 400D, because I'd be damn sure mine wouldn't handle that. For the most part I've given up on shooting at ISO 800 for noise and softness problems, and where possible even avoid ISO 400. --jjron (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember with my Xti I was always avoiding ISO 400, but I think (but am not sure) that was more my (low) experience level than necessity. I've read that a large image sensor really help with low ISO settings, and with the 5D I use now I don't think twice about ISO400. So I don't have the answer, but The-digital-picture.com has some nice camera/noise comparisons for Canon cameras.
In my experience, the higher the ISO goes the worse the noise gets in the shadow areas, the highlights aren't affected nearly so much. So long as you expose well and the subject doesn't have too much contrast you can get pretty good results. ISO 400 has plenty of shadow grain, but very little noise in the better exposed areas. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And you guys have let some technically weak photos go through recently, like for example this one where only I opposed: Image:Cyanistes_caeruleus_3_Luc_Viatour.jpg Tomfriedel (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That image isn't a FP on the English Wikipedia, only on commons. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With bird photos I usually look at the head pixels and feet pixels first, to see if the photo is of enough quality. So for me this photo easily exceeds, for example, the last English Wikipedia bird FP. Tomfriedel (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support personally I'd prefer a slight crop but overall a sharp, attractive and technically decent image. Guest9999 (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is it? Unnatural and confusing, or a FP with minor issues? Please discuss.Wronkiew (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, with a slight preference for Edit 1. This image provides a clear and extremely encyclopedic view of this bird, and any technical fault it may have (which I, to be completely honest with you fail to see) does not detract from its superb value and as such is irrelevant to this proceeding, as I see it. Mad TinmanTC 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it unnatural and confusing. I think another picture of this bird could be taken fairly easily, so I can't ignore the problems with this photo. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. I have been meaning to get an 8x ND filter for shots like this, actually. Out of interest, did you get a cheap one or a Hoya/similar? Whats your recommendation? I had a look on Ebay the other day and there were some dodgy cheap 77mm ones (£10/AUD$25ish) made from plexiglass which probably speaks volumes for their optical quality. The Hoya ones were a bit pricy though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO cheap ND filters won't matter that much, the main problem with cheap filters is flare when you have light sources in the frame, which is rarely the case for this sort of usage. There are supposedly some colour rendition differences, but IMHO it is easily countered for with PP. That said you can get high quality filters fairly cheaply from here. I got mine ages ago when the exchange rate wasn't pitiful. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture is beautiful but I had a few concerns. With such a long exposure time, the blur in the water is very prominent such that there is no detail visible at all in some places. Isn't this loss of detail a setback to its greater EV? Wouldn't another picture with a shorter exposure time give a more encyclopedic shot? Muhammad(talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that. There is really nothing to be gained from seeing the individual droplets of water as they fall. However, from a long exposure, you are able to see the path and density of the 'clouds' of water (I'm visualising as analogous to an electron cloud, but that might be a confusing analogy to a lot of people ;-).. could you describe a waterfall's shape in terms of a probability density plot??) which is both more aesthetic and also more EV, IMO, as a waterfall has a constant flow. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, the visible detail in some places wouldn't change if I'd had a shutter speed of 1/50th of a second; Due to the method used to reduce shutter speed the lighting ratio would stay exactly the same. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak suppport then, as otherwise very good picture. Muhammad(talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for inclusion in Hobart Rivulet, neutral other inclusions I appreciate the artistic merit of this image, but the exposure is too long for encyclopaedic purposes imho, resulting in large areas of the image being almost pure white. I suspect, though, that you've taken an alternative with a shorter exposure that you might be willing to upload. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, partially because I left my tripod at home and had to precariously balance the camera on a rock. Perhaps it might find the EV you are after in Neutral density filter, where I have added it. The exposure wouldn't change with a shorter shutter speed, the ratio between the light and dark areas of the scene would be exactly the same. No one said it was, but the water isn't blown either. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't yet have an opinion on the inclusion in the other article. I guess that makes it a "neutral" vote if it sticks in the second article. I may revisit that later. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Alternate - After reading the discussion (btw you guys LOVE discussions!), I change my vote. I like the alternate a lot better than the original. I'm still held back by my previous feelings, though I guess I have to make peace with the fact that this could be an FP that just happens to be in an article it may not be FP status for. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Very Weak Oppose I really do like this photo. It's really quite beautiful; but I do see PLW's points with the long exposure time. It almost lacks realism. I would instantly support this photo with a shorter exposure. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably getting redundant with my comments here. I feel it is worth pointing out that should I have removed my neutral density filters and polariser (which wouldn't really look as good), shot at the same aperture to get a good depth of field and set my ISO to 400. I'd still have a shutter speed of around half a second, you can do the maths yourself if you like. It is going to be pretty blurry regardless; An extra smooth one just isn't so half hearted. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I voted, ND Filter was not an included article. What do I do when the FPC meets the criteria of one page but not another? This meets criteria for ND Filter, but not for the water body itself. I'm not a photographer, and therefore don't know all the technicals on lenses and filters, so based on Hobart Rivulet, I don't think it meets the criteria (as I said previously, it's not realistic; more specifically I would claim that this doesn't meet the criteria of an accurate exposure (#1, bullet 1) - and I don't mean an accurate exposure for the situation given. I assume this could be re-photographed without the ND Filter and offer a more realistic representation). WRT Neutral density filter, it does meet that need because it is a direct example of using this particular filter. This image is more an artsy representation of a general waterfall as opposed to an encyclopedic image of Hobart Rivulet. Just my 2¢ as an outsider (but appreciator!) to the photographic world. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion which just started. As I understand it the image should have strong EV in at least one article to pass on that criteria. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Very beautiful image but I think it is over exposed in some areas whilst being a little dark in others. Also could be a bit clearer as well. Could this image have been made wider with more height I would have been inclined to vote in favor, also were you using a stand for this?. I know from previous experience that photos in this type of terrain can be very difficult to take. . Adam (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it over exposed in the sense that there aren't any blown highlights, but I have uploaded a lifted version. I would ordinarily use a tripod but left it at home this time around. I used a remote release and a fortunately placed rock which achieved the same effect. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was there much contrast added to this in PP? I wouldn't have expected the shadows to have been so deep... perhaps you could lift them a bit? --Fir0002 10:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrast was at the default position. I've uploaded a lifted edit, its probably an improvement. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better in the thumbnail but a bit rough at 100%... Good waterfall images are always a bit dark because to avoid blown highlights, you must underexpose considerably. Lifting shadows then makes them a bit noisy. Always a compromise! I'm not fussed by the original. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Blurring waterfalls is probably the most obvious photography use of an ND filter (aside from lightning photography perhaps) and this is a nice example --Fir0002 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More evaluation of edit 1 neededWronkiew (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - Have Changed Colours (and a few editing mistakes)Edit 2 - Further Mistakes edited.Edit 2 SVG - SVG Version
Support as nominator --howth575 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A clear,easily understandable depiction which shows the lines in relation to each other and position in the city simply and without confusion. Is it possible to distinguish the Metro West and North lines any more clearly? The colourings look remarkably similar to me Lemon martini (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see your point, and unfortunately its not so easy, Unlike London or say Munich, Dart and Irish Rail Lines are not colour coded, the Luas Lines are because they were developed by a separate entity, Who haven't specified a colour coding for the Metro or the third Luas Line. I may edit it to show a different hue. I would have used SVG if illustrator didn't have a habit of mucking up the Fonts... Stabilo boss (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Second Pic. Super EV. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New Version added...Stabilo boss (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport Support edit 1. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while it may have encyclopedic value, IMO it is boring, sorry. Muhammad(talk) 02:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. No "wow"... Good enc, though. --Janke | Talk 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 'wow' comes from the fact that half the subject matter in the image is yet to be constructed, and as such could be construed as something of a record of the ambitions etc for Dublin, similar to Abercrombie's unrealised plans[13]. howth575 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentA featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. I didn't see 'wow' on the list of criteria anywhere...
It's people reading in their bias into their votes because they think it should have have "wow" like a photo nom because most of the nominations are photographs while being ignorant to the fact that an illustration or diagram is never going to have wow compared to a photograph but can have a wow factor vs other diagrams. It's unfortunate that current FPC guidelines encourage this type of vote since it leads to most diagram noms failing for no good reason other than the voting block of the ignorant anti diagram group. Cat-five - talk 08:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An illustration can have wow factor. Look at the images created by LadyofHats. The images are both encyclopedic and wowwy. This image however, is like a map of the place. A map does have EV but we cant feature all maps can we? Muhammad(talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"wow" didn't save this nomination. If the creator added some flying cats or other ridiculous non-sense would that add enough "wow" to support? The fact is the diagram adds a lot to the article. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 High enc. value. I'm afraid it's impossible to make a schematic of metro rail lines as exciting as a battle or a beautiful runway model, but this is a clear and informative image that serves its purpose well. DurovaCharge! 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the London subway system personally, because it is a more interesting example and partially because it has more to show in my opinion, however this has good ev content and is a well done diagram. Cat-five - talk 08:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - can't vouch for the accuracy (I didn't even know Dublin had trains!), but I see wow. Stevage 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a generic map. You've seen one you've seen them all - why should we feature this one in particular? I'm not saying it's not useful in an article but useful map does not equal FP --Abdominator (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Questions/Suggestions. (Note: all these relate to Edit 1, and some look to not have been an issue in the Original.) At the risk of being labelled as one of “the voting block of the ignorant anti diagram group” (who incidentally aren’t working too successfully as a voting block or group here – hmm, go figure), the thing about diagrams is that they can be easily corrected and improved. So on that note, I will list a few observations – act on them at your will, as this will likely be promoted regardless:
Why the inconsistent use of font sizes? Is that meant to indicate major and minor places/stations, is it just a convenience, or an error. See for example the bottom of the Green/Yellow line along the water with the stations on the green side in a bigger font than those on the yellow line. This occurs in many other places with station names. And the font size on the ‘Northern Intercity and Commuter’ is considerably bigger than any of the other Intercities. Why?
Alignments of names with stations are inconsistent – see for example Killmacud, Stillorgan, Sandyford, one after the other, but all aligned at different heights with the station indicators.
On a similar note, some station names are too close to, or overlap, the station indicator – it looks a bit sloppy and in some cases is hard to read. Some examples, Sydney Parade, Windy Arbour, St. James.
Inconsistent spacing when using slashes – see for example Salthill / Monkstown (with spaces) vs Sandycove/Glasthule (no spaces).
Some abbreviations I’m unclear on (and they may well be correct). Should DCU and N.A.C. be initials or should they be written out in full? Why does one have full stops and the other doesn’t? Ditto for S.C. Also I know what St., Rd. & Ave. are for example (do they need the fullstops after them?), but what is Jc.? And is the ampersand in Rush & Lusk technically correct – seems unusual?
Shouldn’t the icons be keyed? E.g., what is the anchor? Does that just indicate water, or is it indicating specific locations of say docks? If it’s just indicating water then I’d move them well away from station names.
I was wondering about using PNG vs SVG and saw your comment above about it, and I’m not really sure – how do others get SVG to work successfully? An issue is that this is illegible at anything below full image size (not only thumbnail, but even image page size is basically unreadable, and I’ve gotta say I don't think that’s really ideal).
I’m wondering why no one has requested references be stated on the image page (just interested, because they normally do with, say, the LadyOfHats biological diagrams).
It does look an informative and neat diagram, and I don’t mean to be too picky, but I felt obliged to comment given the derogatory statements made by an earlier contributor directed at those opposing. A significant part of the reason that a lot of diagrams fail is nothing whatsoever to do with “the voting block of the ignorant anti diagram group”, but is rather more to do with diagrams containing basic errors and problems that can be easily fixed (along with the work taken to review them properly discouraging voters). I mean, with all the ‘minor’ issues I’ve listed here, apparently no one else has noticed them, looked for them, or taken the time and effort to comment (and I know some contributors have commented before that they simply don't see those things themselves if they're not pointed out). Now that may mean they're insignificant for some people, but to me a diagram needs that sort of perfection to make it ‘featureable’. --jjron (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll answer two of the above, out of my own knowledge:
5. D.C.U. (Dublin City University) and N.A.C. (National Aquatic Centre) are both sets of initials. Jc. is junction. In my experience, Ireland is somewhere in the middle of American and British conventions regarding the use of full stops for initials and contractions, probably leaning toward the former. Therefore, I'd leave full stops in for them all. Rush & Lusk is correct - that's the name of the station.
6. The anchor refers to the ferry ports near Point Sq. and at Dún Laoghaire. I agree, they should be keyed.
I'll also add two:
9. It's just a minor grammatical error but there should be apostrophes in the following: St. Stephen's Green; St. Brigid's; St. James'.
10. "Underground Dart" might want to be changed to "Dart Interconnector", since that's the name being thrown around for that tunnel in most of the planning documents.
11. The planned intercity line to Navan isn't in the key, and the broken line used to show it is different from the broken lines used to show other planned lines.
So, I'm neutral right now, but I'll have no problem strongly supporting once these problems are fixed up. The enc. value is excellent. --Schcamboaon scéal? 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a nice svg, but it's a weak support from me. I want to know a little more about the rail network, but the image doesn't have a lot of "wow", as said above. In addition, I like this better than another rail network FP: Image:Madrid-metro-map.png, because it provides more context for the rail system (the water). SpencerT♦C 00:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Author
1. Font Sizes: Poor Editing on my Behalf. Should all be same, and all were in the Orignal but started moving them around due to SVG Problems noted below. Then Tried Changing it to size five for Luas, 6 for Dart/Commuter. and the Intercity ones just were whatever I used last...
2. Station Name alignment. Again When exported to PNG from SVG, Some of the alignment for fonts was terrible, I fixed some of them but haven't really had time to go in and do them all.
3. Same as above.
4. Poor Grammar on my Behalf.
5. DCU in Common Usage is written as such. "DCU" while to be grammatically correct it should Be D.C.U. N.A.C. is never referred to as NAC though. St. Ave. Rd. are correct. Jc. is not really used outside Rail networks. and the Name of the Station IS "Lusk & Rush", which Contrasts to Salthill / Monkstown which should maybe be Salthill & Monkstown, but the Station name is as shown.
6. These Indicate Links to Passenger Ferries. Yes should be keyed.
7. I Created this in Illustrator, and the intention was to publish in SVG. However, for some reason Illustrator came up with an Unknown error and I had to export to PNG, When I did, Some of the Font Sizes and Alignments came out wrong. So doing guesswork in Illustrator to Align them correctly.
8. The Planned Rail Line to Navan is done differently and I may need to have a look at it again. It SHOULD be a commuter line when complete. But the differences between the Commuter / Intercity / Dart Services is a very blurry Line at the moment.. Oh to Be like Germany and have an Intercity / S-Bahn and U - Bahn. all clearly defined...
Finally I am an Amateur. Design is something I do in my Spare time, I am learning Illustrator and not that familiar with SVG yet. I never expected this to be voted as a FP. Personally I think it needs too much work and while it does have high ENC Value. there is just to much up in the air about Planned stations / lines and services that will operate on them. So The Existing Lines, Under Construction Lines, and Planned lines will need to be clarified more. I haven't really come up with a convention for those its not like I've had 70 years of practice like TFL. This was very much a new direction for a map that I had [here] Which You can see is a lot more confusing. I went the Way of the London underground and ignored geographic locations and tried to make it as simple as possible (Which It isn't) you basically have 7 Rail Lines on 5 Services. and 2 Light rail lines. being a Dubliner, and appreciating top class rail networks in other cities I use in my travels. I HOPE the rail network in Dublin does actually look like this in 5 or 7 years time. There are very few good quality maps out there of this network (take a look at Irish Rails own Website! You should try moving around this network Like I do at the weekends.) This was my Attempt at adding a comprehensive and accurate diagram of it. So I'm afraid Oppose in this format. and I will upload a new version taking into account all the comments above as soon as I can. Stabilo boss (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration with such seeming fussiness. It's why I now rarely vote on diagrams; it takes me a long time to properly analyse the images, and usually annoys the creator. However I feel my comments are usually reasonable as far as EV, and FP worthiness for that matter, are concerned. I just get frustrated myself when people make unfair comments about supposed voting blocks here opposing particular images due to preconceived biases, when it's not the case; that sort of comment serves no purpose other than to discourage both voters (who feel maligned) and good contributors (who feel that their images will not be fairly judged). PS well done on the further work done. --jjron (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Delist and nominate the new version when it's ready. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit two SVG (I chaned my vote above) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Edit 2) - I particularly like this idea, and the drawing of the rail network is a good addition to the encyclopaedia. I would see no harm in it being nominated as a Featured Picture. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. --HighKing (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to promote Image:Dublin Rail Network3.svg when I fix the breakage caused by the upcoming namespace change (Image -> File) (probably Tuesday). Any objections? MER-C 05:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about SVG, MediaWiki SVG interpreter uses a sans-serif font while Firefox 3.0.3 is giving me horrible looking serif font for the text... is there a reason for this? Bad coding? Using non-standard font? grenグレン 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's MyriadPro Regular (never heard of it until I opened up the source). It's funny you got a serif, mine goes to what looks like Lucida Sans (FF 2.0.0.14). I'll bump the creator. MER-C 08:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no wow factor whatsoever Oscar (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited Version (All Text Conv to Verdana) Stabilo boss (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--I can't read the SVG at all. Chick Bowen 23:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? Too small? Bad font? Crappy SVG rasterizer (most likely)? Works for me. Going twice... MER-C 07:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The font is too small--I literally cannot read the names of the stations. This is in Firefox 3.0.3 for Windows. But even if I open it in Inkscape I have to zoom to about 140% to read it. Chick Bowen 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does the world really need to be bored by a map of the Dublin Rail Network? I have no doubt that this map is useful to some, but with a featured picture I want to be interested in the subject or wowed by it. I am not interested and I doubt that there would be universal interest in the image. I could be wrong on the last point, however. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"wow" isn't a requirement of FP though, it has to be accurate and technically strong, which this image is. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This picture is awesome! I'm going to set it as my background! 8thstar 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this really needs some sources to verify the accuracy of this data. Also a time for when this is correct (as of X date). grenグレン 03:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 02:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, weak oppose edit Many minor problems: lack of sharpness, noise, sharpening artifacts, harsh lighting, unbalanced cropping. I could probably forgive any two of those, but all together, it's a no-go for me. Thegreenj 04:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted some denoising but refer to my comments below --Fir0002 05:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is certainly better. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning on why subjects like this should get more leeway because of equipment restrictions, though. The FP standard is set with a heavy emphasis on technical merit and much less on pure photographic. That alone is enough to make FP, to some degree, "elitist"; technical merit relies on the photographers proficiency and, more importantly, the equipment's limits, and it definitely shows. Compared to, say, Commons FP, which has a relatively lower technical standard and a relatively higher artistic standard, the proportion of FPs taken on SLRs to P&Ss is lower than here. With the WP standard, the mere existance of high technical possibility is enough; that, for example, Mdf can take such technically pristine photos for WP is enough to set a bar for FP, even if his equipment is, to say the least, inaccessable to most. But I digress... basically, this is a good photo that doesn't quite reach the (admittedly extreme) FP technical standard. Thegreenj 04:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thegreenj unforunately. I suspect you didn't get close enough to get a really high quality image, unfortunately doing so is difficult. Fill flash would have been of benefit for this one too. It is an easy valued picture though. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it was impossible to get any closer and this is pretty much a 1:1 crop. I tried with the 400 + 1.4TC but the gain in size (and the ability to downsample) was minimal and didn't offset the reduced resolution with the TC. But while I respect your opinion I would say that ramping the technical requirements up on bird shots like this is only going to make FPC ever more "elitist" simply because of the cost of equipment you would need to get any better. I mean should you expect the same flawless sharpness for a stationary and easily accessible flower as for a wild bird? --Fir0002 05:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not at all, that's why I don't bother nominating or even uploading many of my own bird images. By volume I produce more than flowers etc by far. I know exactly how frustrating not getting close enough is though. By some agreement the technical requirements for wild birds like this could be loosened, but I have had a few of my own nominations denied for very similar reasons (ultimately not close enough). In other news I spotted a Shining Bronze Cuckoo the other day, they are pretty rare down here. I occasionally use the TC with the 400, but you need a bucket load of light, to stop down and a tripod to get any significant gain in detail. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this image vastly superior to the previous one by Fir0002 which was approved. I suspect this bird is also much less common and/or harder to photograph, adding to the 'value' component being discussed on commons right now. Tomfriedel (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to "Yellow-faced Honeyeater nov07.jpg". The treecreeper photo has reasonably sharp eye/head and feet pixels and is lit more or less from the front. The featured picture in my opinion had none of those features. Ok, someone below is making the exact same point. Tomfriedel (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being lit from the front isn't a feature in my book. Most of the sharpness in this image comes from (over) sharpening, not actual detail in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The treecreeper is blurrier and noisier, besides lacking the nice backlighting of the honeyeater. Thegreenj 22:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has better details of the head and does not contain any twigs to distratct from the subjects. I also find the colours in this one more pleasing. Muhammad(talk) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fail at my attempts of understanding how the minimal (and they are minimal - the noise is now gone; the crop to isn't a real issue as the empty space that frames the bird keeps it in a pretty balanced center point; and the sharpness is a moot point - what would be gained, in terms of encyclopedic value (and that's supposed to be the point of FP, yes? To ensure that the maximum encyclopedic value is added to whatever article the image resides in by maximizing the technical qualities it possesses to the extent that they affect this value) by being able to count each separate filament in the birds feathers? At the end of the day, this is a fairly high quality image, in that it meets the necessary technical bar to provide maximum value for the encyclopedia, and indeed provides great value to the project in that it quite clearly demonstrates what a Brown Treecreeper is - a position not taken by any other image and one that is essential for an article with such a visual nature. Mad TinmanTC 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thegreenj. To me, the lighting is what really hurts it. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_2~11-29-08.JPG)
.gif)
1
2
3
3D red cyan glasses are recommended to view this image correctly. If people have trouble and get eyestrain from this, how about an anaglyph image, like this one? (It's a shot of my live steam locomotive in my workshop... ;-) You do need red and green (or red and blue) glasses, but Wikipedia already has an icon for that: --Janke | Talk 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
_2~11-29-08.JPG){kind=link}
_Number_18.jpeg){kind=link}
