Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Burj al Arab

Reason

Good image at dusk, nice colors in the sky

Articles this image appears in

links to the article/s that use this image

Creator

Redmarkviolinist

• Support as nominator ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think so. This is just a rather bad scan and thus most likely a copyright violation! Source self-made shows a misunderstanding of licensing policies. --Dschwen 14:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside from the terrible quality, the thumb marks and light along the side indicate scan of an ad in a periodical and likely copyright infringement. Poor quality, breach of copyright, poor composition (likely due to the cropping of information around the border revealing where it came from). Capital photographer (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like that its so dark, I'd prefer it in daylight --Hadseys 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The clearly visible Moiré pattern in combination with the photo itself indeed indicate a scan of a professional halftone print. Support speedy deletion as copyvio. Dorftrottel (criticise) 18:41, April 30, 2008
• Speedy close per above. Pstuart84 Talk 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Deleted. MER-C 06:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Doinyo Lengai Flank

Reason

Great quality, notable subject (which is the "Strangest Volcano on Earth").

Articles this image appears in

Ol Doinyo Lengai

Creator

Fred (erick) A. Belton

Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This image is too small to be considered for FPC. Please read the "criteria" linked at the top of the page. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-01 20:14Z
• Speedy close as brian0918 noted it is way too small, and certainly not special enough to overrule that guideline.D-rew (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with speedy close way to small, many technical issues and not unique or special enough to warrant bending the resolution requirements. Not at all great quality. Capital photographer (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close recomended. Size is way too small, and not sharp enough to make out any details. Spinach Dip 01:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flame 1

This picture is a beautiful depiction of "Deepavali" The festival of lights. It is celebrated by Hindus, Sikhs and Jains the world over. It also serves as a reminder that Deepavali is a festival of lights not crackers, which is what it has deteriorated into today.

Nominated by

Weedrat (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment The image doesn't appear in Diwali, but it does appear in Flame. No decision on the image yet. SingCal 17:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Oppose - too tight crop from the top, plus nothing special or really appealing - just a regular candle from what I can tell. Does not illustrate the festival. Sorry, Renata (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above - this is too tight of a shot to show any context. The technical qualities are nothing special either. Lipton sale (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject to close to top of frame, cropping to tight Capital photographer (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (been said before, but...) Doesn't illustrate the festival. No EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Did you mean to add this to picture peer review? You added it as Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Flame_1.JPG - should it be moved? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Lipton sale. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, WP:SNOWBALL. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's cute, but not FP material. Spinach Dip 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted, this seems misplaced. MER-C 12:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus cylinder

Comment on how the image stacks up against the featured picture criteria, not the subject. Soapboxing votes will be ignored. MER-C 10:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is the first known declaration of the HUMAN RIGHTS, issued by the emperor Cyrus II of Persia. In the 1970s, the Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights. The Cyrus cylinder is now being kept in the British Museum in London.

Articles this image appears in

Cyrus cylinder, British Museum, Human Rights and Yale University

Creator

User:Kaaveh Ahangar

• Support as nominator Kaaveh (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support, The distribution of color in the shaded part looks special. --Iranway (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, could you please clarify what you mean by that? NauticaShades 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I Support, because this is the oldest human right document anyone recorded.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - technical quality: composition, jpeg artifacts, lack of focus at full rez, and lack of detail in actual subject. de Bivort 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Just for human right NOT MORE! --Niknafs (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good information for people in the world.--Mani1 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. Also, there seems to be some canvassing going on in this nomination. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*. I added an ugly red box and struck a few votes due to invalid reasoning to get the message across that people should be commenting on the picture, not the subject. I guess we might need a featured picture director after all. MER-C 10:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not doing the Animal Farm thing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I unstruck the votes because I don't think it is fair unless they were confirmed to be sockpuppets or anonymous voters (one user has been here since 2004, not sure about the others), and nothing in the FP criteria actually requires users to provide a reason to vote or not, and while someone suggested canvassing was going on, no actual evidence was provided. Thisglad (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We are choosing Featured picture not Featured Object! Hessam (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose, I do not believe this meets any of the FP criteria. The object is to small, reflections which are easily removed with a circular polariser are in the way, there is ISO noise, lots of distracting content, is not unique, would not enhance the article. The edit shows what it should be more like, though the edit certainly isn't FP material either.Capital photographer (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, a much better photo could be easily taken of the subject. Cluttered background, subject is a small section of the entire picture, noise, artifacting, poor lighting for the angle, glass in the way, camera shake, can barely see the subject at all. Get closer to the subject (i.e. about a foot lower and right up against the glass, straight on to it, use a tripod and zoom in, about 800 film speed and a diffuse flash if possible. Alternatively, get someone with a good camera to take it. Possibly compromised nom too. E4T3A2 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I get a chance, I'll have a go at this one. Its not usually easy to get a good shot through a reflective glass box though, particularly as they would likely ban tripod use. I'm not sure it would be FP material. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need a circular poloriser to remove glare and a monopod or suction-tripod. Capital photographer (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a snapshot with no value in either technical or subject quality. Besides, looking at the first several votes this nomination is a very clear troll. Lipton sale (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A good picture of this object would be worthy of FP, but not this mediocre attempt. --Janke | Talk 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on oppose This image is a much better photo of the same object (still not FP quality though). Mangostar (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ... it's all been said. crassic!^[talk] 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per the usuals. SingCal 13:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per pile-on. This is a worthy subject matter; a pity it can't be removed from the case and professionally photographed. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose both A snapshot and better centered version of a snapshot. Matt Deres (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is no "real" subject in this photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Agassiz

Reason

Scientists are pathetically unrepresented in our FPs, with a total of approximately zero, unless you take a long shot and count Edison and/or Thomson, or the group shot from the Solvay Conference. While going through the delist for the low EV Agassiz statue below, I found a couple of decent shots of him in the article. I prefer the first one, it falls just short of the 1000px, but near enough for me. The second one is good too if people want to be really anal about the size requirements, but I prefer the first.

Articles this image appears in

Louis Agassiz (and List of geologists & Benjamin Franklin Mudge)

Creator

Unknown (uploaded by Saperaud)

• Support as nominator, preference for original. jjron (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, The original is ok though nothing special, the second one however is very poor in terms of comp and contrast. Capital photographer (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise you're new to FPC so are still learning the ropes, but if you change your vote for some reason you're meant to strike the original and replace it with your new vote, not just overwrite the vote (and generally give a reason for changing, even if it is that I commented on your Trevi Fountain edit). --jjron (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, sorry, thanks for the reminder. Capital photographer (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jjron, there is no policy that says you have to do it that way. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • However I must agree with Jron, it makes it more apparent when people have changed their position and I support its use, just forgot to do it. Capital photographer (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original Does not meet size requirements. Oppose alternate Nothing really stands out. Just a slightly sub-par picture. crassic!^[talk] 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree we should have an FP of Agassiz, and that these are decent scans of what are, presumably, fairly small originals (You can tell if you know a bit about Victorian engravings). That said, though, they aren't partiicularly great illustrations. Perhaps the one at t he LoC would do, if substantially cleaned up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. It feels like a very accurate portrait. It would be easy to sneak in another 55px without anyone complaining that it needs a tighter crop, so I don't see the problem. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal Bridge

Reason

The focus of this picture is stunning, as the odds of it even existing are quite low.

Articles this image appears in

Mount Tai

Creator

Pfctdayelise

• Support as nominator Axeman89 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor quality. And if you plan on demonstrating Mount Tai, shouldn't it be a picture of the mountain instead of this? crassic!^[talk] 11:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily. You could illustrate disneyland by showing just the disney castle after all. As long as this illustrates a notable part of the mountain or is typical of the mountain, it has EV (I suspect the former). de Bivort 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blown sky and chromatic abberation. de Bivort 12:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I'd recommend you to nominate it on Commons instead. diego_pmc (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The technical aspects are poor as mentioned above, and the composition could have been executed better. Lipton sale (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose But first, it is actually put into the article very appropriately illustrating a section of the article - it does not try to demonstrate the whole mountain. The subject could however do with better treatment - the faded distance weakens it, the matt colouring dullens it and for an illustration of angularity, it lacks sharpness. Motmit (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have no problem with the article placement or composition. However, the quality is unacceptable. Sorry.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original poor contrast, blown highlights, see example for how there is room for improvement Capital photographer (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work Cap! a bit off technical jiggery pokery makes a significant difference here Motmit (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak oppose. Excelent subject matter, but unfortunately, not so good a picture. Spinach Dip 02:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.M.C. Oath of Enlistment

Reason

Demonstrates the simple cermony surrounding the enlistment of a US Marine within acceptable FPC criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Oath of enlistment

Creator

Raul654

• Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Vehement oppose Shaky camera, bad exposure, terrible sound, easy to recreate. Beware us from "moving snapshots"! (This was "Media of the day" at Commons?!?! 24 days too late...) --Janke | Talk 08:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to all of the civilians walking around. If demonstrating this, I just believe it should be between the two Marines – not them and family. crassic!^[talk] 11:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes, I'm afraid I don't understand your reasons Crassic. In this case, if families are typically part of these ceremonies, they should be included. de Bivort 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he means that the civilians, as positioned here, detract focus from the two marines that are the main subject of the picture. If they were off to the sides, that'd be one thing, but as it is, they're "jostling for position" as main elements and are thus distracting. Of course, it's an encyclopaedic picture, but it's not "the best" of Wikipedia's image work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ^ Pretty much. crassic!^[talk] 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Yeah, this doesn't seem to be particuarly professional at all. Low quality, all sorts of irrelevent people hanging around... J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose just on the sound alone. If you listen to the first 4 seconds theres some sort of distracting background noise. And I think I heard a kid screaming or something like that. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crab spider with preys

Reason

A high quality action shot showing the exact moment when the venom is being inoculated into the fly

Articles this image appears in

Misumena vatia, Ambush predator

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Info - A mistery remains to be explained. When the shot was made the fly was still struggling. During the whole process, and even after the spider stopped inoculating the venom and hide under the flower, the male fly didn't move from its mating position. Was it too busy with the intercourse or, somehow, was also affected by the venom? I don't know. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant weak oppose It's really a nice photo, but I think the encyclopedic value is reduced because there are two flies, which I'm sure is quite a rare occurrence. Having two flies instead of one also makes it a bit confusing visually on first glance. Mangostar (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Striking my hesitation, decided I really don't like the second fly. Mangostar (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both Strong Support 2nd Excellent quality pictures. I don't really find them confusing. Particuraly the second one. I actually think that showing the flies mating adds to the enclycopedic value of the pictures and am unable to see them as confusing.--St.daniel ^Talk 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Adding an extra fly hasn't increased the enc (IMO) nor has it addressed the more pressing issue of sharpness which is still below macro FP standards IMO --Fir0002 09:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. You should definitely add this to ambush predator, and maybe predation as well. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that has been done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, highly encyclopedic. Prefer second version. Durova^Charge! 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subject is indeed very interesting, but the technical quality, along with the composition could have been executed better. Lipton sale (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Unique shot of a spider catching TWO flys at once...wow... Spinach Dip 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Banneker

Reason

A high res picture of Ben and the only one present on wikipedia. The image summarizes Ben's works.

Articles this image appears in

Ben Banneker, Charles Alston

Creator

Charles Alston

• Support as nominator Muhammad(talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This picture shows also a drawing style of Charles Alston, which was very characteristic. - Darwinek (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The quality of the reproduction is good. I am concerned with the accuracy of the sketch though. My searches found this sketch of him to be different from 5 other ones I found. Each of thsse 5 was slightly different but generally similar to each other, this one shows a far less rounded face and larger lips. As an example of Charles Aston's work, I support. As a representation of a person, I am less certain. I suppose it's no different to crude paintings of 16th century monarchs which are not very accurate but all that exists. Capital photographer (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing remarkable here. This is not to say it's not nice, useful, and interesting, just that it's not FP material. Madman (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the FP Criteria does it nor fit in? Muhammad(talk) 11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say 3 and possibly 6 Capital photographer (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I said when this went through PPR a few months back; was wondering if/when this would get nominated. --jjron (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but I just don't see the significance of this particular cartoon. It just seems like any other educational drawing from a children's book published from the 1940s through the 1960s. It's not particularly interesting or eye catching. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Grandpafootsoldier. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree, this just isn't featured picture material. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't really like the exclamation points at the end of the sentences in the picture. Spencer^T♦C 19:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon mischaracterizes Banneker's achievements and overstates their importance. Banneker was not an "city planner". He assisted in a survey of the boundaries of the future District of Columbia for about three months, but did not participate in the layout of the City of Washington, D.C. Further, he did not construct the "first clock in America". The first known American clock was constructed 100 years before his.Corker1 7 August 2008.

Eta Carinae as pictured by hubble

Reason

This is a high resolution image of one of the most massive star.
Has been a featured picture at Spanish Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Eta Carinae,Hypernova, Carina Nebula, Homunculus Nebula, Gamma ray burst progenitors

Creator

Jon Morse (University of Colorado) and NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, published by STScI.

• Support as nominator Sumanch (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Far too much HDR, what do you mean it can't be reshot ;-p No seriously, its excellent, obviously. Mfield (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pretty soft, can we get someone with decent equipment to reshoot?? ;-) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lipton sale (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The quality is excellent. Capital photographer (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I want to note that there is already a featured picture of this star. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually that image is not a picture of Eta Carinae. It is an image of the Carina Nebula, NGC 3372, where Eta Carinae resides. A lot of people make the mistake of calling it "Eta Carinae Nebula". This image should clear this popular error.Sumanch (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we're actually agreeing with each other. I was unclear in my earlier comment-- I meant to say that we already have a featured picutre where this star can be seen. (It's a spectacular object, and certainly worthy of being featured more than once). Spikebrennan (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you. But the difference between these images is same as the difference between this image and this.Sumanch (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent quality and exceptional contentJ.T Pearson (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clearly distorted. Needs restitching to correct this. Also too warm, needs colour correction. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Blown highlights on the stars! NauticaShades 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wonderful. The freddinator (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simply perfect. --Dcelasun (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow. However, can we remove 'stunning' from the caption? J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is no longer stunning.:) Sumanch (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if i can't call it stunning then i shall have to call it magnificent. as for the other featured picture mentioned previously, it looks a bit, dare i say, messy in comparison to this picture. this is certainly the better of the two pictures by a long way. Pm504 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is this an artists conception? the nasa website shows a different image Thisglad (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This image is not an artist's conception. The NASA image was cropped from this original to emphasize Eta Carinae and its ejecta, the Homunculus Nebula, in visible spectrum. The red aura is a near IR image of the surrounding mater interacting with the radiation from Eta Carinae.Sumanch (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Massive Support. Absolutely beautiful! Spinach Dip 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not only is this photo informative, it is just plain cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture! Spencer^T♦C 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:EtaCarinae.jpg MER-C 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Castillo at Chichen Itza

Reason

I've been meaning to stitch this for some time, and now that I got around to it I think it came out pretty well. Its been downsampled heavily but there is still some apparent softness in a few places on the monument. I'm not totally sure what is causing those, but as far as I know, they are accurate resizings. The light is good in this image and I took advantage of it with the composition. I would have liked to get a late evening or early night shot but they close the park at 6:00 so I couldn't stick around that long. I cloned out a few tourists, including some people having a picnic in the LRHS of the image. The guy with the white shirt I left in for scale and the people on the left would have been problematic to remove.

Articles this image appears in

Yucatán, Chichen Itza, Mexico

Creator

Fcb981(talk:contribs)

• Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you may have a few stitching errors. Check the wire rope: it disappears near the man in the white shirt, and there's a misalignment at the bottom-right corner and below the bottom-left corner of the pyramid. Also, check the clump of grass ~4155 px from left, ~2305 from top. It's repeated three times with softness in between; it might be a stitch problem. Other than that, it looks excellent. Thegreenj 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good spotting. The repeated grass would be a cloning mistake (that I will fix) The disappearing rope is strange and I will see what I can do to correct it. you'll have to point out to me where those mis-alignments are though. The uplift in the curb below the left corner is in the original segment and on the right I see a blend line if I look hard but there isn't much I can do about it. The rope got erased there as well so I'll add it back in. I'll also correct the stitch error in the first post to the the right of the man in the white shirt, that I didn't catch on my first run through. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if the minor stitching errors are fixed. -- Naerii 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed I corrected the problems that thegreenj saw and a few other's. Did I miss any of them?? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A quite competent stitching job and a good quality image. Nothing extraordinary though. I don't like the angle (the camera is too close to the building) and the tourists disturb. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not level. The two tourists in front of the pyramid really detract from the photo as well. Lipton sale (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to take a look at some of the edits without tourists, also, I am pretty certain that the image is level. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing special, the harsh lighting and shaddow degrades image a bit.Capital photographer (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tired, annoyed, Comment Well its an awfully good thing I anticipated all these wonderful objections. I figured (Like the rest of you): Chichen Itza, theres no reason there should be tourists, its only the best known Mayan ruin in the world and I'm only there during spring break!!! But to my surprise, there were tourists. It was a good thing I had 5000 pasos to bribe a few mexican cops to close off the area for my picture taking!!! it'd be damn awful if we had other FPs with tourists in them. Its also a good thing I decided to take this shot from further back. Oh and in terms of lighting... Maybe I should have waited for a dull, thin, grey, overcast, at dawn so that the saturation and contrast would not exist until digitally pushed into the realm of fantasy. Harsh light serves this stone monument well. What important detail is in the deep shadows?????!!!!! Nada. I agree that harsh shadows are bad in some situations... Situations where they obscure important parts of the composition. I just spent 2 hours hunched over my monitor removing tourists from a tourist trap! My contact lens prescription just got a diopter worse and I didn't do four homework assignments due tomorrow. I'm really sorry but the rope becomes obscured in places in the edit... I bet that requires an oppose. Yes also, this is really nothing special. with all respect... A 5000px reduced from 12000px wide stitched panorama at nearly sunset of one of the most impressive monuments in the world is nothing special when a toyota in some fog is!... are you high?! Alvagaspar: How can you possibly pretend to be able to objectively review my nomination literally a week since you called me a troll without provocation. I'm still waiting on that apology BTW. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a measured and dignified response. Regarding your comment "...panorama at nearly sunset of one of the most impressive monuments in the world is nothing special when a toyota in some fog is!" This is a silly comparison given they belong to entirely different categories. I believe that for an image of a vehicle on Wikipedia, it (Toyota Aurion) is unique... special even. I stand by my comment that your Edit 1 and Original are nothing special, however, I am not making that judgment as a comparison to mine, only the merits of the images you have submitted. I am also not seeking to say the subject of your image is less important than a vehicle in mist, I judge the image as per FP criteria, not the subject of the image. Allow me to reply to those parts of your comment that are relevant to my previously posted critique. "Oh and in terms of lighting... Maybe I should have waited for a dull, thin, grey, overcast, at dawn so that the saturation and contrast would not exist until digitally pushed into the realm of fantasy. Harsh light serves this stone monument well. What important detail is in the deep shadows?????!!!!! Nada. I agree that harsh shadows are bad in some situations... Situations where they obscure important parts of the composition." This is just a weak excuse for poor exposure/post processing. Looking at the histogram and adjusting contrast and brightness yields a more lifelike exposure. Edit1 has flat exposure with poor contrast that one might expect of mobile phone camera. The colours are indeed vivid in my image you have chosen as an example of "fantasy", but you know what, the vehicle itself is accurately presented. You present here however an average snapshot. A bit of tweaking of the levels, contrast and brightness in Photoshop presents a lifelike image that is not fantasy (see example). You also admit to cloning parts of the image which to me may breach one of the FP criteria of how much digital alteration is allowed. Seriously, when you put your photos up anywhere for people to judge, expect criticism and take it on board. I wouldn't have a any awards or sales of my work if I didn't listen to the criticism of my past work and used it to improve. Capital photographer (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The shadow from the staircase on the right is darker in your edit, while the major shadow was lifted without color adjustment so that it looks like some bad HDR. Now, Mr. Criteria, I believe that the criteria for exposure is that the exposure is that it is accurate, not HDR like. Did I mention that I'm not a huge fan of the HDR look ? Maybe getting the color rendition in the clouds faithful is less important, and a cell phone would retain the clouds highlights and the tree's shadows. Do you want to know how I metered this? Spot metered the brightest white in the scene and the darkest shadow I could find then a compensation chart to put the midtones about a third of a stop lower than normal. The exposure is, IMO, as accurate as possible. You also seem a bit obsessed with post to be honest. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you guys stop chucking things at each other? Because nobody is benefiting. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I'm beginning to realize the futility of arguing with this guy. He reminds me a bit of Mbz1. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • While you remind me of yourself, Fcb981 - very rude as always.BTW I am really thrilled that you still remember me! and that's why I Support original image.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the support, I guess this isn't a "No Value Image" =). I didn't mean to say anything offensive, only that you are a stubborn and tough opponent in an argument, and there is nothing wrong with that. :) It's good to see you back. I guess you didn't leave for good? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't call it nor imply any opinion of it being a "no value image", every image has value and it (edit 1) is a good image... however... I do not personally beleive Edit 1 has proper exposure/processing (in particular contrast and levels) to warrant an FP. I do appologise if you thought I considered it worthless, I was merely highlighting some easily correctable flaws I perceived that if remedied (like in Observer Edit) would certainly change my vote. Beleive it or not I am just offering a conrtuctively critical eye. Capital photographer (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sorry, I wasn't clear in my comment about "No Value image", I understand that isn't what you are saying. That was a quibble Mbz1 and I had awhile back. here and here as well as some nominations over at commons. It was just a joke on my part for finally getting a support vote from Mbz1. =) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • finally? finnaly? (-.-) --Mbz1 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm withholding support for now because I'm on an uncalibrated (and frankly awful) monitor, but I have to oppose the edits because they have way too much digital manipulation. FWIW, I have no problem at all with the tourists, in the first place because there's little to be done about them and in the second because they help provide scale for exotic places like this. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a perfectly clear shot of a high-traffic tourist area and I think Fcb has done a good job on minimizing their intrusion so that all they block are some less interesting bits of wall. Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I'm puzzled by the supports for the edits. It strikes me as odd that we get opposes for minor stitching errors in clouds, yet the glaring stitching problems here don't elicit a comment. Guys, the ropes are all broken, some disappear and reappear, and the pathway looks completely un-natural. Yes, they're not the subject of the picture, but they're right there in the foreground as a distraction. Matt Deres (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there wern't really stitching errors in the Version 2 near the ground... Those would be cloning artifacts. personally, I don't really care about tourists, but the monument sure looks more impressive without them. :\ -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Confused. What is the relation between Original, Edit1, and Observer Edit? Edit1 cannot possibly be and edit of Original. Could you get the labeling straight, please. --Dschwen 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what the hell is an Observer Edit? Shouldn't it be Edit2 per convention. How do you edit something as an observer, either you edited it or you didn't. Mfield (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. NauticaShades 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appologies for the confusion caused. My logic was that the "Edit #" format should remain for edits made by the original nominator/creator. The "observer edit", an edit made by I as an observer, showing what I beleive the image should look like... visual feedback. The new convention of "Edit - user" works better though. Capital photographer (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit Version #3. I see no real merit to the above complaints (not to mention that with the second version and its edit, some are no longer valid). All I see is a very high quality image of an important Mexican landmark. Good job to Capital photographer on the edit: the details have really been brought out. NauticaShades 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to clone out the tourists. They add perspective. NauticaShades 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Considering the quality of the image and the difficulty of obtaining it, this most definitely desrves to be an FP, especially if stitching errors are fixed. --Jamesflomonosoff (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 3 only. Now that I've seen it I can say I like it and the cloning is completely superfluous. Reluctant support version 2 or edit of version 2. Reluctant, because I actually don't want to award rude bitching. Then again if you look past that, there are some strong points. I don't like version 1 though. The colors look like a faded photograph from the sixties, and the mood lighting doesn't help the EV. I'd like to see an original unretouched version though! I don't mind the tourists at all. If that is how the site looks then that is how it should appear in the article. It's that simple. --Dschwen 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, sorry about the bitching... Indeed that's what it was. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, any chance we can see an unretouched version? --Dschwen 14:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to second that request. I really want to support the original, but the talk here has gotten me concerned about how much manipulation has gone on. I'm really not in favour of cloning over things unless its really unavoidable or if it's removing something really inconsequential. Big steaming pile of poo right in the foreground? Go ahead and wipe 'er out. Otherwise, less is best. Matt Deres (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I'll run the files and upload them. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. After reexamining I'll actually have to add an Oppose Original, Version 2, and Version 2 edit. The clone job is smudgy, and its extent is too big for me to tolerate it. Compared to the original the contrast boost is no enhancement either. Version 3 is just fine as it is. --Dschwen 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version #2 - meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version #2 and/or edit of version#2 version #3. I prefer it without the cloning. Cacophony (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version #2 It's subjective but I like it as it is, without the additional manipulation. Mfield (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Original, Ver 2, Edit of Ver. 2. There are still several stitcing errors in the lower wire in front in all editions (vertical displacements, soft spots) and some additional soft spots, but for me it is a minor detail, especially considering the large resolution, it is almost unfair to look at it in 100%. The image is very crisp, it has EV, and in this case I do no mind a tourist or two - it gives a sense of scale. I'd go to full support if the last remaining stitching errors were fixed. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ver. 3 This one looks good to me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone explain please? I don't see how you get Version #2 from the original - it's at a different angle (or have you somehow created steps on the left?) The sky has changed from what you would expect in Mexico to an overcast English sky. I see little value in losing authenticity in pursuit of an unreal techno-perfect ideal. For me the solitary tourist wasn't a problem, and the heat brown, though perhaps a bit strong felt OK. The new clouds add too much clutter and don't help the composition, but the cropping is better in the edit of V2. Motmit (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version two is an entirely different picture. Were it the same it would be labeled an edit—which it was initially, to some confusion above. Thegreenj 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I take it then the sky is genuine in Ver 2 and there has not been any significant modification. Both pics are good enc and give different impressions. Which is better is hard to say and so I'll leave it at that Motmit (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Version 3 could use a bit more contrast but other than that, I feel it's a good image and the subject benefits from the presence of persons near it to give it scale. One must also acknowledge that it is now a tourist attraction so tourists are now a part of its existence too.Capital photographer (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original or version 3. The other versions have some terribly visible operation scars in the lower left-hand area. Dorftrottel (complain) 19:05, April 30, 2008
• Observation since Version 3 added - for me this addresses the tourist in/out question (in general but not for this pic) - tourists looking at a sight add strength and value, whereas tourists just ambling past in a disorderly manner and not looking at it can be distracting. Motmit (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I find the two birds in the picture distracting when viewed full. Spencer^T♦C 19:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg MER-C 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camels of Giza

Reason

I found that this picture not only captured my interest, it also evoked my emotions. I was led to wonder: who is the man shown in the photograph? Where is he going? What has caught his attention? And what of the camels? The picture asks many questions, and it gives few answers. The quality of the image is good, and the colours provide a gentle contrast in the barren and arid surroundings. For these reasons, I believe that this image could become a feature image.

Articles this image appears in

Camel

Dromedary

Creator

Jordan Busson

• Support as nominator J.T Pearson (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original - Strongly Oppose Edit, It raises many questions alright, such as why this should be a FP? On a technical level, the image is very soft, has a a very high amount of noise and compression artifacts had a distracting background and is taken from an uncomfortable viewpoint (a little too high). Furthermore, according to the image history, it appears to have being interpolated (made larger) and it does not add considerably to the article in which it is used. I do not believe this meets enough FP criteria. The edit is shocking with a high level of digital artifacts and very soft along with exasperated exposure flaws. Capital photographer (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's very noisy, disorients the colour of the middle camel. Plus if my memory serves me right, there's already an FP for camels? Dengero (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone would care to redress the problems? Any improvements would be appreciated. J.T Pearson (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have personally contributed a couple of partially improved images. But those had one or two issues. This one has too many technical flaws, much less issues of composition, there is no way to correct them, certainly not without excessive digital alteration. Capital photographer (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Terrible quality. crassic!^[talk] 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - in answer to your questions, the man hires out camels to tourists, he is heading towards the buses and he has just spotted a punter. However I do not think the picture deserves the sort of knocking it is getting here. It adds considerably to the articles showing working camels in the desert as they are normally dressed up. The only other such picture in the camel article is imho vastly inferior. The viewpoint is absolutely correct because with dunes in the desert (and I know this is Giza) this is the sort of view you get. The subject is well placed within the frame and well structured as a whole. The main issue that I see is the way the head of camel two is lost in camel one. If there was a contrast the picture could have an interesting depth which might raise the status enough Motmit (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a snapshot with poor composition and technical quality taken from an unpleasant height that gives it no context. It may be better than the sole competitor you've found, but still not up to FP standards (namely, criteria 1, 3 and 5). Capital photographer (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cor! You talking to me? That was comment, not support for FP! (Furthermore I wouldn't put any of my Camel-shots in for FP nor stick them in an article that's covered) Motmit (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be labelled a comment but it goes through tvarious FP criteria and states why the image meets them so I would take it as a supportive comment to which I replied why it doesn't. Capital photographer (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not quite the quality of an FP. Spencer^T♦C 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bydell - Allegorical engraving of time.

Reason

A bizarre little 16th-century engraving, that's very encyclopedic for the sections of the article on time dealing with its mythological and allegorical uses. Delightfully grotesque, and perfect for a Halloween PotD. Spelling is modernised in the caption.

Articles this image appears in

Time

Creator

John Bydell

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Oppose it's nothing special but in particular, not very sharp either, perhaps up the contrast and sharpen a bit because at the moment, it looks like a photocopy rather than a proper high res scan

Um... that's how 16th century engravings look. Perhaps I'm missing something? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An engraving on what? It's black and white and at 100%, you can see artifacts and sharpness issues caused by poor reproduction. What was the original media? I've seen heaps of engravings, never any that were originally perfectly black and white. Capital photographer (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reproduction. If you seriously think that 16th century engravings are the sort of things you can just put directly on a scanner... =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, granted a flatbed may not be the best choice. I've worked in digital preservation for the National Library of Australia and methods do exist to digitally copy just about anything. One of the FP criteria is accuracy and I am wondering how this reproduction was created? Would recreation be a better description and ae there any images showing the original? Capital photographer (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the publisher of the book it got taken from =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a Photocopy/scan of an image from a book. Capital photographer (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that would be the usual interpretation of "Source: English Woodcuts 1480-1535 by Edward Hodnett, Oxford University Press, 1973" in the image's information =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very evasive. Is it a scan or photocopy? Looks like a scan OF a photocopy to me. And how was it reproduced in the book, was it a sketch, in which case how accurate is this? What is the value in uploading a drawing from a book from 1973? It's not like it's a copy of the actual original, rather a poor replication in a book which has being replicated again and uploaded. Furthermore, this book was published in 1973 by Oxford University Press, copyright? The original engraving may be old and in the PD but the book and a copy in the book would be protected by copyright.Capital photographer (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being evasive because I don't know. I'm sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. I assumed because you were the nominator and the creator listed isn't a user that you created/scanned/uploaded, I was silly not to check the creator details on commons which shows another person. Big concern is my research indicates this image comes from a 1973 reprint of a book first published in the 1935. I don't know about UK Copyright law, but the book would still be copyrighted. Depending on how this image/replica was created for the book, it too may still be copyrighted even if it's an image of something from the 1500s. The creator is listed as John Bydell, the book's from 1935 originally and this from the 1975 edition. If the copyright is for the life of the author +70 years, then this is probably a copyrighted image. Capital photographer (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember it copyright does expire 70 years after the death of the author, but this would also apply to the individual woodcut so you're probably OK. Time3000 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but many classical pieces of music that are too old for copyright are still not free of copyright, with performances protected by copyright. Hence, this is not the original engraving but copy of it, a new image created in the 1930s or 1970s. Capital photographer (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's unlikely that this crosses the threshold of originality. I have no clue how this applies to British copyright, but a google search turns up some references to a similar limit. It's the same reason I can't handwrite a copy of The Odyssey and call it my original work. On the other hand, a musical performance is an interpretation of the original. To make another comparison, if I take a head-on photograph of the Mona Lisa with front-lighting, it's not eligable for copyright. If I take steal the Mona Lisa, bring it to a studio, and take a photograph from an angle with dramatic lighting, it would be eligable for copyright. Thegreenj 05:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong skyline panorama

Reason

This typical 'postcard' view shows almost all of Hong Kong's skyline (except from the air, this is, as far as I know and have seen, the most complete panoramic view possible) from Victoria Peak and is very detailed and well exposed. Due to the extremes of brightness in the scene, it is not possible to expose correctly for all elements with a single exposure - I took three frames for each of the 26 segments, exposed -2, 0 and +2 stops and merged these prior to stitching.

Taking the photo at night allows a very detailed view and highlights the many architecturally interesting skyscrapers of the city. Each of the buildings stand out far more than during the daytime.

Articles this image appears in

Victoria Peak, Hong Kong and Metropolis

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original (per user:antilived below) Superb! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-23 20:31Z
• Comment Nice, it's a great view and very detailed - if I can make a suggestion, i think it would benefit from an S curve adjustment (gradient masked to avoid the top half of the image) to push contrast in the top a little. Also, I find that some wide radius USM works well after HDR to bring back a little local contrast, something like 20% at between 10 and 20 pixels for an image this size. It helps reduce some of the flatness that HDR leaves. Just a couple of suggestions, take them as you will, I tried them out on your image but held back from uploading it as an alternate in case you wanted to try it. Mfield (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I hesitate because I don't know if extra contrast is what it needs in this case... Hong Kong was (and is, in general) quite hazy and that lack of contrast is the result. In any case, I have already boosted the contrast a little. That said, perhaps you're right. As a photographer, sometimes its hard to see when an image needs a subtle adjustment because you're too involved. I am working from a pretty contrasty monitor (Dell 3007WFP-HC) but have noticed that some monitors, particularly on laptops, are quite washed out. Did apply the wide radius USM (hadn't tried that before - interesting) and it certainly brought out a bit of punch but I'm still not 100% convinced it needs much more than it already has. Feel free to upload the edit and we have a look at it though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There you go, its a slight thing, fairly subjective to be sure but i think it is an improvement. The image in general reminds me very much of one of mine I took of Seoul at dusk. Mfield (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like it, and I can see what you've done and why you've done it, but to me its six of one, half dozen of the other. :-) Its a subtle edit and I could switch back and forth over and over again appreciating different aspects of each edit. I suppose I'll leave it to the rest to decide which they prefer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Semi-weak support It's a stunning picture. But I question the level of smog^? above the city. Is it possible to re-take such a photo with less smog? crassic!^[talk] 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its certainly not possible for me to re-take the photo any time soon, as I don't live there - it was just a holiday. And as mentioned below, this is pretty typical for Hong Kong. In some sense this is more encyclopaedic as a result. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. In that case, Support edit. crassic!^[talk] 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image. Hong Kong generally has about this much smog, or at least when I took a holiday there. See other photos showing the smog: Image:A view of Hong Kong.JPG, Image:Government House rightview.jpg, and Image:2 International Financial Centre.jpg. Spencer^T♦C 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 only. Too much HDR effect on the original; not a realistic image. If this were being used to illustrate High dynamic range imaging, I might support it, but I think it actually detracts from the Hong Kong article, as it is distractingly unrealistic. Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean Oppose? It isn't actually HDR anyway, or tone mapping. Although its a somewhat similar process, the whole point is that it doesn't have the same 'HDR look' that tone mapping does. Obviously its a subjective thing and impossible to prove absolutely whether a photo is 'realistic', apart from having slightly better shadow detail, a normally exposed image would look quite similar. In fact I can upload a similar image to prove it to you if you'd like. This is not an overprocessed mess of an image as you seem to believe. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just uploaded a quick-n-dirty stitch of the image taken only from the neutral exposures. As you can see, there is not a huge difference. It hasn't been edited in any way from the RAW file (hence it is slightly darker), other than colour balanced. The main difference, IMO, between the images is simply the shadow detail is slightly better in the original compared to Edit 2. Oh, and because I rushed it through, the projection of the panorama is a bit different. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the reason the original version looks "overcooked"/HDRed is because there are no black shadows. For an image taken at night, you would expect something in the picture to be black. Otherwise it looks like the buildings are glowing unnaturally as you typically see in HDR images (example). Your 3rd image looks far more realistic to my eyes. Kaldari (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that in a lot of HDR images, buildings appear to glow. This is due to the tone mapping, where local contrast is enhanced to provide extra contrast and to make the image appear to have greater dynamic range than it really does. But that is not the case in this image, where no tone mapping has taken place. I can see nowhere in the image where the buildings are glowing (apart from the obvious bright lights causing the hazy sky to glow, that is). And you're right in that usually in night scenes, there are areas of blackness, but this is Hong Kong! If the area truely was black, it would still be black in this image. All I've done is lifted the shadow detail slightly. Some parts of the image are still very dark, but ambient light means its not pitch black. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand how you are claiming this image is not a high dynamic range image. Whether you are blending the exposures manually or by computer algorithm doesn't matter - it's still HDR. All that I'm saying is that by "lifting the shadow detail" you are making the photograph appear unrealistic. It looks almost like an illustration rather than a photograph. As Mfield's previous comment attests, it's obvious to anyone who sees this image that it is HDR (if they've seen HDR images). You may think that it looks great now, but in 10 years, when people get tired of the "HDR-look", the image will look dated and probably very specifically dated to around 2007–2010. Why don't you like the more realistic Edit 2? Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, although as an exposure blend is an HDR image, albeit not a tonemapped one, that doesn't mean that it has to look incorrect. HDR images often resemble much more closely what the human eye and brain, with their adapative exposure system, perceive at the time. I would wager that Edit 2 looks less like what Diliff was looking at at the time with his eyes than the Original or Edit1, the skill is in finding the balance that matches what the eye saw with what the viewer of the image sees. A big problem is that viewers are accustomed to seeing low dynamic range images of high dynamic range scenes and perceive them as natural, when in fact they aren't natural either. Some of my edit suggestions are ways I have found to counter the side effects of exposure blending and HDR, I didn't witness the original scene so it's impossible for me to say how much it deviates. I have just noticed however that the blue lights on the Edit2 version on the tower just left of center are blue and pink on the Original. Is that a side effect of some PP or do they change color and that was captured in multiple exposures and reflected in the blend? Mfield (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're absolutely right in saying that sometimes a well processed HDR image is more like what the human eye sees than what a typical camera captures with a single exposure, but as you say, a lot of people expect to see a more typical camera exposure (limited dynamic range). Well spotted regarding the colour of the lights. Yes, they changed slightly between frames, but I don't really see it as an issue, as long as they're blended nicely. Give it another 20 seconds and it would have been a completely different colour again. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think this is just a mismatch of terms. This is not HDR; there is no such thing as HDR in jpeg because jpeg is limited to 8 bits. Instead, Diliff took an HDR version and tone mapped it, i.e. he compressed the dynamic range to 8-bits. FWIW, the original does not look at all unrealistic. Thegreenj 02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're right to an extent, but I actually did not tone map it at all. At no stage was it a true HDR image (32 bits). I merely blended each exposure together so that the 'good' bits were kept (in the centre of the exposure curve) and the overexposed and underexposed bits were discarded. I find that this, when it works, does a far better job of maintaining the 'realistic' look of an scene, whereas tone mapping tends to mess things up (at least from my experience with Photomatix). As an example, here are two similar photos that I've taken. This one was turned into a 32 bit HDR image and tone mapped. This one was exposure blended. The tone mapped one could definitely be done better, and I don't claim they are otherwise identical (slightly different time at dusk, different weather conditions, leaves vs no leaves, but my point is that from my experience, you get a much more realistic image through exposure blending when done right. Anyway, I'm sure I'm annoying everyone with conversation in the middle of this nom so I'll leave it there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1, weak support original Most of this technobabble goes right over my head, and while they're both excellent images I prefer the retouched version.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Mfield (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original or edit 1 Both look great to me. Thegreenj 02:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, slight preference for the edit Looks like a scene from Blade Runner... Matt Deres (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I love Blade Runner. Haha. ;) crassic!^[talk] 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one of mine looks way more Blade Runnerish. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes! Isn't it odd that Blade Runner supposedly presents a "dystopian" future, yet we seem to be using it as a blueprint for designing our living spaces...? Matt Deres (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way, Blade Runner has plenty of fog. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either, slight preference for the edit The edit and the original are both absolutely stunning pictures with a remarkable level of detail. Axeman89 (talk)
• Support edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Neutral. In the end, I can't convince myself that HDRI is necessary or beneficial to this particular scene. Edit 2 is probably reasonable (but not officially nominated?). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But given that the HDRI (I even hesitate to use that term, this image has very subtle use of blending techniques, thats all, not HDR tone mapping) improves shadow and highlight detail, I'm not sure how you could say it isn't beneficial. Whether it is 'realistic' is of course open to interpretation, but I suspect that if I didn't mention any editing techniques in the nomination, the issue may not even have been raised as this scene could almost be possible with a single exposure, and I don't know if anyone could look at the photo and know for sure, without having tried. In fact, in a couple of years from now, if cameras start coming out with increased dynamic range capable of capturing this scene, would you decry them for it? This whole issue is significantly overblown IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I think we can see that it's HDRI. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that I could alter Edit 2 to look very similar to the original without using any HDRI whatsoever. The only significant difference would be the quality of detail in the highlights and shadows, not the brightness or balance of them. I think you have a preconception about what HDRI looks like. I can't really be bothered, but I could assemble a collection of images and ask you to determine if they were edited single exposures or HDRI images, and I think you'd get a significant number of them wrong (as would most people). It isn't as clear cut as you seem to believe. There are far too many factors at play here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that I could alter Edit 2 to look very similar to the original without using any HDRI whatsoever. What is your point? This image is a very clear example of HDRI, and your comment in fact exemplifies the increasing slipping of our grasp on reality here at FPC. The gold standard we should aspire to is for images to be passed as FPs without being edited at all. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is that HDRI doesn't automatically mean overprocessed, if it is done well and sometimes it serves to make an image look more realistic, even if you can identify it visually as being HDRI (although I don't think you always can with certainty). As for aspiring to images being passed without any editing at all, I don't think that is the right attitude. As I've mentioned elsewhere, image processing occurs the split second you press the shutter on a camera, whether you like it or not. Cameras essentially edit an image when it turns the captured data into a JPEG file, giving it sharpening, colour balance, contrast etc. Now by your logic, you would say that the output from a camera is the 'gold standard', but as soon as I process the image from a RAW file - essentially doing the same thing that the camera does - you seem to imply it isn't accurate anymore. It has never been as cut and dry as that. Cameras are quite capable of messing up the accuracy on their own. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up, because it's utterly ridiculous and somewhat embarrassing imho. Of course jpeg is a compressed format. But the algorithm is standardised, at least for each camera line - the same algorithm applied to each image - and is honed to represent the image *as is*. JPEG compression is a necessary evil that camera makers chose to work with, both in early cameras because memory chips were small and expensive, and in some budget cameras currently, where the included chip is, again small. You and I know that no allrounder pro camera would add essential edits to an image out of the box, because it limits the artistic expression you can achieve with the camera (and get me right here so we can avoid another argument - I was talking about *artistic* expression for just a second there, not encyclopaedic faithfulness!). I even suspect that any such behaviour can be switched off if you know how. We also both know that in the age of cameras using film, you had to pick your film to match the lighting conditions, and different films gave different colour characteristics. But you knew that all pictures shot on a Velvia film would come out according to a shared standard, and a trained eye could tell a Velvia from a Provia etc. HDRI photography does not currently have this benefit, as there is no standard rendering, and many images come out looking rather clownish as a result. Your concept of "overprocessed" only serves to substantiate my concern: if you no longer care whether your image is slightly processed (as we've seen with the variety of edits being offered here), you're making a fundamental mistake. Maybe Hong Kong is lit differently to NYC, but after the last person has had their say and their wish granted, it may end up looking exactly like NYC. FPC is not about making a beautiful picture, it's about making an encyclopaedic picture. We have a time-honoured tradition here of sending "beautiful" pictures to Commons. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any, prefer Original - Honestly, I trust Dillif's judgment here. de Bivort 12:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Well done. Lipton sale (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Can't see anything wrong with it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Any. Even if the first two versions are deemed "unrealistic", a full-size and properly edited Edit 2 would be sufficient. NauticaShades 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 only the other edits do in fact look quite different than the actual conditions shown in edit 2 not to mention the glare has increased in the exposure blended original, it does not look like a natural night scene Thisglad (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did mention that Edit 2 is not for voting, just for reference.. At the very least, it is quite underexposed, as I did not post process it for actual use on Wikipedia. Also, I think the 'glare' you think you are seeing is probably just the ambient light reflecting off the haze in the sky. This is not a HDR related artifact, but was very real and is only more visible in the original because it is brighter (not wrong or fake, just brighter). Just my opinion though. If you're intent on supporting edit 2 only, I assume that would make your vote by definition neutral towards the original or edit 1? Or are you opposing? Could you clarify? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually looking at again the main problem I have with the original is the blue color cast, I think the color balance is inaccurate, at least the sky should be more black than blue Thisglad (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colour cast is identical in both the original and edit 2. Again, the only significant difference between them is the brightness and highlight/shadow detail. Brighten Edit 2 and you will see the colour is almost identical. As for the colour cast accuracy itself, because of what I mentioned about the haze in the sky, it will never be a true black because the various lighting of the city (incandescent oranges, coloured lights, intense whites etc). As such, you cannot choose the sky as a grey point (and if you do, the whole scene ends up looking very faded and unpleasant yellow). so in the end it comes down to an attempt to present the scene as accurately and aesthetic as you can, making certain compromises along the way. Its very easy to second-guess but far more difficult to please everyone. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why does this blue cast not show up in other images of Hong Kong? Just do a Google Image search for "Hong Kong at Night". None of those images resemble your original or Edit 1. Kaldari (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The example you provided does not have the low lying haze that mine does so you cannot compare the sky colour. During that day, the sky was a hazy, murky grey. Does that mean that the colour was 'fake' since the sky is usually blue? The thing is, doing a random search on Google isn't really fair. Most people don't know how to use their camera. Their camera will likely be left on auto WB (which almost always exposes too warm at night), or they'll take a photo with a flash, leaving it severely underexposed. But heres a couple of examples: [2], [3]. In the end, as I said, it comes down to aesthetics as much as it does accuracy, since there is no single light source to balance for. So maybe I adjusted it slightly too cool, but if I didn't, it would look quite murky. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Orginal or edit 3 - a native Hong Kong resident friend of mine says the original is more faithful to what you would actually see than the edit, which is what I think is well, considering all the smog and possibly fog in the photo (normally the smog isn't THIS bad). This is not what you would expect directly from camera, but it matches what we actually see very well, and to me that is way more enc than the arbitrary camera response curve that we are all used to. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Orginal - nice though could use some more contrast Capital photographer (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ain't this a screenshot from some science-fiction film? - Darwinek (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with a slight preference for the 2nd version. This is a remarkable photograph. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I am a native Hong Kong resident, and I can say that Edit2 (quick-n-dirty version) is the most realistic one. Edit2 separates the business district and the mid-levels residential area clearly. -βαςε_LXIV™ 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Edit 1 The brightness is much better in edit 1 than the original. --Dcelasun (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: its actually darker in Edit 1, not brighter.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's a part of the central tower that is blue in the neutral exposure, but pink in the HDRI version. Why do we see this effect? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was answered a bit further up. Basically the neutral exposure was, as described, a single exposure and the HDRI - I still hesitate to use that term, but it was multiple exposures. The tower's lighting was constantly changing, so when the three exposures were blended, it gave a slightly different colour. Thats it, nothing too overt, and not really misrepresenting the scene either, as it isn't a static colour. Taking another shot seconds later would have resulted in a different colour again. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Obvious conditional support after fixt. Just noticed this on commons, amazing. Buildings are leaning to the left, which is easy to fix I believe, and which is why I oppose (stupidly one might say). I think one cannot get right exposure of night scene without a bit of tone mapping, so I prefer the retouched version. Blieusong (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think you will find they are leaning inwards slightly on both sides. I'm surprised, with all of the controversy over this image, that nobody has mentioned this. It was actually kind of delibrate. I found that when correcting the tilt completely, the composition was not as good, because the edges of the mountain became more prominent in the frame, so it was a bit of a trade off. I'm glad you agree with me about the exposure, although as I said originally, it was not tone mapping. I used a program which you may be interested in. Rather than create a HDR file and then tonemap it, it calculates which pixels in a set has the best exposure on a bell curve and combines the image together that way. So it is similar to tone mapping, but quite different in how it works, and it usually results in a much more pleasant photo, without messing with settings too much (although you sometimes have to increase contrast a bit afterwards). I'll put a note on your talk page with more information about it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you're right. There is a tiny lean towards the left! I'll see what I can do about fixing it. You need to be pixel peeping to notice! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • me and my roomate user:sanchezn found the leaning obvious (and I'm surprised we are the only ones :) ). I needn't pixel peep (though I often do that with high res panos such as this one) to notice, I just put a building edge against the border of my monitor, to find out. Blieusong (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, its pretty easy to check the lean when you have so many skyscrapers to choose from. Your Paris skyline panorama has a big horizon curve though. ;-) I know, I remember you saying that it was delibrate. I was just looking at your commons gallery, lots of them should really be featured pictures on the En Wiki. I'm surprised they haven't been nominated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • yup, unfortunately, there are many buildings eligible to be put against the edge of monitor ;). BTW, my oppose really isn't one, as find this picture beautifuly amazing and I know it won't change the results of this candidature. I just meant to get attention on the leaning. Thank you for the comment on my gallery. Maybe they are not nominated because they suffer from being compared to your panoramas ;) Blieusong (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I decided to go right back to square one and reprocess/restitch it completely to also address the issue of colour balance that Kaldari raised. While I maintain that colour balance in a scene like this is very subjective and complex with so many light sources, I think this may be a better compromise. And I still maintain that the dynamic range and accuracy of this image is far superior to Edit 2. What do you think? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's great !!! I strongly support Edit 3. I agree with you for the dynamic range point, and color balance wasn't a matter to me. Hope other people will notice this edit, now that this section has gone very far down this page ! I'll just put this edit on Commons FPC too. Blieusong (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for closer. I hope I'm not misspeaking for the others, but as this nomination is so far down the list and not attracting any attention since I've added Edit 3, I wanted to point out that as the creator, I think it is the best version (Mfield's edit could equally be applied to it and I'd be happy to support those changes too, if consensus pointed to Edit 1) as the tilt is corrected, issues with colour balance have been addressed (hopefully to Kaldari's satisfaction) and the angle of view is slightly wider. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 or edit 2 only, edit 1 has far better contrast in the upper half than the original, but my personal favourite is edit 2. Dorftrottel (warn) 19:27, April 30, 2008
  • Out of interest, is there anything specifically you don't like about edit 3? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like the original, the upper half is too bright with fuzzy light, the entire image has an artificial, "HDR overkill" feel to it. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:29, April 30, 2008
      • Obviously you've never been to Hong Kong or Mainland China recently, the air had gone down greatly in the last 5 years. My point is: it DOES look like that in real life.--antilived^{T | C | G} 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, its quite frustrating. It seems like these days in FPC, everyone is overcritical and just wants to give their unqualified two cent opinion and/or speak before thinking. Nevermind that an experienced photographer believes it is accurate, as do many people who have been there. Furthermore, the whole purpose of HDR is to compress dynamic range so shouldn't that mean that the bright 'fuzzy light' in the background would be darker than in Edit 1, rather than brighter, if it had a stronger HDRI effect? Yes, thats what it means. Oh well, what can you do? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't matter to me personally what it looks like in reality. Edit 1 and edit 2 still look far better and also more authentic, and that is what counts. Dorftrottel (warn) 11:04, May 2, 2008

• So you are basically admitting that it doesn't matter what the reality of a scene is, it only matters what you think it looks like? This is Wikipedia, not Dorftrottel's website of things that he thinks look good and authentic. ;-) You might think thats what counts, but I certainly hope that the closer takes into account your disregard for those who have first hand experiences with the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm 'admitting'? What is that even supposed to mean? Did you accuse me of anything? Do yourself a favour and slow down on the rhetoric. And yes, like everyone else here, I'm providing input from my personal perspective, and I don't feel the need to give other people that kind of talk. Also, are you as strictly opposed to photoshopping tourists out of siteseeing hotspot images because it's not authentic? Dorftrottel (criticise) 12:00, May 2, 2008

• I think you need to look up the word 'admit' in a dictionary. Admissions don't always follow accusations, although they often do. To admit is to acknowledge. As for photoshopping tourists, yes actually, as a general rule I am opposed to photoshopping tourists out of images. Why do you ask? What relevence does it have to this? Are you questioning my consistency? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then write "acknowledged" when you mean acknowledged. ;-) You see, I lost some assumption of good faith right between "This is Wikipedia, not Dorftrottel's website of things that he thinks look good and authentic. ;-)" and your accusation against me of "disregard for those who have first hand experiences with the subject" totally out of the blue. ;-) Dorftrottel (ask) 13:18, May 2, 2008 ;-) ;-) ;-)

• Support, with preference for Edit 3. The color balance adjustment and wider view are improvements, in my view. The visibility of the haze is part of the image's encyclopedic value.--ragesoss (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all, prefer edit 1 or 3 Very interesting, illustrative picture. Edits 1 and 3 are very well done, although edit 3 shows a bit more mountain than I would like. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hong Kong Skyline Restitch - Dec 2007.jpg MER-C 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica

Reason

A good quality image and very beautiful.

Articles this image appears in

Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica

Creator

JeremyA

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 03:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment it looks as if it has undergone a lot of noise reduction. de Bivort 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - spectacular, lifts the article and informs. Is it perhaps a bit too bright here? - it seems more toned in the article but perhaps it depends on the slant of the LCD. Also I wish I could blot out that line of wall lights which puts support a bit on the edge. Motmit (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It is rather grainy and the lights are all unattractively blown out. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, would support a slightly darker version. --Janke | Talk 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It can be nit-picked, but I don't think this shot could be substantially improved upon. faithless (^speak) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose obvious pincushion distortion, very blown highlights, too much NR. Surprised this made QI - doesn't say much for the QI review process. Mfield (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very strange effects surrounding the lights. And the ceiling at the top of the picture is a bit weird. crassic!^[talk] 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I could nit-pick at the small details but as a whole this is a well done work. Lipton sale (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would someone mind uploading an edit fixing the tilt? I might consider a weak support if that problem were dealt with. NauticaShades 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a go, resulting in Edit1. It's about as close as I could get without major work. There's some pretty interlinking distortions going on. Mfield (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support. That's good enough for me. Nice job. NauticaShades 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral to weak oppose Maybe it's my computer screen, but I don't see where it's grainy. I do, however, see that the lights are way too bright, and IMO that is the biggest detraction from the image. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Looking at it in the browser window and then even more so at 100%, edges of image are very soft, I would say around 30% of the image area. Areas of image are too bright, there is a noticeable colour cast and contrast is a little lacking. What makes many of these errors surprising is they can be greatly reduced or even solved using a single mouse click... Auto Levels, in Photoshop. Fixed it up a lot. I then did some further manual levels adjustment, then I did some further contrast adjustment and removed the colour cast, but even the auto-levels did a lot by itself. See Right: Our Lady of Sorrows 080202 feedback.jpg. Apologies if this sounds harsh, but, one mouse click! Capital photographer (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To me your edit looks to have too much magenta, I think the more orangey cast of the altar area in the original is probably more accurate to what the eye would observe, this is a building with a huge mess of different lighting sources and temperatures and white balance is always going to be a judgement call, something which auto levels is going to misjudge a lot of the time. Choosing the altar as an area of interest, and specifically the white cloth on the table in the center, I would tend more toward orange than magenta. Mfield (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You mean a magenta cast over the whole image? The original has a strong orange/yellow cast. My colour calibrated display (I finally calibrated it) doesn't show any, but some displays have a magenta cast. Could anyone else please confirm if a cast exists?
    • Yeah, the edit definitely has a magenta cast. Auto levels isn't going to work well when the interior of the building is orange to begin with. The original looks reasonably accurate to me. Thegreenj 23:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify, what you see here wasn't done with auto levels, rather manuals levels and brigtness and contrast adjustments. My point was I used auto-levels (though this change wasn't retained for the final version here) and it improved it quite a bit. Capital photographer (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment actually it has a less blown areas than Today's featured picture Mfield (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1, strong oppose observer edit It could be sharper, but I'm willing to overlook what is, to some extent, a depth of field issue a bit. The observer edit, however, looks unnatural, particularly in the painting above the altar. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Observer Edit Full of color and I like how the empty space was removed from the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Observer edit But edge softness is still an issue. Spencer^T♦C 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Our Lady of Sorrows 080202 feedback.jpg --NauticaShades 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 20:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (Promotion overturned).[reply]

Cross section of a celery plant.

Reason

Excellent picture, showing Vascular tissue (Xylem and Phloem) and looks good under higher res.

Articles this image appears in

Vascular bundle • Vascular tissue • Celery • Lignin

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's zero detail other than on the vascular tissue, and the DOF problems cause too many problems with that detail. SingCal 03:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I am pleasantly surprised by the quality given its from a non-Macro Tamron zoom lens. For me, there are two issues, both of which are crucial to the success of a macro shot. Firstly, DOF (Depth of Field) is not quite right. Secondly, control of the background, the large brown section in the top right is a distraction. The background could afford to be bit darker too. A good effort, I would like to see another one with a bit more attention to detail. I'm sure it could make FP. Capital photographer (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Everything's out of focus – including what the photo is attempting to demonstrate. crassic!^[talk] 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is nothing in focus in the entire image; the whole thing is blurry. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As said above, quality is horrible. Spinach Dip 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This photograph is taken from an artist's view rather than an informational view. Quality is also lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not at an FP level, and the blurriness is bad. Spencer^T♦C 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. DOF is too small; blurred. As Spencer said, not an FP level. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMAP image of the Cosmic Microwave Background

Reason

Meets all the criteria. It's the best baby picture we have of the universe.

Articles this image appears in

Lots due to its use in two templates; see the image page for a complete list. Main ones are Cosmic microwave background radiation and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

Creator

NASA / the WMAP Science Team

• Support as nominator Mike Peel (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (with reservation) — It is an exelent image but png. I will be sitisfied if it is converted to jpeg.. Png works.Sumanch (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: What's wrong with it being png? Mike Peel (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Informative but visually unimpressive. No wow that I see. (Maybe I'm just a Philistine.) Mangostar (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Searching online could find no better image of this subject at this time so it's unique, of high quality and adds to the article(s) it appears in. Regarding the use of PNG format, I too am puzzled. PNG is as good or better than JPEG depending on compressing settings. Furthermore, PNG has allowed the removal of a set background, increasing the versitility of this image. Other versions of this image available online had a solid white or solid black background. In any case, what is shown is the subject and the background is irrelevent. Capital photographer (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support de Bivort 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A picture is worth more than 1000 words? Not in this case, I'm afraid. Though it represents an important scientific achievement, the picture is unimpressive and does'nt cause a feeling of awe, like this other nomination. Or maybe the image is not beautiful enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall "cause a feeling of awe" being one of the FP criteria. Yes, there's no denying the nebula image is a stunning work but this graphic is as unique and informative for it's subject. Capital photographer (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean is that this picture is a pale image of the work done in mapping the cosmic microwave background radiation and of the reality it represents. I don't think it makes us really interested in reading the article, as it shows very little meaningful information to the majority of the casual readers. I'm a macro physicist myself (well, I used to be...) and the only thing I can see is some random distribution of the temperature in space. On the contrary, reading the article may make us interested in seeing the picture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For me, as a physicist, this image of the microwave background radiation is impressive and has very high EV. The amount of work which has gone into this image is enourmous, from designing the instrument, building it, launching it, accumulating the data and subsequent data analysis. It tells us a lot about the homogeneity of the universe as well as the first signs of anisotropy in the early universe perhaps the seeds for the first galaxies to form. The png format is only natural for this image as it allows for a transparent background and hinders any image artifacts. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support After some thoughts, I have changed to weak support. The reason is, that for me, an FP should preferably be self-explanatory. This image is only self-explanatory for those who have some knowledge of the subject or who reads the article quite thoroughly. I do not have any good ideas how it could be made more self-explanatory, which is why I still support it. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not as pretty as a nebulae, but a lot more important and a much more difficult technical achievement. Matt Deres (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I acknowledge what Alvesgaspar is saying, but I think this is the best possible image of its subject matter. Caption could use work, though: perhaps it could explain in brief what the different colors represent, and the significance of the red parts being bunched together. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. By the way, I've uploaded an optimized version so the filesize is now about 60% of the original. Time3000 (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - find a version of this picture that doesn't use unattractive primary colors in the scale. Cambrasa confab 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the article and you'll understand... this isn't art, it's science. The colours are those of the original data and the colours are not just for decoration, they indicate temperature like those weather charts you see which show temperatures. Replace the colours and the image is meaningless. The colours are an integral part of the image, replace or remove them and the image is made useless. P.S. There is quite a bit of yellow in the image... yellow is made from Green and Blue and is therefore not a primary colour!Capital photographer (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the colour of the original photons is up in the radio frequencies, not in the optical, so is not something visible to the human eye. The colours you see in this image are those picked by NASA to display the image; while it could be recoloured, this is by far the most popular colour scheme for the image at present, hence the most recognizable, and hence this is the colour scheme that the image here should use. Mike Peel (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify my original comment, the colours of the original image released by NASA based on the original data from NASA. In other words, not just art but what NASA feels is most illustrative of temperature. I guess the point is the colours are not picked at random but are significant. Very interesting info none the less. Capital photographer (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Matt Deres. Pstuart84 Talk 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per above diego_pmc (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Instead of viewing this as a picture, it should be treated as a figure/drawing as this image was generated by NASA following studies on the topic of CMB. This image has high en value. --Kalyan (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar; it's important and unquestionably of high encyclopedic value, but it's not that interesting until a viewer already knows a fair bit about what it illustrates.--ragesoss (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high enc. value and per Matt Deres. Spencer^T♦C 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:WMAP 2008.png --jjron (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Trevi Fountain of Rome

Reason

Again, a reprocessing of an old image that I wasn't 100% happy with. This is a very detailed rectilinear-stitched mosaic image of the Trevi Fountain in Rome. It is derived from 25 individual frames. I needed to use this many due to the extreme nature of the rectilinear stitching (the edges are very stretched/distorted, but due to downsampling of the image from 15000x10000 to 3500x2300, softness is not as visible). I've never seen a rectilinear view of the Trevi Fountain before. Typical views only include part of the scene (This for example), are taken from a long way back and obscured by the crowds, or are distorted by the upward angle. This image avoids all of these issues and is a pleasing view. This is perhaps despite the slightly ordinary sky, which I think I've managed to make look 'atmospheric' rather than dull, and does contribute to even lighting of the building.

Articles this image appears in

Trevi Fountain

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support original, support edit colours are pale, particularly the sky so the image looks flat and very cold, I actually mistook it for a painting until i read the description. Framing is nice though and looking at it in the article, it certainly adds to it. I am also extremely impressed that this is the resolt of image stitching, it is entirely seemless. While I feel it needs more depth, it's very very good already. Capital photographer (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you can't make a scene something it is not though. You can see from the people on the edges that there is plenty of saturation in the image - its just that the fountain itself IS somewhat pale. If I'd taken the photo in strong sunlight, it would no doubt look warmer but instead, there would be heavy shadows and probably uneven lighting. As you no doubt know, lighting in phototgraphy is often a compromise and indeed it is in this case. I think that if I were to edit the hell out of it to try to get more oomph and colour, I'd probably ruin it in the process, as I've already massaged it enough to get it looking like this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The big issue for me is that the building and sky are both quite pale and bright and the sky lacks contrast and saturation. The result is in image where the building blends too much into the background and the image is inbalanced, with a darkish colour foreground and a very pale and bright top part of the frame. Lighting is a tough thing and the lighting you took this shot in is actually ideal, minimizing possible shadow and glare. We all have our own eye for photography, so I opened this image in Photoshop and made some changes using nik Viveza to show what is possible and what I personally feel would work better, to better express what I'm saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your welcome to your opinion and I'm sure feedback is appreciated, but I'm not sure it's entirely good form to replace the original with your edit in the article while it's under discussion here and Diliff hasn't even had a chance to reply. --jjron (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you updated your cache? I reverted the image a while ago after testing it in the article. I would certainly encourage the nominator to test the edit in the article to see how it looks though. Capital photographer (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not that I'm personally offended that you replaced my image in the article, albeit briefly, but why did you need to see how it looked in the article, when your edit is only moderately different, and you could see it just as clearly in this nomination. And even if you did 'need' to see it in the article, you could always preview it rather than save the change... And for that matter, and I know I'm being picky (sorry!), but you should probably try to make all your changes in a single edit, rather than going back over and over. ;-) As well as creating potential edit conflicts when others are trying to contribute, it also just looks a bit messy in the edit history.
          • One of the FP criteria is does it contribute to the article. Personally, I can't tell here if it would or not. Images appear at a different size and with different text rapping in articles. Also, leaving it in the article for a brief period allowed time for a reversion. Given that it looked good in the live article and was not reverted, I consider it a success and that it does contribute to the article. Capital photographer (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, you wouldn't expect it to be reverted within 3 hours unless it was objectively inferior or vandalism. As I said, it is so similar to the original that most people simply would not notice or care. Eventually someone with a keen eye would probably notice but that is a bit beyond the scope of a 3 hour test. The active contributors here at FPC are just as competent in determining an image's contribution or potential contribution to the article. Anyway, I'm not really having a go at you, just letting you know the way it usually works here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now, 'finally' getting to the critique of your edit. Aesthetically, I don't mind the change you've made, as it does make the sky somewhat more dramatic and contrasty against the building, but you've introduced (or possibly just exacerbated) posterisation in the sky. Also, you say you haven't altered the fountain/building in any way, but you have. The windows are now tinted a bit overly blue, and the plaque at the top of the building is clearly blue-tinged now. Seems like that little tool of yours has been strong on the blue saturation. As I said, I don't mind what you've tried to do in theory, but in practice it seems a bit heavy-handed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The tool I used has a saturation adjustment function, but I didn't use it. Just corrected levels and turned the brightness of the sky and reflections of the sky down 25% and contrast up 8%. You are correct, the reflection of the sky in the windows and water is part of the layer mask used to correct the sky. The sky is reflected in the windows and water... so if the sky changes, so to does any reflections of the sky. I didn't consider this a change to the building and the building itself was not deliberately altered, only the sky and reflections of the sky.Capital photographer (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well ok, perhaps it was just a brightness change rather than saturation change (darkening highlights to midrange often does increase the perceived saturation), but you ignored the point I made about the plaque of the building also being blue tinged now. That is clearly not a reflection of the sky. It evidently had a small amount of blue in it to begin with, since I'm assuming you essentially darkened anything with blue in it, assuming that it must be the sky?), but it is looking a bit over the top and unrealistic now. Regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it is an unfortunate mistake. ;-) I would have made a mask of just the sky, rather than a mask of the colour of the sky. But then, the more I've looked at both images, the more I believe the changes just aren't that necessary. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • • I checked mask coverage in PS and it has only included the sky, windows and water, not the plaque or building. However, the mask also adjusts surrounding luminance and has darkened the plaque and top of the building a bit. On my display, it looks neutral, white-grey, but on a non-calibrated screen, there may appear a blue or even mild magenta tinge.Capital photographer (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Are you sure your screen is really calibrated properly? If you're not convinced, eye drop various areas on the plaque and you will see that significant portions of it are blue-tinged. Particularly above the top row of text - hold the eye dropper on it and drag along the top and you will see the blue is almost constantly more luminent. They are on my image version too, but to a lesser extent, and less visible as they are brighter. I suspect that your screen isn't as well calibrated as you think, if you're unable to see it. I can see the blue clearly in the plaque on two different monitors - my contrasty, punchy (and admittedly not professionally calibrated) 30" Dell screen and a cheap flat HP business laptop screen. Can anyone else comment on this? I need a third opinion here. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is sometimes difficult to teel between a mild blue and mild grey, so I will conced that depending on people's eyes and displays, it may look bluish to some. I loaded it into Photoshop CS3 and used the eyedropper. Running it over the area, the colours ranged from light to mid grey and a couple were borderline. Here are the colours I am getting: #ced3d6 , #dfeaee (very borderline, looks mostly grey on my display with a very faint hint of blue), #cfd4d7 , #ccd9e1 (again, borderline) , #e3e8ee , #aabbc5 (grey but leaning to the blue region of the spectrum), #b7c5ce. On inspection with the eye dropper, some could be classed as grey with a slight blue tint. Mostly grey though. Capital photographer (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (reset indent) Sometimes I think it is better to explain visually than numerically, as hex colour codes are unwieldly. I know that HOW blue something looks will be determined by the monitor as well as the colour values, but I've cropped and increased the saturation of the plaque so I can show you what I mean here. Now I'm not saying you've created this blue - I admit it is there in my version too - but you have darkened it in your edit, which has made it much more visible and unrealistic looking. Thats all I'm saying. I'm not sure its really borderline blue-grey, but as I said, different screens will show different things. I'm not sure that I'd trust a laptop screen for accuracy though. I've never seen one I was very impressed with. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there is definitely a blue cast to the plaque in the Edit. Mfield (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a chance to check it using a CRT display today, yes there is a blue tinge. I would guess the displays on the Macbook Pros, despite calibrating, have issues with blue and grey because it certainly doesn't look blue on the MCP, but unmistabaly light grey-blue on the CRT. Given I didn't adjust saturatation and further testing of the original indicates blue hues were present in that area of the image, my brightness adjustment has merely increased the appearence of the blue rather than created it so I guess the image is more or less true to the original in terms of the colours present but not so in how pronounced they are. Capital photographer (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What calibrator did you use? I ask because I have a MBP and it took some messing to get it to calibrate correctly. Using a Huey Pro, I found I had to apply the calibrator to the screen horizontally rather than vertically. Others have reported the same thing. I think its something to do with the way the LCD panel is constructed. With the calibrator vertical, the display calibrated with an unmistakeable tint. Mfield (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The MCP 15" uses LED backlighting so it's suppose to be more accurate however I have heard rumours that the panels inside (like many notebooks) have lower colour range than desktop panels and, like most notebooks, it uses dithering. Anyway, I use a ColourVision Spyder2Pro, which isn't actually made for new LED backlit display which have a different backlight temp to regular LCDs. I think I'll need to do more tweaking, the prints I've done have being coming out ok but this image has shown there is definatly room for improvment. Capital photographer (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The edit is even more unrealistic than the original. The sky is a dark grey blue and looks like there must be a storm on the way, yet the building is glowing bright as day. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that the sky is more unrealistic in the edit, but having a bright foreground and dark looming clouds in the background is perfectly possible without manipulation. The sun often breaks through clouds as a storm passes through. A moot point as it isn't in this case, but I just wanted to counter the argument that if it looks fake it must be fake. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wow, the unprocessed original is different from what the processed original made out. Would have done it differently seeing that. Capital photographer (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I wouldn't say it is unprocessed. I never added that caption, Kaldari did. I would just say it is less processed, or perhaps badly processed. But you can see how the lighting conditions were difficult. The fountain is surrounded on all sides by buildings, so it is darker at the bottom than at the top, and the sky is far brighter than the building. But to compensate for this isn't really stretching reality too far I don't think. What would you have done differently? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, the processed, "unprocessed original" appears much warmer. Where as with my edit, I was keeping it cool and crisp as per your edit which has a cool overcast lit pallette. The "unprocessed original" actually looks unnaturally warm for the setting, so I am puzzled by which is more accurate. I guess if I had seen the "unprocessed original" my edit would have tended warmer instead of cool. Capital photographer (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I agree, it does look warmer, but I'd say that it isn't correct, if you look at other images of the Trevi Fountain. At the time I processed that image I was on a poor quality laptop screen and quite a lot of my images were not very accurate, looking back. I don't suggest that you base any changes on that 'unprocessed' version. About the only conclusion you can draw is the brightness differences, not the colour balance. I shot it in raw. If you let the camera decide white balance, each frame would be different, so you have to pick the settings and apply it to the whole series, and I evidently picked wrong. So as I said, I wouldn't call it unprocessed or authentic in all respects. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• BIG Support Regardless of the colour of the sky, this picture truly stands out amongst all I have seen. The stitching is well done, as I can't seem to find any areas of problem. Kudos to the creator. crassic!^[talk] 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a technical level, I agree with 110% Capital photographer (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both Bewareofdog 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Easily one of the best images I've ever come across on Wikipedia. Seegoon (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• question Is it just me or is the image slightly squished vertically? I wouldn't know it from the fountain, but the people look slightly... wide to me. Am I seeing things? Matt Deres (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're right about that. In rectilinear projection, because all lines remain straight, elements on the periphery of the image are distorted. With a view as wide as this, it is impossible to avoid, except by bending straight lines (see the Roman Baths nom for an example of that - you can see that the straight lines of the rectangular baths are bent). It comes down to which projection is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and whether straight lines are important to the composition. In this case,IMO they are. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Glorious. Both versions are fine. - Darwinek (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Excellent. My only observation/niggle would be a slight tilt of the side roof sections of the building down in the center, but I am fully aware of how difficult it is to get this many images to stitch whilst correcting distortion. What software did you stitch with as a matter of interest? Mfield (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I'm aware of that stitching niggle too. I tried to correct it but for some reason if I made any change to straighten the horizontal lines, the vertical lines shifted, and I figured the verticals were more noticable. You're right though, it is one of the more difficult scenes to stitch and correct perspective distortion on. As I mentioned in the image notes, the horizontal angle of view is about 100 degrees, which is borderline extrem for rectilinear. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I use PTGui to stitch it as per my user page info. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. Could someone fix the tilt? Aside from that, it is a stunning, informative, and high quality picture. NauticaShades 23:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read the comment above, and it would seem that the tilt is unfixable. If so, that's fine. If I'm misreading it, then please tell me. NauticaShades 23:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried to fix the horizontal tilt (its not so much tilt as a concaving of the horizontals), and correcting it caused tilt on the verticals, so while I wouldn't say its definitively unfixable, I wasn't able to. Its very slight though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice work, can only image how difficult stitching this scene must have been. --Krm500 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either with preference to photographer's choice. --H92110 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support technical and artistic merits, high encyclopaedic value. Guest9999 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Overprocessing/HDR effect makes the subject look flat and unrealistic. Would prefer a single exposure version. Kaldari (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats quite ridiculous though. Where have you got the impression it is HDR? It is a single exposure per segment. The only changes made were a slight contrast enhancement of the building, darkening the sky slightly and brightening the foreground. Have a look at the previous version. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking at the original version, I see why the current version looks unrealistic. The building in the current version is quite bright with perfect contrast despite the fact that the sky is quite dark. This is a common feature of HDR images, thus why it looks similar to them. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a very nice image, but the sphere-like crown and angel's heads at the very top are just too distorted, as are the people on the sides. —Pengo 05:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crown is clearly not spherical, it is quite elongated to begin with .. The people on the sides are rather incidental to the subject in question,surely? With such a wide view, could you really expect anything else? Ah well, you can't please everyone. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pincushion distortion Thisglad (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really expect distortion correction to be pixel-perfect? Would you oppose every other image nominated here for the same reason? Are you aware that a 'normal', uncorrected photo of this scene would be far more distorted, due to the angle of view? *sigh*. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The distortion is barely noticeable and is certainly less than what a wide angle lens would produce in a single frame. Capital photographer (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The crown thing looked spherical in one of the alternate (web) shots, but I admit I didn't look very closely. I first noticed the angel's heads seeming very long though, and the people on the sides being very stretched, and I find it disorientating. Of course ideally the shot would be from far away enough as to not to require any correction whatsoever, (rather than a wide angle), although I'm guessing shooting from further away wouldn't be possible. —Pengo 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, its not really possible to take it from further, unless you'd prefer to look at a photo of the back of somebody's head, instead of the fountain. ;-) Its hard enough just getting this photo without people in the way. I had to stand up on top of a small pillar just to avoid them. This gives you an idea of what I mean. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, and I didn't put two and two together at first, but looking at the crown at the top again, I realised it is from the Coat of Arms of Vatican City, and you can clearly see it is not spherical there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Is the yellow building on the left tilted in real life? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What yellow building? You mean the orange-peach coloured one? I don't think it is tilted in the photo. It is deceptive because the drain pipes are tilted, but the building itself isn't. Not significantly anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original improved classic shot of classic building lifts the article - don't see that it needs fiddling about with any more. I suspect any "tilt" that people see along the top of the building is an optical illusion caused by the diffential in the adjacent building heights. Motmit (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Full size doesn't suffer from low contrast/saturation like a small thumb. --Janke | Talk 08:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original per nom and discussion above. Matt Deres (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just uploaded this section of the photograph to show the tilt I am speaking of. Once again, it is very minor and I support the image's promotion regardless, but some have said that they do not see it. NauticaShades 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A lot. Spinach Dip 02:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original per Janke. Spencer^T♦C 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose top three versions. It would be good to fix the tilt before promoting. I think the tool you're looking for is called perspective correction. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a sneaking suspicion that Diliff has heard of and is quite proficient with perspective correction ;-) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Goering

Reason

Good image, high res., important.

Articles this image appears in

Hitler • Goering

Creator

?

• Support as nominator ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Image is not in Hermann Göring article, and was just added to Hitler on the day of this nomination. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I know it is historical, but I don't know how historically significant this image is. Nowhere, apart from in this nomination, nowhere does it seem to mention that they were discussing plans for the BoB.. The photo itself is a bit snapshot'ish, full of dust/scratches (which could and should be removed where possible) and Goering's face is obscured. Just not quite what I'd consider FP material for a portrait. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As said before, no major historical significance, and Goering, one of the people who is supposed to be exhibited here, is partially obscured. --Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, ack Diliff and it neither illustrates Hitler nor Goering particularly well. --Dschwen 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, neither subject is displayed well. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this picture needs to be sourced... I know there is a lot of shenannigans with U.S. government claiming copyright for Nazi images, etc... and this may be perfectly acceptable... but we still need a source and a government claim of that. 128.175.87.157 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Capital photographer (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - its already been said. For a picture of Hitler and Goering, both Hitler and Goering are hard to see, obscured. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 08:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Completely non-notable image concerning two huge historical figures. Spinach Dip 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't show subject well and low, if any notability. --Spencer^T♦C 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grass-green Tanager

Reason

Image is of excellent quality, provides a very good example of a member of the genus Thraupidae, the tanagers.

Articles this image appears in

Tanager, Grass-green Tanager

Creator

Michael Woodruff

• Support as nominator J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is a lot of noise in the image, a very high amount. Admittedly this is mainly confined to the background but it is very obvious. The resolution only just meets requirements. It is however a nice capture of a bird. Capital photographer (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject is obscured by foreground elements. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No obvious reason for the small size -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree with Papa Lima Whiskey. The leaves distract from the bird. Whiteghost.ink 12:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination There is clearly no way this image is going to be promoted, and I do not possess the technical capability to improve the image. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. --jjron (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Aurion

Reason

The image is of a high technical quality, comparable to commercial images and adds greatly to the articles in which it is included. Simple composition (the vehicle set against mist rising off a lake and strongly colored ground surface) ensures the vehicle is the focal point. It is well lit, has little to no noise that occurs when using high ISO and is of high resolution. It is also of a uniquely high standard for Wikipedia. I beleive this image meets the Wikipedia feature picture criteria, being of a high technical standard, high resolution, among Wikipedia's best work (among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer), having a free license and adding value to an article.

Articles this image appears in

Toyota Aurion , Toyota Australia , Toyota , Large family car

Creator

User:Capital photographer

• Support as nominator Capital photographer (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice as a product photo... but... At 100%, you can see funny artifacts, particularly in the dirt/grass, and I don't think it is just JPEG artifacting (although I suspect it is contributing, as 1.6mb seems a bit small for an image of these dimensions). I'm not positive but it looks a bit like the image has been upsized fractally. Surely this is not the typical output of a 1Ds III? In any case, it is still detailed enough for FP requirements but I wanted to point this out and ask why. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback. The image was taken using a Canon 1Ds mkIII with EF 24-105mm IS USM lens. The original RAW files were imported to Aperture and then exported to Photoshop CS3 for processing and output. Because the RAW files and working PSD files are so large (PSDs around 400mb), it becomes very time consuming to work with them so for this application were it would be viewed online, I exported the images to Photoshop as JPEGs, edited and then saved as JPEG (quality 8) again. So the image has being compressed to JPEG twice which to some extend explains the presence of artifacts at 100% view. I deemed such results to be acceptable for use on the web. Also, when shooting, I was using around ISO 1200 due to variable light. I used nik Define 2.0 to clean up the noise but some ISO noise still remains. I can assure you that the image has not being upscaled in anyway, with 21MP original images, there's no need to. The image was cropped at the top and bottom.Capital photographer (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, that explains it then. Its the noise reduction and compression. I didn't realise the scene was so dark, although working with JEPGs and saving multiple times with 8 quality is almost as bad as downsizing then upsizing in terms of work flow. ;-) I always work with 16 bit TIFF files to do any post processing as the effect of any changes is minimal on quality. And you think 400mb PSD files are bad.. That Hong Kong panorama I recently uploaded was a single layer 1.2gb TIFF file before I downsized and saved as JPEG! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1.2GB! Wow, makes one feel small. Normally working with big files isn't an issue for me, even HDR rojects, I usually use a 8-core Mac Pro with 4GB of RAM and a 30" ACD. Due to renovations, the Mac Pro is in storage for a month and I'm having to use a 15" Macbook Pro with only 2GB of RAM. Running Aperture and PS3 at the same time is quite a challenge for it. Capital photographer (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you could have afforded to drop to ISO 400 given you were shooting a stationary object at 1/320s, you could use a tripod and shoot at ISO 100. The 1DS3 may be the highest rez 35mm body available, but its not the best high ISO performer as a result. As far as the artifacts go - unless you have a really underpowered computer, the files aren't that unmanageable. It's an awful waste to shoot something with a $7000 camera body and then go through 2 stages of jpeg compression to save 2 minutes extra waiting for photoshop to work on a TIFF, certainly when the resulting artifacts remains this visible. You could also export a smaller tiff from Aperture, say 2400x1600 instead of a full size jpeg. Just some suggestions, not trying to be harsh. Mfield (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely agree with Mfield here - I was going to say a similar thing. Saving 'for the web' isn't really appropriate here, as Mediawiki will resize/compress the images itself when displaying on a page anyway, and many people are interested in quality detail at 100% magnification, which is spoiled by lazy editing. Oh, and I've only got 4 cores but 8MB RAM along with the same 30" screen. I'd go for the extra RAM over extra cores anyday. Its not like 4 cores at 3.4ghz isn't fast enough for most image processing. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why TIFF keeps coming up? Originals are RAW and working files and final outputs are PSD for me. TIFF has issues of cross platform computability that I like to steer clear of and doesn't support Layers from nik software filters. When I'm doing work for print and large scale digital display, I work for hours to make it as good as can be, to get the most from a $12,000 investment. Working with Photoshop and Aperture both open is a strain for any system with less than 4GB of memory, mainly because Aperture's database engine isn't well developed. Amendment: Image was taken at ISO 800, there are two versions of this shot in Aperture and one was 1200. This is ISO800. I will upload a new version processed using only RAW and PSD. Capital photographer (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I used the term TIFF as analogous to 16 bit lossless in this context. You can pick the format of your choice. :-) The point was that 8-bit JPEG isn't ideal to do post processing with. Looking forward to seeing what the new version is like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, okay, because I normally use PSD due to the new non-destructive filters in CS3 which don't work well with TIFF+layers. My normal workflow is 16bit lossless, using PSD files around 300-600mb. I guess I get lazy when it comes to images for the web, a bad habit. Capital photographer (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I said TIFF is because I would normally convert RAW-16 bit TIFF, open the TIFF in PS, Edit, Save as PSD with layers, as flattened TIFF over the unedited one and as a jpeg for web etc. I'm not sure why but I feel happier with a third party RAW converter generating a TIFF file rather than a PSD directly. I know a lot of other people work the same way. I also know I'd rather not have images only stored in a file format controlled by a closed company such as Adobe. That's why i would store a PSD a TIFF and a jpeg. Storage is so cheap its sensible to keep all the versions of important images. Mfield (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support I oppose this original, but if you can upload a new version without the horrible jpg artifacts, and remove the dirt specks on the front bumper and the round dot in the sky at upper left, I'll support. (Am I correct in assuming that you've added the Aurion text to the license plate? It looks a bit artificial. PS: Do I see four swans in the fog? )--Janke | Talk 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still opposing new versions, the "overbleeding burn" on the windshield is still visible, and the contrast and color were changed for the worse, IMO. --Janke | Talk 07:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have uploaded new version, created entirely using my regular 16bit workflow. Original 14bit RAW converted to 16bit PSD (Adobe RGB) finally saved to sRGB JPEG (quality10) for the web. Size reduced to 8MP from original 16MP crop. Looks to have far less compression artifacts and more definition. Colours are also more realistic as I did more to ensure accuracy when changing from Adobe RGB to sRGB for web version. Also, I cloned out the 4 swans and a water hen that were a distraction in the mist and removed all possible dirt from bumper and surrounding image. You are correct about the text on the numberplate, inserted to disguise the real numberplate and intended to look better than the blocky pixelation most ad. I blurred the text a bit to make it look more original but at full view (100%), the trained eye can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, looks much better. I can see you've introduced a slightly warmer tint on the car (not really a problem though, and as you say, it might be more accurate), but... I can see what looks like an enormous burn (probably about 1/3 the height of the image) on and around the windscreen that leaks onto the grey background. ;-) You can see it as a subtle dark blob if you're looking for it in the thumbnail. To be honest I probably wouldn't have noticed it if I couldn't compare to the original, but it is somewhat distracting now that I have! By the way, what are you doing up at 2am AEST? Wikiholic already? :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually 3am, um, planned to go to bed a while ago but too much to do with college going back next week. Regarding the burn on the windscreen, not sure about that. I see some odd distortion which is a reflection on the windshield but nothing seems to bleed into the background on my display. I certainly didn't do any burning on either version so I'm puzzled. Might have to calibrate my screen again. Colours are warmer in the new version,much more realistic. Another pitful of repeated JPEG compression, colour info gets lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is what I mean. Left is the new image and right is the old one. I messed with the levels to accentuate the burn, but its clearly visible in the image once you know what you're looking for. It looks like you've burned the windscreen to make it darker in the new image, but as a result also darkened a big blob outside of the car. Also, don't forget to sign with the four tildes. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comparison certainly shows its there. I did some screen setting changes and found I had to turn the brightness down to see it in the regular thumbnails. Again, I didn't do any burning at all to the image. The only thing I can think of is the noise reduction may have analysed that area of the image and the changes bled out a bit. The noise reduction did darken the windows a bit. I have adjusted the image and it doesn't seem to be visible anymore. Capital photographer (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support edit Good technical quality, but it just doesn't pop out at me. I have no real reason to oppose, but I don't see what makes it FP worthy, either. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback. Personally, I think the colour palette and composition do make it (the vehicle) stand out quite well and the image eye catching in the articles it is used, but I would agree it's not an overly exciting image... it is just a car after all. I could make it much more exciting, but that would be more artsy than encyclopedic. One reason I think it deserves FP is because it shows how good images of vehicles for articles on Wikipedia can be, with simple, focused composition and good (natural) lighting. Take a look at the car pics in these articles for example Ford Falcon (Australia), Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Mitsubishi Magna. In these four random articles including one for one of the best cars on the road, most are poorly composed and exposed. Only a couple which look to be taken from official marketing sources are good. So I propose that my shot, taken using only a camera of a car parked in a woodland area of the city, easily accomplished by anyone with a camera shows how good a car shot can be and would hopefully prompt people to leave behind the current norm of car shots on Wikipedia depicting vehicles in poor lighting with distracting elements such as other cars around it. Capital photographer (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right that a lot of the car images on Wikipedia are very ordinary. I had a bit of a try a couple of years back with a Mazda6, just shooting with a Canon A95, but was never totally happy that I got quite what I wanted with composition and lighting (especially in the sky) - Image:2003Mazda6-McMillansLookout.jpg. Still it's been lead image in the article for almost two years, but I've never got around to doing a better shoot. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Even edit 2 looks like it has compression artefacts (check the back of the mirror, image center). Furthermore, I'm not convinced that the image is properly sharp - there seems to be some fuzziness towards the rear of the car. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit 2 and Edit 1 were both saved to JPEG from the original 700MB 16bit PSD. There would be no more compression artifacts unless your browser has JPEG support issues (JPEGs above quality10 can sometimes look weird in older browsers). Are you sure you're not confusing compression artifacts with ISO noise? There is some on the edge of the mirror and some drops of water on the mirror too.
    • If it's noise, then that's just as bad. If they're drops of water, I don't see them anywhere else on the vehicle, which would need some explaining. And let's not brush over the issues with sharpness. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The noise is confined to a very small area on the left edge of the left hand mirror and is only noticable if viewed at 100% with your nose almost touching the screen. The drops of water were originally over much of the car, I was driving through mist. The shape of the mirror and the indicator on the mirror tends to cause water to dry there last where as air flow over the rest of the car dried it quickly. Some water was present on the other mirror, under the spoiler and the trunk lid, again, both issues are noticable only on very very close inspection. Capital photographer (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral still the composition, but quality is now great. Mainly because of the placement of the horizon. It is just to strong of a horizontal line dividing the picture. Then there are the more minor concerns of poor background, and compression artifacts. Light on the car is good, but what is with the overcast BG... Heres my problem: The actual ground ends shortly after the back of the car (either the start of a slope or cliff or something) and the clouds are right there, it feels like the car is being crowded by the BG. On a side note, you lucky bastards (Diliff and Capital photographer) ;-). I have to do my workflow, stitching and editing on a G4 iMac and a slightly more powerful G4 PowerBook. Try doing perspective correction on 12000px files with those. ;-). -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vehicle is parked on the shore of a lake and the white background is very heavy mist rising off the water. The use of such a horizon in an image to break up an otherwise bland background is quite a common one in commercial images of vehicles. I think the composition does not reduce the focus on the vehicle and is far less distracting than the many vehicle images which have strong shadows and other objects in frame, this is even more evident if you look at the image in the article Toyota Aurion, however composition is a personal preference so thank you none-the-less for the feedback.
• Support. The quality is without a doubt sufficient to pass FP standards. There a few issues, but they are minor enough not to detract significantly from the image. The composition for this car still is far superior to the average shot, and since (as far as I can tell) we have no FPs of this kind, this one deserves a promotion. NauticaShades 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subject is to bland to be something worthy of a featured picture. Lipton sale (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet again, someone judging the subject instead of judging the image against FP criteria. It's a car. The image of the vehicle is above average for the topic on Wikipedia and meets FP criteria. Diagrams of engines that I consider bland have being FP but they met FP criteria even if I didn't find them exciting. I move this vote be struck as some were in an above submission for a historic document where people judged the subject rather than the merit of the image according to FP criteria. Also, the user is a possible troll. Capital photographer (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 the only objection would be that it's free advertising for toyota Thisglad (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to meet FP criteria to me. But the steering wheel's on the wrong side! (wink) Spikebrennan (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Meets the criteria, although as stated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, the front wheels are not aligned to the body of the car. This however, is only really relevant to the project, not the featured picture criteria. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, but oppose the edits. The original hue is far better, and the little stones on the ground are of no concern. Dorftrottel (troll) 19:18, April 30, 2008
• Oppose - I am no photographer so I can't comment on the techinical aspects of the photograph. However, the Toyota Aurion is just another mass-marketed saloon of no specific importance to the car industry as a whole. I know I should not be commenting on the subject of the photo but, the fact is that with such an unimportant subject, a highly detailed photograph would be no more informative than a snapshot. By inference, the photograph has no encyclopaedic value.84.69.242.57 (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • IP voters do not have suffrage. Pstuart84 Talk 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it to the image, not the subject. Besides, the Aurion is notable, the most fuel efficient and most powerful Australian V6. Praised my motoring groups as a better alternative to the fuel guzzling Holden and Ford models. Capital photographer (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's just a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to adress the subject rather than the image. Capital photographer (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, who made you judge, jury and executioner in your short time active on this project? Try and stay out of it as nominator I suggest. You can't be so emotional about images of your own you have nominated. Other people have a right to object to them. It's not up to you to try and offset every objection with a comment. Certainly you have no right to tell anyone to disregard an objection. Mfield (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the people on here are smart enough to make up their own mind whether to accept an objection or not. I do have a right however to offer my opinion if I feel an objection is not based on FP criteria, as these two above are. Of course people have a right to object. I should ask, are you an admin or person of authority? Capital photographer (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do have the right to offer your opinion, but you don't have the right to put a Stroke [4].As an example, take a look at this: [5], Later it was reverted to this: [6]. You are right, people are smart enough to judge whether the vote should be valid. When this happens, more people will vote in order to counteract with the votes they think its unreasonable. -βαςε_LXIV™ 10:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note on my opposition: I should have elaborated a little more. I meant it is merely a car. It is not a car driving through a slalom or parked in an area surrounded by something interesting. Example: flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, ok, thanks for your feedback then. The original wording sounded very much like a crtisism of the subject, but it is quite a genuine comment about composition. THanks for the clarification. Capital photographer (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much noise on the windshield and tyres. -βαςε_LXIV™ 07:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems a bit smeared at 100% but photos like these are not meant to be viewed at 100% anyway, otherwise a great product shot which we seriously lack. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The background and the colour of the car are very similar, which I find distracting. I don't think the image is sufficiently sharp and I find the choice of location a little odd. Pstuart84 Talk 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panthera onca

Reason

Fantastic high definition image which simultaneously displays both the beauty and the power of the jaguar

Articles this image appears in

Jaguar

Creator

MarcusObal

• Support as nominator Pm504 (talk)
• Oppose Grainy and unsharp; bluish lighting.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 1 is a valiant try to make something out of nothing, but nope, it's still unusable.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both I've uploaded an edit, but technical condition is still quite poor. Thegreenj 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (with regret) it's ashame to oppose such a great shot, however while the visual may be impressive, the technical flaws are an issue. I downloaded this image and despite using one of the most advanced noise reduction programs available, still could not remove a lot of the noise. There is chromatic aberration present, notice the green hues on the chin. Sharpness and lighting are also out, both also un-fixable using advanced filters. Really a shame. Capital photographer (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Its an amazing image - sure there is a bit of noise, but still very impressive. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Just a few too many faults that cannot be fixed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The only relevant flaw is of course the prominent stuck pixel right between beasts jaws that none of the critics seems to notice. -- 80.152.180.137 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's barely noticable, perhaps? Thegreenj 23:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • at full res it is quite noticeable Thisglad (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. At 800x550, it's almost alright, but at full size it's pretty bad. Spinach Dip 01:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm suspicious about that dark jaw in edit 1, I wonder if the edit has added colours that weren't there in the animal. Narayanese (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely. As I said in my comment, there is strng chormatic aberation in the shot, including the darkened and green tinted jaw. Capital photographer (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no clue what the original colors were. I used three different white balances and blended them together. Also, I did not lighten or darken anything—that certain colors appear brighter or darker is an optical illusion. Examine both in an image editor, and you'll find that they have identical luminosity, aside from some sharpening. I know edit 1 is a bit sloppy; it was made more to replace the original, whose colors definitely weren't there in the animal, with the edit, which should be somewhat more accurate. Thegreenj 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't know what the original colours were? It's a Jaguar, not a rare Amazonian Macaw, there are only so many to choose from, none of which are green. Also stumped by "optical illusion".Capital photographer (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the edit actually ended up less jaguar-like, as I'm fairly sure jaguars don't have orange pigment on the lower part of the head. The intriguing metallic shine in the original isn't that bad (neither version is FP quality though). Narayanese (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find the image illustrating this right now (I've seen it somewhere around here.), but basically, the eye is more sensitive to certain frequencies of light than others. Check this in an image editing program, and, except for some sharpening, I think you'll find luminosity is unchanged. About the colors themselves: I have not seen a jaguar in a very long time. I don't know what the color of their snouts are: white, light orange, orange. The edit was an educated guess; I thought orange more probable than blue. That said, the whole point of Wikipedia is that if you know how make it better, you can very easily. If my edit is inaccurate, there's nothing stopping you from uploading a new, more accurate edit and replacing mine. Thegreenj 18:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only colours you'll find on a Jaguar are shades or orange, white, cream and grey. Not green or blue. The errors in this image are beyond what can be corrected in software. Capital photographer (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurry and still seemingly miscoloured. Spencer^T♦C 19:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kea in flight

Reason

Taken at the perfect moment, this shows off the iridescent wings to perfection.

Articles this image appears in

Flight, Kea

Creator

Christian Mehlführer, commons:User:Chmehl

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Although this is a great photo of what looks to be a beautiful bird, I am a little concerned that its head can't be seen. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Although we have many pictures of birds sitting still, head-on, with razor sharp details on their feathers, that's not what this image is. Instead, the subject is the plumage of the bird's back, and is only visible while in flight. This leads to enough motion blur to make those chiseled edges impossible, and also shows us only the back of the head. That said, the rear plumage view outweighs that--though not by much.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Oppose This is a very good shot. Because the head can't be seen, I have some reservations but on the other hand the coverage of the bird's plummage is excellent. The background is a tad too bright and not diffused enough. It's a good shot but without the head in view and the very strong background (the latter can be remedied), can't support at this time. Capital photographer (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure how this affects diffusion, but the light in alpine New Zealand is typically very harsh and bright during most of the day. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lighting would affect the brightness and intensity of the background, but diffusion refers to how blurred the background is. The more blurred, the better as viewer will enjoy less distraction and be more focused on the subject. Lack of diffusion leads to messy and busy comps. In bird photography especially, diffusion is very often used [7]. Capital photographer (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. The perspective of the shot is quite unique, but as aforementioned, I don't like the fact that the bird is not shown in its entirety. -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good illustration of its posture during soaring flight and its camouflage. On both pages there is no need to show the head (Kea has a pic of the head, and Flight is about using wings), and it is normal for birds to look at the ground for finding food, so a pic with the head up is probably worse for the article. Narayanese (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although can relate to the concerns that in our non-relativistic environment, object's can only be seen from one side at a time... Dorftrottel (talk) 19:12, April 30, 2008
  • comment* Just to check, we all are aware that SOME of the head can be seen if you look above thumbnail view, right? It's a little more off to the left than you might expect thanks to angles and position, but quite obvious. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support — This is an excellent shot. The errors in the image are miniscule compared to the challenges the photographer had to overcome. It is dynamic and captures the subject accurately. Therefore, I must support it.Sumanch (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. You might want to actually put this in bird flight. Has this been tried? They have two ducks, one goose, and one swan. You'd think one of those might be replaced by a parrot for good measure. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - much as HearToHelp. If the head had gone because of a bad cut-off, that would be unacceptable, but given the point of view etc there is probably a trade-off between the head and the beautiful wings. There are enough heads in the article to make up for it and the image adds much value to the article. What I have a bit of a problem with is the composition and I am not sure why. The bird is well placed in the frame and the wings pick up nicely with the grass. I think it must be the direction of the grey rock underneath that is causing an imbalance, which is a pity because you can't do much about it. Any thoughts? Motmit (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing picture with excellent detail. Spinach Dip 01:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Good pic, great detail, but the bird's head is not totally visible. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Object in photo is initially unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's a great shot that I'm sure was hard to get, but in addition to the headless angle, it is a bit out of focus and the subject is not distinct enough from the background (especially at thumbnail size).--ragesoss (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great picture. Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I just recently had a look at some photos a friend of mine took while he was in NZ and the Kea is exceptionally tame and easy to photograph - a better shot both in terms of sharpness and composition is not too much to ask for. --Fir0002 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. --jjron (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Canyon Dam

Reason

A beautiful panorama giving the context of the dam in a stunning way.

Articles this image appears in

Glen Canyon. Could Reasonably be added to Colorado River and/or Glen Canyon Dam

Creator

Christian Mehlführer, commons:User:Chmehl

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exposure flaws, limited colour, small amount of sky is a tad distracting, should be a small amount more. Capital photographer (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limited colour? Have you ever been to Arizona? The greens of the river double the number of colours from typical Arizona fare =) Also, on Exposure - that's exactly what Arizona looks like. IT's a desert. It's all very bright. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a levels adjustment is required for this particular image but what I should have said was, while the colours are accurate for the time of day this image was taken, some of the finest images of Arizona I have seen are taken around dusk or early in the morning when colours are richer and landscapes seem to have more depth. Here's an example off Flikr: [8]. However I will concede it's better than existing image. I suppose it was more an artistic oppinion however so I have corrected my vote. I'll support though.Capital photographer (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, aye, I take your point now =) It looks "right" to me - after all, dusk and sunrise are fairly fleeting parts of the day - but that be your view =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anywayy, thinking about it, while dawn and dusk photographs have their place, to say that all Arizona desert FPs must come from those times would severely misrepresent what the American desert looks like. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, not all should be, but the most striking and enticing images are those. As people has pointed out with other images, an image needs to draw the viewer in and make them want to know more about the subject, so in that regard the ones with more colour and contrast taken at dusk and dawn are perhaps a bit stronger in that regard, but this is good too. Capital photographer (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks like a faithful representation to me (as far as i can remember from my own visits). Autolevels isn't the answer to everything... --Dschwen 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone who cares about images uses Auto-Levels. I clicked on it for a composition below to make a point that even a single mouse click improved it a bit but as I said below, I didn't keep it with the Auto-Levels changes. Levels would solve the under exposure in this image though... manual levels. Capital photographer (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no under exposure in this image. --Dschwen 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The dam, cliffs in top right, sky and the cliff faces in the center of the image are fine.Bottom corners look under over exposed though. Given auto exposure and auto focus tend to work together, I'm thinking the camera put the focus on the middle to top of the frame most and metering prioritised those parts exposing them right but has slightly under over exposed the foreground. Capital photographer (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you need to re-sit Exposure 101 or maybe slow down a little and think about it, there is no way that the bottom corners of this image are under exposed. If the camera had prioritized for the central darker portion of the image as you suggest (unlikely anyway as this is a stitched image so the center isn't camera center and in addition it was likely manual focus and manual exposure) then this would lead to it over exposing the lighter shades in the bottom corners. This is basic exposure. Mfield (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, as a photographer this is emrarrasing... I meant overexposed. Colour and contrast are less and brightness a tad too high than the rest of the image which is perfectly exposed. But anyway, there proper exposure is academic... if it looks good and is accurate, I'm supporting it. Capital photographer (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I recall my time in arizona correctly, the sun is usually hairly high, so things near you reflect more of the sun back at you. This makes things nearer you look lighter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support regarding it being added to article(s). Looks pretty spot-on to me. I can't see anything wrong with the stitching, and the image quality is top notch. I don't think there should be more sky or none at all. You need at least some so that you have a feel for the horizon level, and you don't need too much, since you can see already that it is essentially lots of blue sky and not much else. That said, slightly more sky couldn't hurt the composition, but not much is needed. Shomaker's Holiday, as per the discussion on the talk page of the criteria, I think that it does need to already be in an article to establish that it adds to the article, among other things. Thats not to say you should jam the image in where it doesn't belong, but it should really have a home before its nominated here. It isn't for one of us to decide whether it is better than existing images, its for all of the contributors to the article. We shouldn't feature it and then find a home for it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I d think that it's better than at least some of the images in those articles, but I felt that it was better to let others make the decision as to whether they agreed with me, and have them choose to add it, as neither page is very active. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is an excellent addition to Glen Canyon, as the only panorama we have of it, so I've gone ahead and added it to that page as a start. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A great shot, a lot of detail and - yes, quite a bit of "wow". --Janke | Talk 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. I've never been there (yet...) so I'm trusting the others who reassure that the perspective and exposure are accurate.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent shot. Sumanch (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great picture, well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Glen Canyon Dam MC.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Herold

Reason

Historical importance and high encyclopedic value. Captures strong emotion in the subject's face. Good technical quality for a photo from 1865.

Articles this image appears in

David Herold, Alexander Gardner (photographer)

Creator

Photo by Alexander Gardner (who is also the author of this featured photo of Abraham Lincoln). Found in the Library of Congress archives and uploaded by Northwesterner1

• Support as nominator Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A strong portrait with high enc value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent detail and highly encyclopedic. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-01 20:17Z
• Support May look better cropped a little tighter? None the less, good quality. Capital photographer (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good detail on a historic picture. Spinach Dip 01:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive photograph for its age. The expression on his face is worth 10,000 words. (Note: I made a minor edit to the caption. It's Washington Navy Yard without the 's'.
• Support. Good historical photograph involving one of the most widely known events in U.S history.
• Support Great portrait. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting portrait and story behind it.--Svetovid (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good quality and encyclopedic. Spencer^T♦C 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly encyclopedic and illustrative of the article. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:David Herold retouched.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollination of Marsh Marigold

Reason

Good & detailed picture (3x magnification) showing the pollination of Marsh Marigold

Articles this image appears in

Caltha palustris

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator Richard Bartz (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A respectable, though by no means exceptional (sharpness, sharpness, sharpness!), attempt to capture both the insect and the flower. On the whole, the combined effect--illustration of an action rather than two objects-- makes it a worthy image.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sharpness works for me. Looking at the eye, it's clear there's very good pixel-per-pixel detail. The yellow flower makes for a good contrasting background. Thegreenj 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Here to Help, it's not perfect but is a fine image as a whole. Capital photographer (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The bright yellow color makes the image stand out. Malinaccier (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very sharp, excellent quality. Spencer^T♦C 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are the wings as sharp as they could be? --Sharkface^T/_C 19:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the given circumstances in a dark swamp and the 2-3x magnification i would say yes. The picture displays a area of 5mm --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is easy to forget when you're looking at it blown up close to 100x!--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Might also be of use in Halteres. Matt Deres (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's not really needed but, hey, it makes me look like a nice guy. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sphegina montana Syrphidae.jpg MER-C 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinderdijk

Reason

High resolution, good composition, beautiful colours, site of cultural significance as the Mill Network at Kinderdijk-Elshout is on the UNESCO World Heritage List.

Articles this image appears in

Alblasserwaard, Kinderdijk, Netherlands

Creator

Lucash

• Support as nominator Ilse@ 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose original - neutral edit I am not sure how the original is a panorama. It has an almost 1:1 ratio, where as panoramas are generally considered to be an image with 1:3 or greater aspect ratio although it could be expanded to include images of 1:2. Also, it is very soft viewed at full size. Have uploaded one cropped to a panoramic format with some sharpening and contrast adjustments. I feel the edit is crisper and has more depth and clarity. I have to admit that the original did not have enough resolution to crop and still keep it at FP requirements so it has being interpolated (upscaled) by 5%.Capital photographer (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose both. Edit 1 is an improvement on the composition but the image quality still isn't particularly good and the view of the subject is only moderately impressive. Just a bit low on the wow-factor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Resolution and sharpness wise, there wasn't much to work with. Edit 1 has around 30% sharpening and is still very soft. Further sharpening yielded heavy distortion. The original image appears to be only 3MP according to Photoshop. Capital photographer (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 big enough according to the criteria - shows the mills 'in context' of their landscape setting - ie. flat featureless Netherlands (no offence to my Dutch cousins). --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. Not big enough given that the sharpness is lacking. Neither will an 800x600 picture fullfill the criteria after upsampling! I'm not too excited about the edit either. Crops too much from the top, I'd have left about twice the headroom above the wind mill. Nice subject, good conditions, but the technical side is way too weak for FP. --Dschwen 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not nearly sharp enough. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both - technical quality is not there. I don't like the composition (for an encyclopaedic image) either.--Svetovid (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Technical issues are a major concern. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicolored Antbird

Reason

Pulled from PPR as I was archiving. Received some positive feedback and probably deserves a chance. From the PPR nom: This is a beautiful image of a difficult to see bird. The species, like most of its family, tends to skulk in the undergrowth in the forests of South and Central America and we have few images of the family.

Articles this image appears in

Antbird, Bicoloured Antbird

Creator

Mdf

• Neutral as nominator jjron (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original- support edit2 The underlying image is good but the use of flash has degraded it. It's a common mistake, but even with the advanced metering on camera's these days, manual adjustment is often necessary to ensure the flash doesn't overpower the view. The flash should only output enough to gently even out any lack of lighting so as to blend with the natural light. The flash is too strong in the original and therefore has a very artificial look. One other thing, there has been too much sharpening added. However, great work getting a shot of the bird, it's not easy.Capital photographer (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like the general effect of your edit, but I think you've gone too far in removing the spot from the bird's eye; the lack of reflection there gives it a very lifeless look. Otherwise your, er, jiggery pokery works very well. ;) Matt Deres (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Nice neat pic and it looks alive here. I have already complimented Cap on some jiggery pokery on a fairly duff pic, so by the same token I hope it won't be taken amiss if I say don't think it has added value here. Comments on the flash may be technically correct, but I prefer the original Motmit (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only - the edit looks like it had its eye poked out, esp. in the thumbnail. de Bivort 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Edit photo has the bird look like it has no eye. Other than that, however, it's a good photo. --Sharkface^T/_C
• Support edit 2 much improved. Mangostar (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Edit 2 is a great improvement. Capital photographer (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 as person that dragged this image into peer review. Mdf's photos of antbirds are exceptionally clear compared to most you see on the web, and inspired me to push the article on the family to FAC (it's getting close to peer review at the moment). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2. The second edit improves the image while keeping the eye looking normal. NauticaShades 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 And btw, what special circumstances give us a "neutral as nominator"? I thought the idea was to only nominate what you support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jjron just brought it over from PPR. The folks that submit there sometimes are unsure of the nomination process here at FP, so he sometimes nominates on their behalf. Matt Deres (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Strongly oppose edit 1 with the poked-out eye. Dorftrottel (ask) 22:51, May 7, 2008
• Support edit 1 colour more vivid than edit 2 and whilst it looks worse as a thumbnail I think the eye looks better and more natural at full size, in the other versions the second bright white spot is obviously from the camera flash. Guest9999 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gymnopithys-leucaspis-001_edit2.jpg MER-C 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Italian Wall

Reason

good pic., catches eye, bright colors, high res.

Articles this image appears in

Veneto Villa Wall

Creator

Redmarkviolinist

• Support as nominator ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For such an easily reproduceable image, there is much left to be desired in terms of sharpness and composition.The freddinator (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Capital photographer (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose by the above. Plus this was just crammed into three articles where it provides no additional value, and the image description is more than lacking. Where was this taken for example? Also I believe this rather shows an Arcade than a wall. It contributes nothing to Villa (except allegedly being taken near a villa), and the relation to Veneto is unclear (plus it is a completely arbitrary picture, should we add random shots of gardens to all articles on regions in the world?). --Dschwen 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about a more positive tone? It's all very well to talk about an "easily reproduceable image" but someone has to physically go there with a decent camera, feel inspired to take a picture, and have the motivation to upload it. This image was taken on a Canon Powershot, arguably about as good as portable cameras get, so without lugging around a heavy SLR this is about as sharp as possible. If I was going to vote on this, I don't think it is interesting enough, but I do think the comments should focus better. ProfDEH (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wish I could add something positive but in this case I find it hard. The focal point is way off shot to the right, and the funny angle of the arches from this viewpoint fails to bring it back. The plants on the top of the wall are partially cut off, and there is very little information that can be derived from the picture. It has indeed got nice bright colours ("but not necessarily in the right order"). Dschwen makes very valid points, and hitting articles with FPCs is a matter of concern - although in this case no damage seems to have been done. Perhaps there should be a required waiting period between adding a pic to an article and submitting it for FPC. (and size should be default with the upright tag in the articles) Motmit (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not featured picture quality. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water Lilies

Reason

Good image, pretty, high res.

Articles this image appears in

Nymphaeaceae

Creator

Redmarkviolinist