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

Iguazu falls

Reason

Good quality, beautiful: I came by the article Iguazu falls from an article of The 100 most beautiful places in the world just to find a picture, and I was surprised why it wasn't featured.

Articles this image appears in

Iguazu Falls

Creator

Martin St-Amant S23678

• Support as nominator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, after reading the responses below I can only agree to that it doesn't fully fulfill the criteria, no matter how enchanting it is, so I withdraw from the nomination. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The highlights are totally blown. Suggest speedy close - "snowball's chance"... --Janke | Talk 16:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose I wouldn't go so far as speedy close, but the highlights are a deal-breaker. I can tell that it must have been beautiful in real life, though...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment suboptimal perhaps, but I think it actually adds to the beauty of the picture with water shining as brightly as the sun. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have to agree with Janke, and I also see a bit of noise in the photo. Spencer^T♦C 18:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As the author of the picture, I overexposed the picture (pictures, it's a panorama) for artistic reasons, since I think that the dense, vivid green vegetation details creates a better effect than seeing every details in the water and steam (the far waterfalls are always covered in steam anyway). I really do appreciate that Mikael thought this picture is worth FP mention, but it clearly fails "rule" number 1, which is the reason why I did not nominated this picture in first, and also why I need to oppose it right now. However, I would like to mention that FP status, although interesting from an author POV, is just as interesting as when someone simply say that he is appreciating my work. I really thank you Mikael for your comments. --S23678 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above. It's a beautiful picture (double rainbow!), just doesn't fit the bill as an FPC. Amphy (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messier 43 Galaxy

Reason

Stunning. I looked at the full res version and almost thought it was fake. It's beautiful, at least to my somewhat trained eye. Yet another HST image nom. by me, but its probably the best.

Articles this image appears in

Messier 43

Creator

Hubble Space Telescope

• Support as nominator --—Sunday • (Testify!) 12:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Though the nebula itself looks very good, noise issues in the area arround it prevent me from supporting. Spencer^T♦C 03:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is nothing but a crop of the existing Orion nebula FP. No reason it should be featured. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Victorrocha (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close - I realized that I tried to do this before, and realized that the pic was a crop. Withdrawn. —Sunday · Speak 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gawthorpe Hall

Reason

A good composition showing a classical piece of British architecture, it adds substantially to the article.

Articles this image appears in

Burnley, Gawthorpe Hall, Sir Charles Barry

Creator

Childzy

• Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The bottom right quadrant is really soft, and the too-bright sky unbalances the whole image (not quite blown, but aesthetically not much different).--ragesoss (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sharpness and lighting particularly. Just not up to the FP benchmark for architecture. Mfield (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Really a shame that image quality is so poor. It looks like a haunted house! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It seems a bit tilted. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jurasic park water ride

Reason

An image of good size and quality, the subject is well captured from both technical and creative angles. The image itself adds greatly to the article as it sets the scene better than words can.

Articles this image appears in

Jurassic Park River Adventure, Islands of Adventure

Creator

Childzy

• Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There are some technical problems. I see some fuzziness and it is very unclear, the clarity of the people falling, where the true EV is, lacking. Sorry, —Sunday | Speak 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose perspective problems. Durova^Charge! 09:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry Childzy, the composition is good and I like the subject, but as noted above it's not sharp and there are a few problems with perspective. At thumbnail it works fine, but that's not what we're judging. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I agree with the comments above. The shot was not fast enough, so there's apparently some camera shake. Also, many parts of the picture are not focused correctly. Nice image, but when seen in full resolution there are some unfortunate distortions. Luca (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm also going to have to oppose...the picture at first looked like a detailed sketch of the water ride, and sharpness and noise are definitely issues. Spencer^T♦C 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the reasons above. It does bring me back to when i was there years and years ago though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne from Southbank

Reason

This is a superb night image of Melbourne with fantastic colour. The image is of high resolution, free of artefacts and is among the best photos of Melbourne.

Articles this image appears in

Melbourne

Creator

Jetsetkiwi

• Support as nominator --Mvjs (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would have liked to see it wider, there is visible colour fringing particularly on the left hand side. Blown highlights on lights aren't an issue imo, but a great deal of the clock face and the building on it's left is blown distorting colour. There are also sharpening artifacts on the top of many buildings, probably in an attempt to counter the softness probably discovered at f20, I'd suggest a lower fstop next time, 20 is overkill. That said, I love the colours and sky, the photo is only let down from the technical view point. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Finally, a skyline at night image that isn't HDR (at least not that I can tell)! Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A bit dark and soft. Aperture completely inappropriate for this sort of scene. Composition a bit tight. Essentially I agree with Noodle Snacks. I'm admittedly biased as its my home town and I've taken many similar shots like this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not a bad photo, but the compostition is kind of tight, as David said. —Sunday | Speak 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good spectrum of colors, interesting sky. The shot is well framed and does a good job of showing a part of the sky line. Needs a little more description, but it's a good picture. vote added by Bobshoe - Blieusong (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted buildings and diffraction softness. Mfield (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedroom in Arles

Reason

Great painting that we all know and love. Nice size, quality reproduction. Lots of color and easy to look at.

Articles this image appears in

Bedroom in Arles

Creator

Blankfaze

• Support as nominator --Bobshoe (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A bit small (yes, it barely fulfills the minimum at 1024 px), but a larger scan should not be impossible to find. Also, there's a dark shade on top edge. --Janke | Talk 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, this page has a larger version. Spencer^T♦C 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added a wikilink for "Articles" and fixed the red wikilink in the caption. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose I would love to support this one, but 225k is just too low resolution to do it. Please upload a better version so I can change to support. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small. Clegs (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A rather un-remarkable scan of a painting of a bedroom. As I do not know or love this painting, perhaps the nom could explain what is so exceptional about this that it warrants featuring. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Van Gogh is a first-rate artist and this is one of his better known works. Certainly worth featuring IMO if we get a good enough reproduction. Durova^Charge! 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this painting is definitely known in its own right, so whether or not it's exceptional to you doesn't really affect its encyclopedic status. Thegreenj 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it appears only in the rather thin article about itself does, however affect its encyclopedic value. This is such a well known work, that it warrants only a passing mention in van Goghs rather lengthy article. It certainly does not accurately represent a bedroom. Yeah, I'm not convinced this is anything more than another crazy painting by a crazy dutch painter. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm... If you google "Bedroom in Arles", the two out of the top three non-Wikipedia hits mention that it's one of his best know. This (along with Starry Night) is the first picture that I think of when I think of van Gogh, but I suppose that's just as irrelevant as your belief that this is a "crazy painting by a crazy artist." FWIW, this is not one of my most-liked van Gogh's; I'm partial to Wheat Field with Crows, though that one is not particularly famous in its own right, save the mistaken belief that it were his last. Just trying to make a distinction between what you find interesting and what is encyclopedic. Thegreenj 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truly shocking... Still, the top three non-wikipedia results for Vincent Van Gogh fail to mention the painting anywhere outside a detailed listing of his works. VanGoghMuseum.nl gives it only brief mention it in their biography section for the period of his life in Arles [1]. The nom, the article and preferably both are going to have to demonstrate the notoriety of this work. I'm just trying make the distinction between encyclopedic value and a fondness for an absurd painting. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if you've realised that it's absurd, you're already on your way to understanding why it was influential. 87.165.198.178 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Low resolution, but there's no incredible EV to back it up. —Sunday | Speak 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for the record: A higher-quality version of this image is now available at File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF frame cropped.jpg, if the nominator wishes to nominate it. Dcoetzee 19:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long Nosed Weevil

Reason

A very high quality image of a Long Nosed Weevil, which IMO is a better illustration of a weevil than the FPC proposed below since it has much better DOF and sharpness.

Articles this image appears in

Weevil and Belidae

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice macro. Spencer^T♦C 11:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This species does not belong to the Curculionidae family. You might consider removing the picture from the Curculionidae page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Belidae it is --Fir0002 11:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please let me cite: "Belidae is a family of weevils, called belids or primitive weevils because they have straight antennae, unlike the "true weevils" or Curculionidae which have elbowed antennae." (bold is mine) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake, I confused "Curculionoidea" with "Curculionidae" --Fir0002 11:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support, preference for Edit 1. Nice, but comes across as slightly overexposed to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Edit 1 is a bit better? Unfortunately the white bg isn't as clean as the reduction in exposure brings out the shadows more... --Fir0002 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think Edit 1 improves it slightly. As Noodle snacks says, it does hurt my eyes a bit still. I think its the contrast of dark black on white. Is this a focus blend or just stopped down? Also, are you shooting RAW exclusively these days or a mix of JPEG/RAW? Just curious about the originals you're working with. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah it is a focus stack - from memory it's about 11 images. I pretty much shoot RAW these days and certainly this was shot in RAW. --Fir0002 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Oppose, Prefer Edit 1. Lots of detail but the white background is unnatural and makes my eyes bleed somewhat. Blown pixels all over the bug in both edits, but oh well, changed my mind again Noodle snacks (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1 - a lot of blown highlights but also a lot of detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-24 13:13Z
• Weak Support Edit 1 - My only pick — is that a shadow, or a speck on my computer? Blown highlights, annoying shadow underneath feet. —Sunday | Speak 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A white background, by definition, is pure white - so take it easy on the "blown highlights". Complaining about the white background being represented by 255,255,255 is like complaining that this is underexposed because it has blacks! --Fir0002 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick look around with an eye dropper on the bug itself reveals quite a large number of blown pixels on the bug itself, edit or not, hence i am changing my vote. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mind sharing some x,y co-ords and relevant offending RGB values? --Fir0002 09:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Attached is a map of the offending pixels in the edit verison which is the lower exposure of the two. The color indicates which channels are clipped. The map was generated by photoshop and poking around with an eyedropper gives identical results. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • It's worth noting how minor the clipping is (it's only happening in one channel) and that it's occurring on white hairs. And as I'm sure you'd agree, when dealing with white hairs, or for that matter white feathers very minor clipping such as this doesn't affect the image very much. Indeed in terms of photographic accuracy I would again argue that we should call white white and so white hairs (which have no resolvable detail anyway) should be pretty darn close to 255,255,255 --Fir0002 11:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it's a very good bug picture. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1 I don't think this is that easily improvable except maybe to fade the shadows under the head some more. Mfield (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. I don't think clipping is a significant problem. White backgrounds do sometimes make for uncomfortable viewing, but the level of detail and depth of focus is too good not to feature this.--ragesoss (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Long nosed weevil edit.jpg MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racial segregation

Reason

A child, a sunny day, a bright lawn, and a drinking fountain--a fine sight ruined by the sign on the tree and the courthouse in the background. Still it's an important subject and (I was surprised to discover) not an easy one to locate high resolution public domain photography for. So I'll have to ask leniency for the grain of the somewhat high speed film (it may have been necessary to get exposure in the shadows) and the soft focus on the boy who appears to be pushing away from the fountain and turning to leave at the sight of a strange photographer. The poignancy of this one does it for me. Restored version of Image:Segregation 1938.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Discrimination, Jim Crow laws, Separate but equal, State racism

Creator

John Vachon

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This is the picture of hypocrisy. Good find, and a nice cleanup. Fletcher (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is indeed hard to find such images, because Roy Stryker did not encourage his photographers to take them--his emphasis was always on poverty rather than race, a conscious choice which has greatly affected the image of the depression in the popular consciousness. Good work, Durova. Chick Bowen 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- This photo is powerful. Great find. (Giligone (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Support for symbolism alone. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For incredible EV. Nice cleanup, too, durova. —Sunday | Speak 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. Amphy (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Segregation 1938b.jpg MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Rescript ending World War II

Reason

Excellent print of the document signed (stamped) and later read by Emperor Hirohito which announced Japan's capitulation, effectively ending World War II.

Articles this image appears in

Surrender of Japan

Creator

Imperial Household Agency

• Support as nominator --Cla68 (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice one, Cla. ;) —Sunday | Speak 10:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looks a bit too small for comfortable reading -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on the english wikipedia, I don't think many people would be attempting to confortably read this. Just my opinion. Spencer^T♦C 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think it's fine. Really clean pic. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great historical importance and good image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, and per my comment above. Spencer^T♦C 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perhaps not big enough for comfortable reading, but big enough to be legible.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's pretty legible; some of the kanji are jumbled, but calligraphy will cause that to happen at any size. The katakana are tiny, but still easily legible. High historical significance. --Golbez (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This copy is obviously much smaller than the original. And while the historical importance of the manuscript can't be denied, what we are evaluating here is a picture, i.e. the graphical component of the document, not its content or historical relevance. It's not enough to be legible, especially if we take into account this is a callygraphy work. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose would gladly support a better digital file of the same subject. Alvesgaspar raises good points. I was on the fence and reviewed this several times. What tipped the balance is text bleed through: it's soft but it's unmistakable and it runs throughout the entire image. This was scanned from a sheet that had printing in a Western script on the opposite side. Strongly suggest the nominator consult Shoemaker's Holiday's scanning guide on Commons and give this another try. Encyclopedic value is superb; the technical side needs a boost. Durova^Charge! 10:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Durova: technical shortcomings too serious for FP status.--ragesoss (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Oppose The image has EV, but the technical shortcomings are a problem. As per Durova. Jordan ^Contribs 08:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 10:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Graceland

Reason

The image maches most of the FP criteria and it is very beautiful flower.

Articles this image appears in

Dahlia

Creator

Lestat

• Support as nominator --Lestath (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - I think there's a bit too much space of just leaves... maybe a crop? (Giligone (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Support I think the leaves are fine Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The DOF is much too big, so the background is very distracting. Additionally at full resolution the technical quality is rather poor, e.g. it's not very sharp. All in all a nice shot, but not an FP. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a 10 megapixel image. It's perfectly sharp at any reasonable viewing resolution. Kaldari (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I disagree with aitias. DOF is certainly not too big, since some of the leaves are already slightly blurred (OOF). And it's certainly sharp enough. Just print this one and a < 2mpix FP at a same size and compare... Blieusong (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shows less of the plant then the current taxobox picture: stem and lower leaves are missing. Narayanese (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IMO a picture does not need to show the whole organism to have EV. Muhammad(talk) 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-12 14:19Z

This pic is only used in a gallery, which doesn't really qualify as "being in an article". Please fix. MER-C 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. --Lestath (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support A nice image, but I do agree with some of Aitias' points. (Distracting background) Spencer^T♦C 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Lots of detail etc but a distracting background. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Plenty of technical virtue, but with flower shots, background is key to creating something better than ordinary. It's just too busy.--ragesoss (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The too-sharp background is indeed a problem. --Janke | Talk 08:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful picture, very clear, wonderful color. Depth of field makes the flower stand out nicely. tscolin (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has made a total of 4 edits, 3 to this page. Spencer^T♦C 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 10:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bee killer wasp II

Reason

A large and detailed depiction of a beautiful species in its natural habitat, adding valure to the articles

Articles this image appears in

European beewolf, Philanthus

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Info - Let's give it a second try, after some smart editing (the new version may take some time to be shown). I still belive this is one my best macro shots, despite the less-than-optimal technical quality
• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sharp, detailed, good composition, and appropriate angle on the subject. Nice caption, too.--ragesoss (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It's a beautiful picture, very well composed and the bokeh is excellent. But I think the depth-of-field is a bit shallow, so parts of the wasp are out of focus. Maybe something like f/18 would have been more appropriate? Luca (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info - Taking macro photos of living (and nervous) insects is a difficult business. Yes, it would be nice to work with high shutter speeds (for sharpness) and low F numbers (for DOF) but that is typically not possibly to do in the wild. Working in the studio, with controlled lighting and motionless creatues (like in this photo) is another thing! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, I entirely understand that taking macros in the wild is a difficult thing. And I think your picture is absolutely great, due to the hard conditions! :) But for an image to be chosen as a Featured Picture, in my opinion, it should be perfect (or very close to it). Question I saw in the EXIF info for that picture that you use a Nikon D80 for your photos and, for this specific one, you used 100mm focal length. What lenses did you use? Luca (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used a Tokina AT-X 100 2.8 Macro (the old 1:2 model) with an extension ring -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DOF, DOF, DOF! Still, it's pretty darn good. I also like the relevant flower and the lack of background clutter.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has good EV and is aesthetic. Muhammad(talk) 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image, and definite EV. Jordan ^Contribs 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As far as I can tell nothing has changed from last nom - still motion blurred and lacking in sharpness and blown highlights. Doesn't seem to be any real mitigating reason for these technical flaws. --Fir0002 10:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info - There is something wrong with the system, as the new versions are taking a long time to show. Please open the second one (which is the same as the third), uploaded in 26 September. You will see the differences -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell you've only cloned over the highlights - the essential problem with sharpness and motion blur is not fixed. In fact I'd argue this edit has degraded the image as it now has unnecessary and somewhat poor cloning - see the leg for example --Fir0002 11:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks plenty sharp to me, if highlights are cloned over then they seem skillfully done. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a good attempt at a macro shot however the standard of macro work is pretty high here. From what I've done with my macro lens I usually try to shoot at the inverse of the focal length of my lens w/ crop factored in. You're shooting with a 100mm with a 1.5 crop(at least i think nikons have a 1.5) so, 1/150 would be the recommended minimum exposure. Any chance you should have a sharper one? I give you the credit this is a very good picture especially for the outdoors but I can't give it support for that reason. Victorrocha (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware of that rule of thumb and use it ... whenever I can. Macrophotography in the wild is a struggle for sharp images (high shutter speeds), large dof (small apertures) and low noise (low ISO settings). If, on top of those constraints, we decide not to use the flash to avoid flat ligting, we quickly come to the conclusion that the light is just not enough and have to soften those requirements. We can, of course, mount a tripode and special lighting and wait for the critters. But that is not my method (for the moment). But you know all of that, of course. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Trust me, I do appreciate the difficulty of getting great macro shots, but it is a bit motion blurred, which is unfortunate. It looks great in the thumbnail but the full sized image is lacking slightly in sharpness. It is even fairly visible in the preview page. As for not using a fill flash because of the flat lighting, do you have a macro/ring flash? I'm not saying you need one just for FPC, but it would certainly help with shutter speed/DOF issues which seem to be fairly common on your macros, and would minimise the flatness you're refering to. Alternatively you could bounce the flash so that the light is more diffused? Just some ideas anyway. You don't need to set up a studio to get sharp macros. I know the bar is set fairly high, but Macrofreak and Fir0002 have shown what is possible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair though, I think this is probably my favourite macro shot of yours so far. Just that niggling sharpness holds me back from a strong support. Keep up the good work. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wasp August 2007-12.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speckled Wood

Reason

A detailed and beautiful picture of a well-known European species shown in its natural habitat

Articles this image appears in

Speckled Wood, Satyrinae

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely; I like the background especially. One always wishes for more depth of field in insect macros, but this one ranges from plenty sharp to just sharp enough over the head and wings.--ragesoss (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The best image that could be reasonably produced.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support detailed, good composition and reasonably sharp Thisglad (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Butterfly April 2008-2a.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Tingfang

Reason

An image of significant cultural and historic value.

Articles this image appears in

Wu Tingfang, List of premiers of China

Creator

Frances Benjamin Johnston

• Support as nominator --Jordan ^Contribs 18:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. Interesting image, although it needs a better description on the image page and a better caption here.--ragesoss (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An old restoration of mine that I had been on the fence about nominating. Important minister from the last years of imperial China. Durova^Charge! 20:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I added to the caption, hope you don't mind. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Much appreciated. Jordan ^Contribs 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though sharpness is minorly lacking, it's good for a pic from 1898. Spencer^T♦C 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. EV for Wu Tingfang is high, technical quality sufficient. A worthwhile nomination Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet Another Support, per all above. Very cool photo -- love his facial expression! Nice restoration. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wu Tingfang1.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Yellowstone National Park, 1871

Reason

Yellowstone National Park itself is important enough: the oldest and largest of the U.S. National Parks, also a World Heritage Site. So why this old map of it? This happens to be one year older than the park itself and it was based upon the work of the geologist who played an important role in convincing Congress to establish Yellowstone. It's a remarkable example of nineteenth century surveying and a piece of history. Restored version of Image:Yellowstone 1871.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Yellowstone National Park, Conservation movement, Surveying, Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden

Creator

U.S. Geological Survey

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 10:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definite value. It has my full support. Jordan ^Contribs 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow, so this map was one of the reasons for the National Parks System? Can we put that in the caption, so that the info can make it on to the Main Page when this is promoted? Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Ha,ha. This is the earthquakes image, isn't it? ;) —Sunday • (Testify!) 12:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I concur with Intothewoods29's suggestion. Amphy (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, quite detailed. Spencer^T♦C 19:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, cool old map, nice restoration. Comment: if the map preceded the park, why does the title say "Yellowstone National Park"? --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably because it was in proposal stage. Durova^Charge! 05:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Yellowstone 1871b.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 million colors

Reason

No, this is not a joke (you may remember my "single pixel" April joke...) If you think about it, it is really a rather revealing image; every single pixel is of a different color, but still, the human eye is capable of distinguishing ten times as many colors! (Really not practical to create a ten times larger image, cannot be easily viewed in full... So this should fulfill all FPC requirements - even size. ;-)

Tech note: Incredibly, saving this as compressed but lossless PNG, the file size is only 11 Kb - saving in uncompressed TIFF, the same image is a whopping 3 Mb! Saving in "artifacty" JPG would of course change the value of some pixels, at the same time destroying the original intent of the image... Also note that most modern computers can display over 16 million colors (256 levels each of red, green & blue), here only 100 levels of each color are shown.

Articles this image appears in

Color, Color vision

Creator

Janke

• Support as nominator --Janke | Talk 07:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support fascinating. Durova^Charge! 07:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps a bit more commentary on what it actually mean? What are changed along the X- and Y-axis? I can work out the Y-axis but I don't know about the X-axis. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good question, answer follows: The value for red changes cyclically in the x-axis, 0-100% ten times in 1% increments, the value for green changes cyclically in the y-axis in the same way, while the value for blue changes by 1% in each "square". Imagine putting all the 100 by 100 pixel squares on top of each other - you would then have a cube, 100 px each side, with R,G and B along the x,y,and z coordinates, each changing 1% for every step. I have also added this info and image showing the R, G and B channels to the image description page. --Janke | Talk 09:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you use an arbitrary 1 million colours/1000x1000 as the size of the image? This means that it isn't using all 256 values for R, G and B. Also, the statement "The human eye can distinguish ten times as many different colors than are shown here" is a bit confusing/misleading, because it doesn't explain whether that means we should be able to distinguish ten steps between each colour change in this image, or not.. Obviously if you think about it, we can't, because this image is only a very small part of the gamut our eyes are capable of seeing and it is only in this wider gamut that we can fully distinguish that many colours. :-) Colour is such a complex subject and while I commend your attempt to show how RGB colours interact, I'm not sure it it will add enough value.. It may well confuse people more than it educates them! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you check the articles the image is in, there is a reference to the human eye being capable of resolving 10M colors - that sparked my interest, and made me generate this image, to give an idea of what 1M different colors look like. I think the EV is very good in that regard. (I fixed the caption re. "than shown here", thanks for the observation!) Also, this image is intended for those two articles, not to demonstrate the full 24-bit RGB space. A 16-million pixel image would be quite unwieldy (4096 by 4096 px) - this one will display in full on a modern, largish monitor... Hope this explains my reasons. --Janke | Talk 11:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what I meant about distinguishing 10 million colours. I know that the human eye can distinguish that many colours, but what I meant was that it cannot distinguish 10 different colours within each 'step' of your image pixels (which is what may be interpreted from the caption) because the gamut of your image is a subset of the gamut our eyes are capable of seeing. To express it numerically, lets say for example that your image contains 20% of the colour gamut that our eyes are capable of seeing. Obviously, this could only be estimated because of course every monitor will have a different gamut and it will also depending on the settings of the monitor. Anyway, if our eyes are capable of seeing 10 million colours within their gamut capacity, that would mean only 2 million colours would be distinguishable within your image (20% of 10 million), no matter how many steps of colour it actually contained. In other words, our eyes could only see twice as many colours in your image, rather than 10 million that our eyes can theoretically distinguish. I know I haven't explained it particularly concisely, but I hope you understand what I mean now. This is why I think the caption is a bit confusing/misleading. Did you change the caption? It still reads the same to me? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the first time... ;-) Click "purge cache" if you don't see the changes. I'm very aware of gamuts etc, working in the film&video business. I just felt it's too much info to put in a caption - explaining that most of the 10M distinguishable colors lie outside this image, so to speak... That's why I chose 1% steps - to give an idea to the casual reader of the color articles of what 1M colors look like. And, most of these should be distinguishable! (Maybe not all in the top percentages of blue...) I furthermore added "most of which are outside the gamut of this image" to the caption. Satisfied? ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Weak Support for its enc value, but I think a better choice of illustrating colours would be to use a more natural colour space, like HSL or CIELAB. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Really great and original. Good choice! Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Interesting. Would it be better to make the image so each individual color is something like a 2x2 or 5x5 or 10x10 block at full resolution, so that viewers could appreciate the incremental differences Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, unless you'd want to load a 10,000 px wide image... but you can zoom into the image by loading it into photo software. --Janke | Talk 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe I get this wrong, but I think this picture does not shpw 1 million different colours but only 100000. The pattern is repeated on the x-axis ten times, or do I miss something? 91.63.108.110 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my god, I cannot believe no one noticed that before. Thanks for the great joke, Janke! (because you cannot be serious now, can you?) --Dschwen 14:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blue value seems to depend on both x and y. Anyhow, if you guys think this thing is feature worthy, go ahead. This was probably my last visit here for now. --Dschwen 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the blue changes by 1% in every square, so there are indeed 1 million colors in the image, no joke. --Janke | Talk 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was a bit of a premature overreaction you had there Dschwen... All you have to do is look at the blue channel in the nomination to see it does change along the Y axis as well as the X. An apology to Janke, perhaps? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, yes. Sorry Janke, you deserve better than my unfiltered bursts of frustration. In my defense: I spotted my mistake an hour later before any other comments were made. I could have chose to remove it entirely, but instead just struck it. So, it looks like this is getting promoted with 6:1 votes. Congratulations! Maybe I nominate the Gimp-Color-Chooser dialog, or the test image of our local TV station. What, copyright violation you say? Don't worry, below the threshold of originality... --Dschwen 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fascinating and informative. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This isn't the ideal way to view a colour gamut, as the perception of a colour is greatly affected by the surrounding colours, so you can't really just pack them all together like this. See this optical illusion for an example of the problem. —Pengo 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this isn't intended to illustrate a gamut (even though I was persuaded to include the word in the caption) - the intention is to give a "compact" idea of 1 M colors, in the articles it's in - as you may notice, I haven't included it in RGB or gamut articles, only in color and color vision... --Janke | Talk 06:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Janke on this, the only reason gamut should be mentioned is to clarify what this picture shows, and to avoid confusing people into thinking that a human could see all 10 million plus colours within the gamut of this image. Then again, someone that doesn't have a good understanding of colour in the first place would likely be confused by many of the concepts of colour, so it is a difficult case. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Does do what it intends to do, but apart from being an interesting pattern of discrete colours, I do think it has somewhat limited educational value. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:1Mcolors.png MER-C 07:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite diagram

Reason

Satisfies all of the FP criteria. It is a vector image, so no lossless compression and can be shown at high resolutions. There are no other diagrams (that I have seen) of any dynamite. The image shows what is inside and out of dynamite. It has a free license. Definitely benefits the article dynamite.

Articles this image appears in

Dynamite

Creator

Pbroks13

• Support as nominator ----pbroks13^talk? 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Its an svg file, so its size is adjustable, but at the moment its about half of the 1000px size mandated for an FPC. Fix this, and I will support. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, it's now 1000x800. --pbroks13^talk? 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clear and informative. It would be difficult to obtain such an image of real dynamite (safety issues).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You got me interested. I found and uploaded this and this, but perhaps you want them stacked up like the one above? Chick Bowen 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain until the consensus is that an accurate version has been produced. An FP will come of this, eventually...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; I like the concept, but I want the 'view inside' (which is what I'm guessing A is) to be better. Right now it just looks like a smudge on the dynamite stick; perhaps a full cutaway or a wireframe could be done to show that you're actually showing what's inside the stick. (I think.) Also, there's no label or explanation of the black band around the sticks; I figure this is the tape holding them together, but that probably needs a mention. (And, if it's tape, shouldn't it be going around the whole bundle, instead of around each one?) Or, is it just a standard color for the center of the covering? --Golbez (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Hm... can dynamite really be ignited with a fuse? I believed that was just a common myth. Besides, there's virtually no informative value in that drawing. What's that wrapper made of? What's that strap in the middle od the sticks? Looks more like a cartoon stereotype to me. --193.227.99.5 (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't really have any enc value - the blasting caps are not shown (no, you can't ignite with just a fuse). As said above, this is basically a cartoon, much like in a Road Runner movie... ;-) Besides, often dynamite is not packed in tubes, just wrapped in waxed paper (as seen here) so that the sticks can be easily cut into smaller pieces. We don't need seven in a bunch, either... --Janke | Talk 12:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Dynamite is sometimes used in bunches, but the straps go around the bunch rather than around the individual sticks. See this image for example.[2] Also, there only needs to be one fuse. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above - a bit too cartoony. Also the shadow is poor - a hard shadow will not fade away in a linear gradient. A soft shadow might fade away, but a hard shadow won't --Abdominator (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reading the suggestions above, i did a bit to improve the image. I tried to make it the coating look more like paper, removed the wick with a blasting cap, made the cutaway part look less like a blotch, improved the shadow so it doesn't fade away, made only one fuse, used only three sticks, and added metal wires to hold the dynamite in place. --pbroks13^talk? 06:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose You got the blasting cap all wrong - it doesn't look like this, and it should be inside the stick... Careful research is in order to get good enc in a picture like this. --Janke | Talk 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In addition to what's already been said, I believe there is a spelling mistake. It should be GEFAEHRLICHER, not GEFAEBRLICHER (substitute an H for any B and you're good). Unless somehow this is not German? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it should be GEFÄHRLICHER - and what's "EXPLOEA..."? Also, the paper wrapper is wound in a wrong way, see the stump photo again. Research, research... :-)--Janke | Talk 09:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• EXPLOEA... is EXPLOEAVSTOFF. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Um I think that should be EXPLOSIVSTOFF. Why are we making a picture of WWII Dynamite though? SHouldn't this represent a modern image? Like these sticks here [3] It shows the insides in the next picture. pschemp | talk 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You're getting there. This version is much improved! You might want to work some more on the blasting cap, though. Here is an image that might be helpful. For a bundle of dynamite, they might even just stick the blasting cap in the center of the bundle, although I'm not sure on the typical method. Also modern blasting cap wires are usually thicker that the ones in your diagram (if the positive and negative wires are wrapped in one insulating sheath, otherwise it's a double wire). Keep up the work and I'll think you'll have a winner :) Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspending until a new version is made. --pbroks13^talk? 07:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn --pbroks13^talk? 08:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ----pbroks13^talk? 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto, 1901

Toronto viewed from Lake Ontario in 1901.

Reason

Historic photochrom print showing the skyline and ferries of Toronto, Ontario at the outset of the twentieth century. Restored version of Image:Toronto 1901.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Lake Ontario, History of Toronto

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I realize this is an artifact of the original image, but the sky and water seem distractingly green to me. Would it be possible to adjust them more towards blue or do you think that would be inappropriate digital manipulation? Since I suppose there is no way to know exactly how the colors on this photo originally looked, I imagine it would be OK to use some artistic license, but I'm not sure what your opinion on this would be. Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Although, the image is old and probably very high quality for its age, we must still take into account its usefulness to its article. I believe that it is of such poor quality that a sketch or painting from the time would be much better. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice as a thumbnail, but a very bad quality at full size. Age is not an excuse here. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also have to oppose per usefulness to its article as mentioned above. M.K. (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens Temperate House

Reason

It is a high resolution panoramic image of an important and largest structure in Kew Gardens, a world renown botanical garden/research facility.

Articles this image appears in

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the bowing outwards of the walls of the nearer building - a side effect of the projection method or are they actually like that? Mfield (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats the cylindrical projection, the building is pretty symmetrical. I tried rectilinear but it distorted the far right side too much. I know there is panoramic distortion in the image but it isn't too distracting IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I made an edit which I think is better. In case you want to edit the original TIFF file in this manner to prevent compression, I rotated the picture by 0,80 degrees and changed the horizontal perspective by -10 points. There are also four dust spots (2 large ones, 2 small ones) in the upper left corner, which should be removed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the difference is subtle, but you've upset the vertical lines now, and the buildings are leaning to the left. :-) Other than that, I'm not fussy about which is better, so I'll leave it to the voters. I'll upload over the top of the original one without dust spots (when I find them, I didn't see them when editing originally). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've uploaded a new version minus the spots. For the record though, the two smaller spots were not dust, they were birds I think. Even in my original RAW files, I can't see exactly what they were, but they were far too small to be dust, and they moved between frames anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original minus birds. I haven't forgiven them since the seagull FPC. ;) Durova^Charge! 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. Good job with the highlights, considering the bright sun and white building.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original despite a minute CW tilt (1 px on window frames). --Janke | Talk 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original as above. Good picture. Muhammad(talk) 09:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it is a panorama but the composition is stuffy.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by stuffy? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo does not look spacious like other panoramic photos.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both The composition is not “stuffy”, but nothing than great. Overall a very good panorama. Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both Forgot to support. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The picture looks fine-on the caption, can we have the size given in square feet as well? It would be helpful to have the imperial measurements given, especially as Kew Gardens is a British building Lemon martini (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can remember that a square meter is roughly 11 sq.ft, you don't need double measurements... ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Original Great detail and informative. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Original I notice, however, a fair amount of noise in the sky. Spencer^T♦C 20:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original forgot to do that with my original comment. Mfield (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both but prefer the original. Don't mind the noise in the sky at all. Amphy (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Kew Gardens Temperate House - Sept 2008.jpg MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington's map of the Ohio River region

Reason

A historic map not just because of who made it, but because it documents the beginning of the French and Indian War. Washington worked as a surveyor in his youth, so he was capable of producing this himself and the source attributes it directly to him. Restored version of Image:Washington Pennsylvania Map.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Jumonville Glen, George Washington in the French and Indian War, French and Indian War

Creator

George Washington

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/Comment Presumably those are George Washingtons creases, which adds to the EV of the image, but they are also somewhat distracting. Whats the concensus on removing them in these old documents? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on the document and the quality of the digitized file. Often (such as here) there are technical constraints to consider. If you'd like to try your hand I'd be glad to send you the interim .tif. Durova^Charge! 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the original is better.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you support the unrestored version? Durova^Charge! 05:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not mean that the original is okay to be a Featured picture as it is. However it could be one if the tone and hue are adjusted and the folded line is removed by editing with photoshop. The current version looks like a printed by an old xerox photocopier.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think that the crease is too distracting. -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I prefer original version on this one. M.K. (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Continent Tower

Reason

The lighting and the camera angle are very interesting in the photo for one. Also, the picture shows details of the terra cotta exterior of this building which is one of the famous points of this building.

Articles this image appears in

Mid-Continent Tower

Creator

CPacker

• Support as nominator --Sogospelman (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for noise and purple fringing (more visible at the sides), and sky is overexposed. Also this type of perspective, while aesthetically impressive, prevents one from getting a sense of the building's shape and size relative to the surrounding city, which makes it less encyclopedic. Fletcher (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not very informative about the structure which detracts from its EV. 88.163.48.104 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - unsharp, blown sky. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the points mentioned by Vanderdecken above. Overall technical quality is very weak. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There must be a view which gives a better overall view of the entire building and its environment. However, does this type of perspective have a specific name and article? If so, then I feel this would be much more appropriately used as an illustration for that Lemon martini (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Convention Center, Dusk

Reason

About a year ago, I nominated a very similar picture that was also inferior to this one in many ways. Now, the previous picture wasn't bad I would say but this one improves on it dramatically. This image is bigger, has more real resolution, has much less image noise, is technically sharper, has a better crop, was taken at a better time of day, has fewer ghosts and is free of stitching errors (not the case with the previous picture). I think the subject matter is good and the composition is the best that is available.

Articles this image appears in

Oregon Convention Center

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support as nominator --Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support This is a huge improvement over the last version. The EV is there and it's very very sharp. I definitely enjoy the lighting and the blue cloudy skies. I have a problem with a 21mp picture being 13mb though I've made 40mp shots smaller sizes and the same detail. IMO at least it's a bit too big for the common user. Victorrocha (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd prefer a closer crop, removing the buildings on the left side and the cars at the bottom. Excellent picture otherwise. I don't really agree with Victorrocha's comment that the picture's file size is too big. FCs are not for the "common user" to see on a web page as such, so in 99% of the cases the user won't have to download the whole thing, but there will still be an option of making a very high-resolution print. Luca (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - I felt like the original had too much focus on the forground and not the background. The crop gives the image focus, in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Good EV and nice overall picture. I too disagree with Victorrocha's comments about the image size. Muhammad(talk) 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Yeah, now the cropped version looks a lot better. Luca (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Noodle Snacks resolved what I didn't like in the foreground. Fletcher (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - The crop gets rid of the distracting foreground elements. Good job. Cacophony (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - The cropped photo impresses. 'Tis nice. Heat3000 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer crop Very nice. A shame about the ghosting, but it can't be helped. No drug deals going on this time...? Matt Deres (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the drug deals go down later at night. The previous picture was taken in the summer at (from memory) 10:30PM. This one isn't shrouded in enough darkness. ;-). BTW where's the ghosting that you see. I tried to minimize it this time by removing my UV filter and I don't see any. There is some exposure bleeding on the street lights on the LHS of the image but I don't think that is due to lens ghosting. FWIW. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1 (edit).jpg MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle

Reason

This one has been bouncing around for a while on my PC/Wikipedia. There is already a FP of this subject but I actually think the composition of this nomination is a bit better, and has the added interest of the marching guards. It meets all criteria as far as I can see. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Windsor Castle

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I certainly like the lighting in this one a lot better than the existing FP, however I'm not too keen on the tower on the RHS being partially cropped - seems like composition could be improved a bit --Fir0002 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I could never get the colour balance quite right in the old FP. Probably should have another go at it actually because the castle looks a bit too orange to my eyes now, especially compared to this FPC which I think is pretty close to what I remember seeing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The usual Diliff quality and touch plus a very nice composition and mood in my opinion. The room to the right of the guards is rightfully placed I believe and I don't think the crop on the rightmost tower kills it. Blieusong (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I'm with Fir on this one. Quality is very good but looks like something is missing at right. If it were another author I would probably give a full support... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to argue with what is a subjective issue of composition, but is it fair to judge me more harshly than other authors? ;-) This is about featuring the picture, not the author. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the technical quality is great as always but this is such a small portion of the castle that it worries me a bit featuring it... 88.163.48.104 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support quality is good enough in my opinion. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great Pic. Shows the Royalty very Rolally. There is a little life in the picture which just adds to the grandness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobshoe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wonderfully detailed image, but I really miss the rest of the tower at right... Any chance of getting a version with it? --Janke | Talk 12:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have to go back to the original files, but I suspect not. If you look at the other FP (refered to at the top of the nom), you can see what is missing. This nomination image was taken from the gate on the far right of the old FP, behind and to the right of the statue. There really isn't anything particular behind the far right of this image except a fairly plain wall. You can also look at the geocoding to compare the locations. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Complements the other Windsor Quadrangle FP (I can visualize the quad in 3D, matching up the same feature from different angles). Weak because I would like a wider frame on the right.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle 2 - Nov 2006.jpg MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Coot

Reason

Shows whole bird, good quality

Articles this image appears in

Eurasian Coot

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Doesn't stand out very well in the thumbnail but the full sized image is quite impressive and detailed. Encyclopaedic angle and composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great lighting and sharpness is very good - the 400 f/5.6 is definitely a wonderful lens! A shame about the blown highlights tho... :P --Fir0002 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good depth of field. Durova^Charge! 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tumbnail doesn't do it justice.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I don't usually know much about what makes a great image technically, but I thought it was so good I went to the article, cleaned it up and cited it. So It must be fairly good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love the shot. 216.254.116.23 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Very nice shot! But for EV I'd prefer a better posture which would show the size and proportions of the bird in a better way than this half-crouching position. Luca (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to EV, this shot is not supplying the profile shot (we already have one in the taxobox), it is showing the foraging behaviour, and coots forage by looking at the ground. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is very little detail on the bird's head, which appears to me to be very out of focus. (Am I crazy?) The angle also makes it very hard to tell what the bird's body plan is (per Luca). Furthermore, I don't care for the lighting and the bird's beak is blown. Technically and encyclopedically, this is a much better image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow. Great image: I like the level of detail and the depth of field. Jordan ^Contribs 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eurasian Coot.jpg MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Fuji

Reason

A great facsimile of one of the most famous Japanese ukiyo-e prints depicting Mt. Fuji.

Articles this image appears in

36 Views of Mount Fuji (Hokusai)

Creator

Katsushika Hokusai

• Support as nominator ----Torsodog^Talk 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the original might have some EV, but a facsimilie made by an unknown person at an unknown time just doesn't qualify. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiyo-e prints are not like paintings. An "original" may or may not exist. The entire purpose of these prints were that they were able to be mass-produced. Furthermore, this would not be the first reproduction of a Ukiyo-e print that is a FP, so I don't really see the problem here. --Torsodog^Talk 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown creator + unknown date == unknown EV. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know if this was made in 1930 or 2003, from the original blocks, recut blocks or a laserjet 3600, I challenge every aspect of the encyclopaedic value of this image. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at the image's page. If you had, you would notice that it states that the facsimile dates back to 1930. --Torsodog^Talk 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image page also indicates the the author is unknown, as stated in my original remarks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because recording the author of a completely faithful reproduction is pointless. Obviously you aren't going to change your opinion, so I suggest we just leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsodog (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 October 2008

As pointless as the phrase "completely faithful" when the author is unknown. I am not confident my opinion is the one requiring change.`I feel obligated to continue defending it until I am adequately dissuaded or it is no longer challenged. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Take a look at this print. It is another ukiyo-e print by the same artist, Hokusai, from the same print series. Like this FAC, it is also a modern reproduction as stated by the LoC (though clearly older and of a lesser quality). The artist or company that reproduced the work is not mentioned by the LoC, nor is the year that the work was reproduced. Would you also deem this picture unencyclopedic because of this? --Torsodog^Talk 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is this print. It is, again, from the same series, same artist, except this time this is apparently an original print. Despite the horrible quality of the print, do you deem this one more encyclopedia than a more modern reproduction because it is an original? --Torsodog^Talk 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the second print can not be featured, but yes, it carries much more EV than the first, because it is an original. If I made a "faithful" reproduction in paint and put it up here, would you so eagerly support it? I think not. I see no difference. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just compare this reproduction to you reproduction the print yourself? If you don't see difference between you painting a picture and a profession recreating a woodblock, then you are either grossly exaggerating in an attempt to make some sort of point or you obviously don't know what you are talking about. --Torsodog^Talk 06:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Microsoft Paint. I've grown very tired of your hostility. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that link is a temporary URL. You need to get the one from the bottom of LOC bibliography page (example: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3g04938). howcheng {chat} 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Let's try this again. --Torsodog^Talk 12:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support. This is truer to the original than a faded and degraded first edition print would be. It's a moderately big print, so a higher resolution would be an improvement, but visually this is how the print is generally presented in art books (rather than a photo of a surviving original), and from an EV perspective I think it's necessary, since new prints, either from original or recut blocks, were how Hokusai's work became widely known and studied. Unlike with paintings, ukiyo-e are probably more significant as designs than artifacts. (edit-conflicted with Torsodog's reply)--ragesoss (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. May I suggest to Uncle Bungle to read Ukiyo-e#Making of ukiyo-e. The value is in how the resulting print looks, regardless of the woodblock carver or the printer. So unlike in Western painting, where a forgery of a work of art is worthless and/or unwanted, Japanese woodblock printing encouraged the mass production of these works. howcheng {chat} 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- clean copy of a classic Hokusai masterwork. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: the picture has many white dots and lines when viewed at a higher resolution. Is that because of the paper used or the printing method? Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know about these prints, I would have to say it is because of both the paper and the method. Since these prints are basically the result of giant ink stamps, if the paper has deep enough crevices in some spots, the ink simply does not reach into those small pits when the image is stamped. --Torsodog^Talk 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think that this image from 1930 and a possibly old erone will look the sam, hence th same EV in both cases. To me it does not matter who made the image or when it was made but what it shows. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I won't say that I'm supporting this just because of Uncle Bungles baseless and stubborn opposition because that would not be doing this picture justice and it is a very well done example and a very encyclopedic example of ukiyo-e and especially as the first of it's kind to be even nominated to my knowledge fits the criteria of a good FP. Cat-five - talk 23:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cat-five, you're a swell guy/gal. I didn't detect the slightest hint of sarcasm in your remarks. It just amazes me how a high resolution detailed image of a truly unique REAL event like Cyclone Catarina get thrown under the bus, and yet a grainy bit of art is fawned over on the basis of A great facsimile. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a grainy bit of art" - This seems to be where you are a bit biased. If you think the woodblock printing process produces grainy images, you may be correct, but as one of the most important Japanese ukiyo-e prints in existence, the print is still very important and therefore has encyclopedic value. Also, I'm sorry that something you supported failed the nomination process, but it doesn't really have anything to do with this image's nomination. --Torsodog^Talk 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Red Fuji southern wind clear morning.jpg MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red-light district, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Reason

It has a high EV, since this is the first good picture of this famous part of Amsterdam available to Wikipedia. Further more, it possesses a good technical quality, a good composition and a very nice mood which expresses the scene.

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam, Red-light district and De Wallen

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted. Low enc. Looks like Xmas lighting. A better shot, showing the interior of the brothels (as much as they do show through the windows) would have better enc. --Janke | Talk 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is how large parts of the red-light district look like, which is the subject. I suggest you write a letter to the mayor of Amsterdam with the comment that you think it lookes like Xmas lighting. Further more, you will never get a picture of the inside of a brothel. You will probably never get a better shot than this one, since they aren't exactly keen on photographers there. I got in an argument even making this one. If you look through that door, you will see a girl in underwear inviting you to come in. Oh, and about the tilt..there is none. I tried to improve it just to be sure, but I couldn't a tilt since there is none. I also used a tripod (Manfrotto) with a build in water bubble to prevent tilts.--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red light district De Wallen is the oldest part of Amsterdam and most houses there are tilted. The lighting is acccurate and typical. – Ilse@ 23:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Without taking into account the practical difficulties of taking the better photo, I think this image is not the best possible encyclopedic picture of De Wallen, since the composition shows only two prostitute windows from a big angle. I would like to get a better impression of this red light district from a featured image, also compare Image:Amsterdam red light district.jpg and Image:Amsterdam (189).jpg. – Ilse@ 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Well, in that case a better picture is out of the question. To take a picture with an encyclopedic value of the Wallen, it should be taken at night. The only way to get a technically good image at that time of day, is by using a tripod. And this is a problem, because you will stand too much out in a neighborhood were there are stickers on every door, advertising not to take a picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is one of those subjects that is very difficult to get a featured picture of. To take a photo of the girls in the brothel window, you need to be sly and take a photo with a P&S or camera phone, but to get a featured picture quality image, you need a DSLR and tripod. It seems to be a subject that is a bit difficult and incompatible with our FP standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - I like the atmosphere and think the picture illustrates the article on the Red District vey well. The tilt is a bit disturbing and I'm not sure what is due to lens distortion and to the actual tilt of some façades. Yes, it could be better if we could see something through the windows. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The other, technically weak examples from the red light district show how much this one falls short content-wise. With the new generation of digital cameras with really improved low-light capabilities, it should soon be possible to get a more appropriate shot without a tripod. And in any case, the difficulty of getting a better shot can only go so far to make up for other shortcomings.--ragesoss (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For everybody who feels this picture lacks EV, but is otherwise a nice photograph, you can also support/oppose it on Wikimedia Commons as FP. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but this really doesn't convey any useful information to the viewer in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Helios Prototype

Reason

NASA produced a series of experimental unmanned aircraft for use in atmospheric research. The most recent was the Helios Prototype. What I find fascinating is that this flew on solar power.

Articles this image appears in

NASA Pathfinder

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sure, it's an interesting aircraft and it can't be reshot due to the untimely ending of the Helios but in the era of DV and HD, I don't think this video at 352×240 with pretty poor contrast and color exemplifies the best that wikipedia or NASA can offer, there has to be some better footage of such a recent aircraft. The NASA link to the source is not working for me. Mfield (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Though I'm having some issues with my computer and cannot view the video, I have to note that the video is pretty low in the article in the See also section. I think it's current placement detracts from its use. (I'll comment on the video and !vote once I fix this issue). Spencer^T♦C 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just viewed the video. It looks pretty cool and definitely makes me want to know more, I have to agree with Mfield on this one, but weakly enough, so I vote neutral. Spencer^T♦C 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We also have a high-res but very grainy image of the Gossamer Penguin. Given all the money that the US gov't has put into solar flight it seems like there ought to be a good-quality photo of a solar plane out there somewhere. Chick Bowen 22:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I quite like Image:Helios in flight.jpg --Fir0002 23:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mfield. The video piques my interest, but doesn't satisfy it. Matt Deres (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Dam

Reason

Good quality, rain clouds above, shows the surrounding rocks (important for an arch dam). 140m worth of ladder!

Articles this image appears in

Lake Gordon, Arch dam, Gordon Dam

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Spectacular composition/mood! Very enc as well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It could always be bigger, but I think it's good enough. Dynamic composition still maintains inclusive framing.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Impressive composition and mood, a pity that the picture is so small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bellisimo (IT), heel erg mooi (NL), ganz schon (DE), tres beaux (FR), very beautiful (EN), etc. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's definitely got both the enc and the "wow" I'm looking for in a FP photo. --Janke | Talk 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunningly beautiful and technically perfect, while maintaining enc. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting viewpoint, high quality. Spencer^T♦C 18:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support joining the praise. Durova^Charge! 19:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd say that this has the much sought-after 'wow' factor so often talked about but so rarely found. Coupled with definite EV, this image has my full support. Jordan ^Contribs 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above, wow. Guest9999 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I have to say it does have all the wow, is high in EV and the composition is very strong, but it is soft in the corners and the background is out of DOF and this is all due to the choice of f4 as an aperture, at 10mm f8 would probably have sharpened those corners right up and put the background within DOF. Mfield (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, unfortunately I only had seconds to take the shot and the camera was really set for the inside of the nearby Gordon Power Station (very dark). I did change the ISO from 1600 to 100 fortunately. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could have set it on auto for both inside and out rather than aperture priority/manual ;-) I know how it is though, time is always a factor in getting the 'perfect' shot. Appropriate weather/lighting is the other one, and you were lucky to get moody clouds. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had left the camera was on A-DEP (which sets the aperture to match as many focus points as possible). None of the focus points really laid on the deep foreground or background (so the camera picked F4) and I didn't notice and switch to aperture priority to compensate. A few minutes later those clouds started raining all over us so the camera was back in the bag. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to admit I don't ever use A-DEP as I find it a bit useless for the reason you just described. I guess I just know, intuitively, based on the focal length I'm using whether DOF is going to be an issue, and I try to stop down at least to f/5.6-f/8 for any daylight shot for reasons of sharpness as much as DOF. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I try to as well. A-DEP was actually pretty decent for the inside of the power plant though (bias towards F4 occasionally opening up if there was a big difference between foreground and background, obviously doesn't make the right decisions for landscapes though, which is ironic as its what its intended for. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ADEP mode works completely the wrong way from the way it should IMHO really anyway. I would love a mode that let you focus once on the closet thing you wanted in focus and then on the furthest and the camera would then set the correct aperture to include both. I believe some other manufacturers have implemented this style of auto DEP on their bodies at some point. Alternately, a mode that would automatically focus the lens to the hyperfocal distance for a given aperture as the computer inside would be infinitely better at remembering such trivia for each lens and aperture combination I own than I am. It's sad that the manufacturers are so slow to implement trivial new helpful features that would be so easy with the processing power and firmware memory available. The virtual horizon on the latest Nikons is a welcome step in the right direction from that standpoint. Mfield (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great photo. Xclamation point 00:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very minor technical faults are negated by huge enc and the fact that it looks absolutely stunning. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Eh, it's a little soft around the edges, but that is GREATLY outweighed by the EV & excellent overall quality of the image. Amphy (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per all above. Nicely donde, great picture. We have a FP in front of us. Cheers ;) --201.212.140.93 (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the preceeding comment was mine, I'm sorry, I forgot to log in. --MakE ^shout! 06:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent use of HDR - a dramatic and enc image --Fir0002 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. I get mild vertigo just looking down! Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I came across a very similar scenery this summer, but gave up the idea to take the picture because of the weather (which was the same as well). Now I know I should have used 3 exposures blending. This, plus excellent use of wide angle lens for composition, give stunning results. - Blieusong (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on support Stunning. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support have to admit image attracts your sight. Nice job. M.K. (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support hell yeah. Matt Deres (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is AWESOME! Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because I didn't want to be left off of the highest supported FPC in wikihistory! Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good angle --T-rex 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gordon Dam.jpg MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Key, Florida 1884

Reason

A high resolution historic lithograph of a town listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, created before an 1896s hurricane and fire destroyed many of the original structures. Every major building in town is identified.

Articles this image appears in

Cedar Key, Florida

Creator

Stoner, J. J.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 10:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice one --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A high quality scan, I like the detail. Question: How did J.J. Stoner get the view for the lithograph? Looking at the other images in the article, and on commons, there isn't a high view to get a vantage point like this. Spencer^T♦C 01:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lithographs of American cityscapes were fairly common during this era. I'm not certain of the techniques that were used--specualtion here, but possibly a composite of maps and sketches from an observation balloon. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. That's interesting. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 10:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice find; I like a detail of it. M.K. (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Interesting font used in the publisher note. Matt Deres (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you zoom enough, in the middle, there's a building that looks like its floating in the water. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cedar Key 1884b small.jpg MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casselman River Bridge

Reason

This image is a very high-resolution version of an image taken in 1933 of the Casselman River Bridge, which carried the National Road over the Casselman River in Grantsville, Maryland.

Articles this image appears in

U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge–Cumberland, Maryland)

Creator

Historic American Buildings Survey (cropped by Algorerhythms)

• Support as nominator --Algorerhythms (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Usually the historic images of bridges and architecture that get featured are either truly exceptional for their era or have unique qualities that cannot be replicated. For instance, this bridge no longer exists and this lighthouse was dismantled and replaced with a different structure in a different location. I checked Google Images; the Casselman River Bridge and surrounding vista is basically unchanged since 1933.[4] Durova^Charge! 08:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is a fold present in the lower left corner. Further more, that same corner looks rather weird. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped the image on the left side to remove the fold and the weird corner. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I really like this composition, and wouldn't have a problem featuring the black and white despite that the bridge is unchanged today. (Since it's notable in part as a National Historic Place, the older picture has some additional encyclopedic merit.) But I would rather see the problem corner restored, not cropped off along with a whole strip good image.--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, but I'm not actually sure how to do that. - Algorerhythms (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose edit 1 I'm a bit of a sucker for old photos, but this doesn't seem to show anything that isn't basically the same today (at least according to the pics in the external links section of the article), so I don't see a lot of historic value to the image itself - a hi-res picture taken today would serve just as well and be in colour. Note: I'd be happy to change my vote if there is indeed some significant historical value. Decent EV, but a different angle (such as the modern shot here) provides more info about the actual shape of the bridge. Matt Deres (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Araneus Heroine

Reason

Clear, technically sound and enc image of an interesting spider

Articles this image appears in

Araneus

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Very nice macro. I do think that for animals such as this, it would be great (probably a bit much to ask?) if we could get a series of two or three images from different angles that we could feature together. For example, from above, from the side, and looking head on near ground level. I know this angle is ideal from a DOF perspective, but it is much harder to get a feel for what it looks like in three dimensions. As it is, though, I think it is still worthy of FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm that's an interesting idea and something I'll bear in mind for future studio work, but haven't got a front view of this spider - only got a side view (which I can add if you think it's worth it) --Fir0002 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support This image suggests it could be bigger and have a more inclusive DOF.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually this specimen (and quite possibly the entire species) didn't lend itself to focus bracketing as it moves to much. After taking it out of the freezer it's all curled up and not very photogenic, and once it warms up enough to stretch its legs it starts walking (this shot is taken mid stride). So this is as good as it gets. --Fir0002 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some reason (probably the similarity to the image linked above) I thought it was a focus bracket of a dead/stunned specimen. For a single shot of a live one, this is excellent.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ewww you have spiders in your freezer? *checks chocolate ice cream for cobwebs* Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, I do prefer natural backgrounds though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quality work that meets criteria Capital photographer (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I hate to sound like a raving fir fanboy but another great macro shot Fir. Great encyclopedic quality and a high quality shot. Cat-five - talk 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Heh, heh. I love your macros, or all of your photos, Fir. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. < 2mpix really shows here (just look at how much of the picture is occupied by the body). I miss the taken away pixels and "instinctively" want to magnify the picture. I also find the lighting a bit harsh. Blieusong (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are confusing commons with en:fpc - you're looking at this pic from the wrong perspective. What you should be thinking is great, it's way above 1mpix - not that it is <2mpix as 2mpix is not a guideline at en:fpc. As for the lighting there's nothing I can say other than I'm surprised - the subject is well lit and the shadows are soft, what were you hoping for? --Fir0002 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know en:fpc hasn't the same rules. But I maintain the picture isn't big enough to me to show all the details the bug deserves. Maybe lighting isn't harsh. but flat ? (excuse my poor english). Blieusong (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with you on the lighting, harsh, but not flat. It's very high contrast, but it's not really directional at all; the purely top-down lighting makes it seem somehow sterile and untextured to me. It's not a big enough problem for me to oppose, but I do think it is there. Thegreenj 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose as Blieusong. Muhammad(talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Blieusong and after some thought. Two other things I don't like are the unnatural background and the top view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to straighten the record in terms of the "unnatural" background this spider was found in web in the corner of the inside of a building - photographing it there would have simply changed the background to cream rather than white and produced long, deep, shadows. 'Natural' backgrounds do not always entail lush greenery. --Fir0002 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How big was it? Noodle snacks (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distance between the the longest pair of legs is approx 4cm --Fir0002 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Cute spider. Spinach Dip 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Araneus heroine.jpg MER-C 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese calligraphy

Reason

Beautiful example of Japanese calligraphy and an important historical document, as it shows the development of a Japanese style, transitioning away from the Chinese style that had heretofore dominated.

Articles this image appears in

Japanese calligraphy, Emperor Saga

Creator

Emperor Saga

• Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 04:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a little obscure to Westerners, but definitely worth having as a featured picture. We don't do systemic bias here =) Any chance of a transcription? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be a toughie. I might try at the Japanese Wikipedia, but I'm certainly not capable of it. howcheng {chat} 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked User:Laitche who is Japanese and he says that this is really old Japanese or possibly Chinese, but in either case it's beyond him. It may only be readable by scholars of this stuff. howcheng {chat} 21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Transcription request, Sushiya passed along the following from the Japanese Wikipedia:

"釈文:（香煙は）像爐に（続く）　蒼生橋梁に少なく　緇侶（しりょ）律儀疎（うと）し　法軆何ぞ久しく住（とど）まらん　塵心傷みて餘り有り". So, the pictured text should be: "像爐蒼生橋梁 / 少緇侶律儀疎 / 法軆何久住塵 / 心傷有餘". --Sushiya (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Fg2 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Everything a text FP ought to be. Durova^Charge! 07:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see several little dots and spots around-are these supposed to be part of the calligraphy or are they on the paper itself?-in which case would it be better to remove them? Lemon martini (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not part of the calligraphy; they might be ink drops, or they might be scanning/printing artifacts, but I'd be hard pressed to determine which. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. That's pretty crazy awesome to have a pic created by an emperor. My guess would be that the black dots are just ink drops like Howcheng said. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Koku Saitcho shounin.jpg MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant family of the Great Depression

Reason

Dorothea Lange knew how to capture the Great Depression.

Articles this image appears in

American Agricultural Economy in the 1920s-1940, Migrant worker, Working poor

Creator

Dorothea Lange

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Good picture, but I don't see a need for keeping the photo print border Thisglad (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support Would make a good picture for the front page as well Thisglad (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Question: it's a good pic, but I've never really liked borders. Is there a good reason to keep the border on this? Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, I've removed the border. It's a minor enough change that I've uploaded over the previous image. Durova^Charge! 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now. Good EV. I like the look on the face of the kid with the comics. haha Intothewoods29 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent EV and great retouching. Amphy (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Langechildren2.jpg MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, yeah this page sucks. No help at all.

Missing Square Puzzle

Reason

highly pedagogic and funny geometrical illusion which doesn't call for any special mathematical or geometrical skills and motivates the reader to go through the detailed explanation in the article.

Articles this image appears in

Missing square puzzle

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Info - Also a second try (see here), with some minor improvements. I made this puzzle more than twenty years ago (in wood) and haven't found yet any written reference to it. However, and because its principle is quite simple, it might be hidden is some old puzzle book. The aim of the animation is to puzzle the reader and defy him to find the explanation, which is quite simple and doesn't call for any special mathematical or geometrical skills. For a full description see the article.
• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question According to the article, the apparent paradox is resolved because the 4 quadrilaterals + square combination is slightly larger than the four quadrilaterals alone. But the animation makes them the same size. Should the larger square be a pixel larger or something? Or does the documentation in the article need to be expanded and made more comprehensive? (I'm pretty sure it does.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the big square in the animation does change slightly between the two arrangements.--ragesoss (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By golly it does! It's just undetectable in the thumbnail.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see it in the thumbnail. Pick a corner, stare for a moment, and it'll move a couple of pixels. Durova^Charge! 10:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yes...I must have been blind when I wrote the first comment.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting. I fixed a small spelling error in the caption. Amphy (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it appeals to my inner geek. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but is the graphic demonstrating the problem, or answering it. I think that if lines showing the size change are included, it would increase the image's value, especially because the size difference appears so minimal in the thumbnail. Spencer^T♦C 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, but the lines would be so close together they'd be hard to discern. By increasing the size of the orange square, we increase (exaggerate) the disparity between the two figure allowing the difference to be wider (clearer).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info -- Three small mistakes were corrected in frames 2, 11 and 12. Now I think it is pretty clear, in the transition from one frame to the next, that the area in being increased (or decreased) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like the sense of questionability and mathematics behind this image. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent work. Spinach Dip 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Missing square edit.gif MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Tower, Malá Strana, Prague, Czech Republic

Reason

It has a high EV. There is not such a detailed and good picture currently available of this part of the Charles Bridge on Wikipedia. Further more it possesses a good technical quality. As for the composition; A restoration of this part of the Charles Bridge in currently underway. That's why it was hard to get a good picture of it. I hope the picture will be good enough. I even had to crop the picture (something I never do..).

Articles this image appears in

Prague, Malá Strana, Charles Bridge and Prague 1

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I attached the spires, so restored the picture. This version is the current nomination. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- The lights in the walkway are too overexposed. They really get in the way. (Giligone (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

They are not overexposed..If you don't believe me, check the photograph's histogram. That does not lie. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very good picture. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't find the composition appealing; the fact that it's difficult to get a good picture of the bridge during the restoration may mean that an FP is just not possible. I also think the lighting detracts from it; a daylight shot would be more useful and provide better contrast on the details of the main subject. As for the walkway lights noted by Giligone, they are definitely overexposed according to my image program.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The composition..that's your opinion. How would a daylight shot be better? It doesn;t provide a better contrast and the details of the main subject couldn't be better. I can even see the cracks in the bricks of the tower. A daytime picture would only mean more people. Here is the histogram (Click on it to see it.):

None of the spikes go through the roof so to say.. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just upload a crop of the histogram; otherwise it's a copyright violation.

You're not interpereting the histogram correctly. The horizontal axis represents how light or dark pixels are. The far left is black, the far right, white. The bars themselves represent how many pixels are of that brightness. A spike that goes through the roof just means there are a lot of pixels that brightness; a landscapes, for example, usually have a spike or two because all the pixels in the sky are about the same brightness, though it's not necessarily overexposed. On the other hand, any pixels that are pure white (i.e., that are on the right-most part of the graph) are overexposed. If there is even a short bar there, you have overexposed pixels. Thegreenj 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I guess I had a thing or two wrong in my head for all this time. So a small part is over- and a small part underexposed. Ok, it that case I said nothing. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV, nice shot. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Oh come on, the criticisms (see the votes before restoration (full disclosure: I was one of them)) were all dealt with and now the criticisms just coming off as anal retentive coming up with new things to oppose this for, I'm happy to support the edit 2 version of this since it took care of the cropping and other issues. Cat-five - talk 21:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I'm generally not a fan of twilight shots for their own sake, and this would have been better under certain daylight conditions. Unfortunately, everything bathed in artificial light in this picture appears mildly to completely overexposed.Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only three lamps are overexposed..and the overexposure is slight. Further more nothing was bathed in artificial light, since all the lights were already out! This was taken at dawn. If this is the criticism I wonder how all night/dusk/dawn photo's could have become a FP. For example: User Dillif' shot of the Colosseum contains slightly less overexposure, but it is still there and even more underexposure!. The same goes for user BenH' of the Paris skyline. Again, the underexposure on Dillif' shot of the Palace of Westminster leaves whole parts of the building black, but somehow the all seem to have become FPs. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, granted in the strict technical sense they are not overexposed. But the concentration of very bright lights in that one spot of the photo draws your eye. And thats not what you want your eye to be drawn to. Perhaps because of those lights an FP of that location is not possible. (Giligone (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• The lamps are burnt out, and this is very distracting on this shot. The fix is very nicely done though so I'll remain neutral, but this still doesn't impress me. Having a look at it again, I'm now thinking that dusk doesn't suit the subject well. Notice that only three lamps lit the scene and no window has light behind. No lights to lit the buildings as well (even very basic flood lamps). The pictures you are referring to have plenty of light sources which give of much more enchanting atmosphere, and which is why dusk pictures can be so beautiful. This is just my opinion though. Blieusong (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're pictures by the way deserve to be FP's. I might try to lower the saturation, so that the light are less orange. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lighting was against you (I insist, only three lamps !!)... and I think it's very nice you managed to get something this good out of that. Other wikipedians like the picture, so wait and see :) Blieusong (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a less saturated version. Let me know if it is better than the current version. http://massimo.catarinella.nl/IMG_5328.jpg --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the less saturated version, but this isn't why I don't support it... The lighting of the scene is the issue to me. Blieusong (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Edit2 The mixed lighting is a little off putting - it would be better either shot a little later to reduce the contrast between sky and artificial or a little earlier to push the emphasis onto the sodium lighting. However my initial complaints have all been addressed. Mfield (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 3 I've uploaded edit 3, which I think helps greatly with the disturbing lighting variation, though it's still a minor problem. Thegreenj 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any of them. The top of the tower is almost cropped, and the overall quality is not so "wow".--Caspian blue (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the tower is far from being cropped and the quality couldn't be better unless I would have shot it with and 1D or some camera similar to that one.... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (edit 3) - This one has obviously been improved over the original, the lights in the walkway most definitely do not look as bad. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any of them. And this is my opinion, the composition is uncomfortable, especially the tight crop. --Base64 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 11's liftoff as seen from a launch tower camera

Reason

This is an image of the first instants of one of the most significant expeditions in the history of the world. The composition is visually impressive and imparts an impression of ponderous size yet violent motion. Its presence in the Saturn V article visually underlines the importance of that rocket in world history. It's not currently in the Apollo 11 article itself because the article is so loaded with images I didn't see a way of shoehorning it in without bumping something else out- requires talk page discussion I haven't started as of yet. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Saturn V

Creator

NASA (Uploaded by myself, Elipongo)

• Support as nominator --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose and probably a candidate for speedy close. Spectacular scene obviously, but the technical quality is absolutely awful. Poor sharpness, low resolution (above the minimum requirements but only just), jpeg artifacting... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've never really understood the point of the "strong" modifier in debates like this- a person's rationale should be what backs up their opinion, not that they hold it "strongly"- but it is common practice anyway so whatever. However what is the point of bolding the speedy close comment? Something like that is usually better left to the regular typeface comments. To address your points though, firstly "spectacular scene" has nothing to do with it- every rocket launch is a pretty darn spectacular fireworks show- this is a photograph of one of the most important events in human history. The landing on the Moon part wasn't nearly the challenge that getting off the Earth was. This is equivalent to having a photograph of Columbus setting sail. As to the technical aspects of the photo- I am frankly surprised NASA was able to get one as good as this one is. When you consider that the camera is within tens of feet of the most powerful rocket ever produced (The Saturn V hasn't been surpassed in payload to this day) with all the vibration and lighting issues that implies as well as the pure speed of a rocket; and further considering the limitations of the technology in the late 1960s and the likelihood of poor archiving on NASA's part (heck they've lost all of Apollo 11's telemetry somehow!) this photo is pretty darn good, imho. It's much better than the closest other version we have Image:Apollo11-Launch-Tower-Camera.jpg. I suppose someone should check if I didn't introduce some artifacting when I cropped it with MS Paint (it's all I've got, sorry). Anyways, that's all I've got to say. I won't argue anymore and I'll let things stand on their merits. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Using 'strong' just allows readers that are scanning through to see that this person is particularly against (or for) the nomination. Obviously it does need to be backed up by relevant information in the comment too though. The same applies for the speedy close, having this bold means taht people quickly looking through can see the voters opinions easier. I'm guessing by 'spectacular scene' he is referring to it being the apollo 11 launch in particular, rather than just the view of a rocket launch in general. The quality of the image isn't really good enough for FP, and the encyclopaedic value doesn't quite warrant it either. There are other apollo 11 photos that might be FP worthy, or already are (eg Image:Ksc-69pc-442.jpg, Image:Apollo 11 launch.jpg, Image:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg), so it's not as if the event is ignored in FPs. Chris_huh^talk 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats right, Chris_huh has explained the reason behind a strong modifier nicely. It doesn't necessarily carry more weight unless it is backed up with strong arguments and, at least in my case, it isn't used often. As for NASA not having the ability or technology to take a better shot, I beg to differ. Obviously it would require a more complicated set up than is usually provided for a fixed camera, but you could easily rig the camera up to stabilisation system similar to what film cameramen use, and/or attach the camera to a simple gyroscopic system. Either of these would minimise vibration to the camera. This is NASA we're talking about here, and the technology was easily available at the time. The question is whether they could justify it for a single photo, I guess. As for the jpeg artifacts, they are actually present in the original you linked to on the NASA website, so you're not to blame - its NASA in this case. They're capable of producing much better images than this, and there are many others from this era to prove it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem isn't part of the original shot, it's the JPG compression - which can be solved by getting a higher quality conversion from the original. Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose NASA should really not be providing 'high resolution versions of anything exhibiting such terrible jpeg compression - handy in the 1980s when we were dialing up at 9600 baud, but they now need to update these files. Mfield (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in spite of superlative ev, just not up to the minimum technical standard. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Snowball's chance... --Janke | Talk 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A veritable blizzard in fact. <sigh> It's a darn shame that none of our photos of this launch have the technical quality and the visual impact needed for FP status. We must have Wikimedians who work for NASA who can get us better scans, but I've been at a loss to find a userbox or a user category to find them as of yet (probably was nominated at WP:UCFD when I wasn't looking...) Anyways, I guess I'll withdraw this nom momentarily. Sorry for the trouble. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floral Stages of Pancratium zeylanicum

Reason

Image with high encyclopedic value consisting of good quality individual images illustrating the floral stages of the specie.

Articles this image appears in

Pancratium zeylanicum

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least in this incarnation; some of the images appear unnecessary. What exactly are the "stages", and are there really a dozen of them? The stub article doesn't tell, and an inquiring mind wants to know... ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid I am not qualified to answer the question about the stages. I will upload a version with fewer images once I know which images are considered redundant. Muhammad(talk) 12:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As Janke, I think there are too many frames. Maybe reducing its number to six and enlarging each picture. Two more points: the colour of the background should be similar in all images and the font type is a bit fancy. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colours are different because the pictures were taken at different times, the openinf of the flowers being early morning. I can reduce the number of pictures but six seems too few. Which frames do you suggest removing? What font is the standard for such images? Muhammad(talk) 12:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I usually stick to a very simple sans serif font such as Arial. To answer the other question I think we'd need to be more clear on what is meant by floral stages. I'm not familiar with the term personally, but if we knew what the key stages were then we could be clearer on which frames, if any, were unnecessary (as a quick gut feeling without close analysis, if you wanted to cut it down to six frames, I'd probably say go 1,2,5,8,10,12). --jjron (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I may have misused the words floral stages. I have uploaded an edit of the original image which consists of 9 frames. I have not reduced the frames to six because I want to show the rate at which the flowers opens. Frames 2 and 3 are shots taken more than an hour apart but very little change has taken place, compared to frames 3 and 4 only 7 mins apart. I have changed the fonts to Arial and have cropped all the individual images to enlarge the subject. Muhammad(talk) 15:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been thinking about this and I can't help but feel that it's not really clear what this sequence is trying to achieve. Reading what you say above you talk about showing the rate at which the flower opens, but you also have it spread over 4 days showing I guess you could say the 'lifecycle' of the flower. In that sense it seems to be hedging its bets - is it showing the flower blooming and dying over four days, or is it showing how quickly the petals open out on that second day? To me, I'm not sure that trying to show both things in the one sequence is ideal, and I suspect that others are thinking along those lines too, not really being clear on what it's showing. I must also say that that second flower, which is particularly prominent on the first two days, really doesn't help things. I presume you took this sequence with its use here in mind, in which case it probably would have been a good idea to trim off that background flower before you started. FWIW the text alignment in the second version has also got out of whack. Sorry, this is turning into a real PPR response. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with jjron about the sequence: to show the lifecycle of the flower, frames 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 would be enough. I really like the idea, but won't give false hopes on this nomination as there are other issues. First, the size and quality of each picture: I think they are not large enough and sharp enough. Forgive me for showing my own images but this is the level of quality I would expect of a FP. Second (and easier to solve), the size and alignment of the legends: they should be smaller, less conspicuous and perfectly aligned both in the horizontal and the vertical. Please gon on trying! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks you for commenting. I withdraw my nomination to fix the faults. Muhammad(talk) 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Tree NP Keys View panorama

Original - Panorama of the view south into Coachella Valley from the popular Keys View in the Little San Bernardino Mountains, Joshua Tree National Park, California, USA. Visible landmarks are the Salton Sea (230ft below sea level) at rear left, along towards the center the Santa Rosa Mountains behind Indio and the San Jacinto Mountains behind Palm Springs. In the valley floor, the San Andreas Fault is clearly visible. At the rear right is the 11,500ft San Gorgonio Mountain

Redux - managed to persuade more vertical angle to stitch. Also addressed some of the other issues/concerns pointed out about Original.

Reason

a sharp high resolution geocoded panorama detailing a number of major geological features that adds value to a number of articles.

Articles this image appears in

San Andreas Fault, Joshua Tree National Park, Coachella Valley, Little San Bernardino Mountains

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weak Support (Prefer Newer Version) is the horizon tilted or is that just a function of the geography? Noodle snacks (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a function of the geography. The original component images, shot vertical, as well as a single frame of the entire scene, exhibit the same tilt of the valley floor from this vantagepoint. If you try it in Google Earth you will observe a tilt as well, maybe it is slightly exaggerated - either psychologically or physically - by the projection of a 150 degree panorama. Mfield (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote then. In my opinion the histogram could be tweaked a bit (to brighten the lighter part of the image and improve the contrast), and there a few dust splotches? to remove on the right hand sky. Would switch to Support if the edit was done (I may be able to do it after my electrical assignment is done). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the remaining dust spots I missed and also performed slight NR on the sky. I will beg to disagree on the histogram front though. The image feels true to the scene here on both my (calibrated) monitors. Mfield (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That'll do for me then. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You missed a spot. It is directly left of the central vertical axis of the panorama between a cloud and mountaintop. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer the newer version with the forground. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yup, that's what So-Cal looks like. Good picture, great EV :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great panorama original, Strong Support new version, beautiful! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now that's what I call a panorama. Jordan ^Contribs 15:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Nice photo! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and great WOW! Muhammad(talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redux Even better with the rocks Muhammad(talk) 17:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.. One small concern (sorry, there's always one!), it looks like you've applied some strong local contrast enhancement to the mountains in the background as the top is significantly darker than the rest, and it just looks a bit funny. Not a deal breaker, but I would have softened it if it were me. It does make it look less hazy than I suspect it was. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no LCE, I think it is probably atmospheric haze in the valley that is not present at the level of the tops of the mountains. The ND grad I used is too soft to have caused that effect either. Mfield (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. So where are the windmills? Durova^Charge! 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention them, I didn't forget them, I took a 39 image panorama of the entire windfarm from the top of the mountains to the South which I am currently finishing up. Problem is the windfarm does not yet have an article Yes it does, it was just orphaned. I should be uploading the image tomorrowtodaydone. Mfield (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Prefer edit, btw. :) Great work. Durova^Charge! 05:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing panorama. Spinach Dip 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Redux Good detail but I'm not keen on the strong vignette/polariser effects in the sky in the corners - the sky looks too unbalanced/unrealistic. Also the the image looks underexposed - the foreground in particularly looks too murky for a bright sunny day... --Fir0002 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting because no polarizer was used - it presumably is natural high altitude polarization - an effect of Rayleigh scattering which is especially visible in the 150 degree angle of the shot, which I guess makes it more natural rather than less. Mfield (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose original - I like the mood, the colours and the detail. But also found the symmetrical composition a bit boring. The sky is posterized, probably due to contrast enhancement or level adjustements -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 - Much better now though the symmetry is reinforced with the new foreground - Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the symmetrical composition is kind of innevitable in a 150 degree panorama that has been shot specifically for enc rather than artistic reasons. As for the posterization that you see, I can't see it here, where do you see it? Per my above comments there was no contrast enhancement, the contrast was controlled with an ND grad used when shooting which would not cause posterization. Perhaps the sky graduation would be smoother if I went back and re rendered the TIFFs from RAW in 16 bit Adobe RGB though. I'll give that a go at some point. Mfield (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alvesgaspar for the symmetric composition, I remember I raised the point on a previous nom of yours (Los Angeles). I don't think it's inevitable. I can understand you shoot symmetrical because you actually try to ensure the level is horizontal, but then you can also shoot a second row below. Maybe something obstructed the view (?). Blieusong (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did crop some foreground out as I was having difficult persuading it to stitch (partially due to it being shot handheld). I have had a strong word or two with the software so....

Oh sorry, I thought you shot this with a tripod, set to horizontal level, hence the horizon being in the middle. Blieusong (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was definitely some posterisation in the sky in the original, but the redux fixed it for the most part. It was minor, but noticable if you look for it (which I did after it was mentioned). I find that my blender sometimes introduces this when blending 8 bit images, but to a much lesser degree when blending 16 bit, for obvious reasons. I don't think that Adobe RGB vs sRGB would make any difference though as I don't think that the wide gamut is needed here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A whole new redux. More foreground for Alves and Blieusong, less posterization in sky, slight contrast change. Mfield (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new version. I think the foreground adds a lot to the picture. I like the colours and mood ! -- Blieusong (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Redux. Much improved. I like the context of the rocks in the foreground, and the sky is better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redux. An excellent image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redux I like the mood. --Base64 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redux much better context in edit. --Janke | Talk 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redux Having some foreground gives a sense of scale, and shows some of the plants of the area that can only be barely seen on the more distant hills. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Joshua tree keys view pano more vertical.jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting that nobody noticed the cloning artifacts / stitching errors in the foreground. The picture is currently under review on the german Wikipedia. --Dschwen 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how those slipped by either - I will fix them. Mfield (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Hope it works out. I'll notify the reviewers. --Dschwen 02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message over there in the nom too just after yours. I'll replace it and leave a comment over there when it is done. Mfield (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, impressive german skills :-) --Dschwen 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol building in Palau

Reason

Shows the Government House of an independent (but not known) country and I think it meets all requirements.

Articles this image appears in

Palau; Melekeok

Creator

User Binter from German Wikipedia

• Support as nominator --Maru-Spanish (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Heavily compressed file, lacks sharpness, and subject is cut off. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting subject, and I'd almost say good composition, but poor quality image from a technical POV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with the above and would also like to point out noise issues. Spencer^T♦C 19:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneertown, California

Reason

an image that meets all the technical requirements and portrays the movie set/town that is Pioneertown in a manner that will encite reader/viewer interest

Articles this image appears in

Pioneertown, California

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unusual subject but undeniably high quality and enc. Only minor detraction is the distortion of the leaves in the top right corner of the frame. Did they catch the edge of the ultra-wide lens? I often shoot one extra frame on either side of where I plan to crop, because when stitching it avoids that sort of issue by using the centre of the frame rather than the corner. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is a single shot, not a stitch at all and it is slightly cropped so you aren't seeing the extreme corner anyway. I think the softness on that close branch is due to the extremely high winds that day (and that are a feature of the high desert) rather than the corner of the lens though as it is pretty consistently sharp at f11. Shame I couldn't get any rolling tumbleweed in shot. Mfield (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great image. I never saw an image of a town like this before. It's kinda funny how much the ones in cartoons look like the real ones. Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. per nom. Really unique pic. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good visual value & enc, indeed it looks like a movie set. (PS: houldn't it be UNihabited, or at least -inhabited? ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really is inhabited. Not these specific buildings but the rest of the town is a functioning town - you should read the article ;-p. Mfield (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Professional quality. The image isn't that big though, while it has been shot with a 5D. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Highly illustrative. Spinach Dip 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There is something unrealistic about this place, maybe for being desert and too clean. But that does not affect the EV and high technical quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wonderful climate of this picture (It looks like the old good times). I appreciate high technical quality. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pioneertown california saloon and bath house.jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Spider Monkey

Reason

Sharp vibrant photo of rare animal with rare features

Articles this image appears in

Brown Spider Monkey

Creator

User:Tomfriedel

• Support as nominator --Tomfriedel (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit2 maybe could benefit from a saturation boost. The caption is a bit fluffy, and the phrase "shot in captivity" is unfortunate... de Bivort 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference for edit 2 the caption may need a bit of re-writing. Muhammad(talk) 18:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Caption shortened and speculation removed. Thegreenj 23:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice, very encyclopedic. Cat-five - talk 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportI like all, but edit two is best. Zginder 2008-10-05T00:14Z (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 The original was great, but there was unused space in the histogram, fixed that with a levels adjustment. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if cropped tighter Capital photographer (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 I support the last edited version, as the tighter crop is a definite improvement. Jordan ^Contribs 15:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Edit 1) - I prefer Edit 1. The crop and subsequent zoom on Edit 2 makes the image look too daunting in my opinion. Matthuxtable (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. Spinach Dip 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. The crop is an improvement. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:BrownSpiderMonkey (edit2).jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]