Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder

Diese Projektseite in anderen Sprachen:

Springe zu den aktuellen Kandidaten

Dies sind die Kandidaten für die exzellenten Bilder. Beachte, dass es sich hierbei nicht um das Bild des Tages handelt.

Formalien[edit]

Nominierung[edit]

Leitsätze für die Nominierung[edit]

Bitte lies alle Leitsätze (Englisch) vor der Nominierung.

Dies ist eine Zusammenfassung von Kriterien, auf die du bei der Einreichung und Bewertung von Exzellenz-Kandidaten achten solltest:

Auflösung – Fotografien mit einer Auflösung unter 2 Millionen Pixel werden in der Regel abgelehnt, außer unter „stark mildernden Umständen“. Beachte, dass ein 1600 x 1200 großes Foto 1,93 Megapixel hat und damit weniger als 2 Millionen.

Grafiken auf Commons können auch in anderen Weisen als zur Anzeige auf einen herkömmlichen Computerbildschirm verwendet werden. Sie können auch als Ausdruck oder zur Anzeige auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen verwendet werden. Man kann nicht vorhersagen, welche Geräte in Zukunft Anwendung finden, deshalb ist es wichtig, dass die nominierten Bilder die höchstmögliche Auflösung haben.

Eingescannte Bilder – solange es keine offizielle Richtlinie gibt, findet man unter Help:Scannen für verschiedene Typen von Bildern Hinweise für die Vorbereitung, die hilfreich sein können.

Fokus – jedes wichtige Objekt im Bild sollte normalerweise scharf sein.

Vordergrund und Hintergrund – Objekte im Vorder- und Hintergrund können stören. Kontrolliere, ob etwas vor dem Motiv des Bildes wichtige Elemente verdeckt. Auch soll nichts im Hintergrund die Komposition verderben, zum Beispiel eine Straßenlampe, die über dem Kopf einer abgebildeten Person „steht“.

Allgemeine Qualität – nominierte Bilder sollten von hoher technischer Qualität sein.

Digitale Manipulationen betrügen nicht in jedem Fall den Betrachter. Digitale Nachbearbeitungen, um Fehler von Fotografien zu korrigieren, sind allgemein akzeptiert, vorausgesetzt, sie sind begrenzt und gut gemacht, ohne dabei betrügen zu wollen. Akzeptiert werden normalerweise Beschneiden, perspektivische Korrekturen, Schärfen und Verwischen sowie Farb- und Belichtungskorrekturen. Umfangreichere Korrekturen wie das Entfernen von störenden Hintergrundobjekten sollten in der Bildbeschreibung mit Hilfe der Vorlage {{Retouched picture}} klar beschrieben werden. Nicht oder falsch beschriebenen Manipulationen, die dazu führen, dass das Hauptmotiv falsch dargestellt wird, sind unter keinen Umständen akzeptabel.

Wert – unser Hauptziel ist das Hervorheben der wertvollsten Bilder von allen anderen. Bilder sollten irgendwie etwas Besonderes sein. Darum sei dir bewusst, dass:
- nahezu jeder Sonnenuntergang ästhetisch ansprechend ist und die meisten keinen wesentlichen Unterschied aufweisen zu anderen,
- Nachtaufnahmen hübsch sind, aber dass man normalerweise mit Aufnahmen bei Tag mehr Details zeigen kann,
- schön nicht immer wertvoll bedeuten muss.

Auf der fachlichen Seite gibt es die Belichtung, die Komposition, die Bewegungskontrolle und die Fokustiefe zu beachten.

Belichtung bezieht sich auf die Verschluss-Blende-Kombination, die ein Bild mit einer Tonkurve wiedergibt. Idealerweise bildet diese Tonkurve in akzeptabler Genauigkeit Schatten- und Spitzlichtbereiche im Bild ab. Dies nennt man „Belichtungsspielraum“. Bilder können im niedrigen Teil der Tonkurve (unterer Bereich), im mittleren (mittlerer Bereich) oder hohen Teil (oberer Bereich) liegen. Digitale Kameras (oder Bilder) haben einen engeren Belichtungsspielraum als Fotofilme. Fehlende Genauigkeit im Schattenbereich ist nicht unbedingt ein Nachteil. Tatsächlich kann dies ein gewünschter Effekt sein. Eingebrannte Spitzenlichter sind dagegen ein störendes Element.

Komposition bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Elemente im Bild selbst. Die „Drittel-Regel“ ist ein guter Grundsatz für die Komposition und ein Erbe der Gemäldemalerei. Die Idee ist, das Bild mit jeweils zwei horizontalen und zwei vertikalen Linien zu teilen. Dadurch wird das Bild in horizontale und vertikale Drittel geteilt. Das Motiv im Zentrum des Bildes zu platzieren, ist oft weniger interessant, als es auf einem der vier Schnittpunkte der horizontalen und vertikalen Schnittlinien zu platzieren. Der Horizont sollte eigentlich niemals in der Mitte des Bildes liegen, wo er das Bild in zwei Hälften „teilt“. Die obere oder untere horizontale Linie ist oft eine gute Wahl. Der Hauptgedanke ist, den Raum zu nutzen, um ein dynamisches Bild zu schaffen.

Bewegungskontrolle bezieht sich auf die Weise, wie die Bewegung im Bild abgebildet wird. Die Bewegung kann stillstehend oder verschwommen sein. Weder das eine noch das andere ist besser; es kommt auf den Zweck der Aufnahme an. Bewegung ist relativ innerhalb der Objekte des Bildes. Zum Beispiel vermittelt uns das Fotografieren eines relativ zum Hintergrund stillstehenden Rennwagens kein Gefühl für das Tempo oder die Bewegung. Also zwingt uns die Fototechnik, das Motiv stillstehend vor verschwommenem Hintergrund abzubilden, wodurch ein Gefühl für die Bewegung entsteht. Dies nennt man „Schwenken“. Andererseits kann eine Aufnahme eines im Vergleich zur Umgebung stillstehenden Basketballspielers während eines hohen Sprunges das „Unnatürliche“ der Natur dieser Pose sichtbar machen.

Fokustiefe (DOF – Depth Of Field) bezieht sich auf den Fokusbereich vor und hinter dem Hauptmotiv. Die Fokustiefe wird abhängig von den spezifischen Erfordernissen jedes Bildes gewählt. Große oder kleine Fokustiefe kann auf die eine oder andere Weise die Qualität der Aufnahme vergrößern oder schmälern. Geringe Fokustiefe kann die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Hauptmotiv des Bildes lenken, das Hauptmotiv erscheint dadurch von seiner Umgebung gelöst. Hohe Fokustiefe bringt Abstände zwischen Motiven zur Geltung. Objektive mit kurzer Brennweite (Weitwinkel) ergeben eine hohe Fokustiefe, umgekehrt haben Objektive mit langer Brennweite (Teleobjektive) eine flache Fokustiefe. Kleine Blendenöffnungen bringen große Fokustiefe, und umgekehrt große Blendenöffnungen bringen flache Fokustiefen.

Bei den grafischen Elementen gibt es Form, Volumen, Farbe, Struktur, Perspektive, Balance, Proportion, usw.

Form bezieht sich auf den Umriss des Hauptmotivs.

Volumen bezieht sich die dreidimensionale Qualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenlicht herausgebildet. Im Gegenteil zum allgemeinen Glauben ist Frontbeleuchtung nicht die beste Wahl. Frontbeleuchtung lässt das Motiv abflachen. Das beste Tageslicht hat man am frühen Morgen oder nachmittags.

Farbe ist wichtig. Übersättigte Farben sind nicht gut.

Struktur bezieht sich auf die Oberflächenqualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenbeleuchtung verbessert.

Perspektive bezieht sich auf den „Grad“ zusammen mit Linien, die in einen Fluchtpunkt innerhalb oder außerhalb des Bildes enden.

Balance bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Motive innerhalb des Bildes, die entweder das scheinbar gleiche Gewicht haben oder schwerer auf einer Seite erscheinen.

Proportion bezieht sich auf die Größenunterschiede der Objekte im Bild. Normalerweise tendieren wir dazu, kleine Gegenstände klein im Vergleich zu anderen darzustellen. Eine gute Methode kann aber sein, kleine Objekte groß im Gegensatz zu wirklichen Größenverhältnissen abzubilden. Zum Beispiel: Eine kleine Blume überwiegt gegenüber einem großen Berg. Dies nennt man Maßstabsinversion.

Nicht alle Elemente müssen berücksichtigt werden. Einige Fotografien können anhand individueller Eigenschaften beurteilt werden. Für ein Bild kann die Farbe oder die Struktur wichtig sein, oder Farbe und Strukur, usw.

Symbolische Aussage oder Relevanz…. Der Meinungskrieg kann hier beginnen…. Ein schlechtes Bild von einem sehr schwierigen Motiv ist ein besseres Bild als ein gutes Bild von einem gewöhnlichen Motiv. Ein gutes Bild von einem schwierigen Motiv ist ein außergewöhnliches Foto.

Bilder können kulturell beeinflusst sein durch den Fotografen und/oder den Betrachter. Die Bedeutung des Bildes sollte vor dem kulturellen Hintergrund des Bildes beurteilt werden, nicht durch den kulturellen Hintergrund des Betrachters. Ein Bild „spricht“ zu Menschen und hat die Möglichkeit, Emotionen auszulösen, wie zum Beispiel Zärtlichkeit, Zorn, Ablehnung, Heiterkeit, Traurigkeit usw. Gute Fotografen sind nicht darauf beschränkt, gefällige Emotionen zu provozieren.

Um die Chancen für einen Erfolg deiner Nominierung zu erhöhen, lies vor der Nominierung alle Leitsätze.

Eine neue Nominierung aufstellen[edit]

Wenn du glaubst, ein Bild mit passender Bildbeschreibung und Lizenz gefunden oder geschaffen zu haben, das als wertvoll erachtet werden könnte, folge der anschließenden Anleitung.

Schritt 1: Kopiere den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:), hinter den schon im Feld stehenden Text, zum Beispiel „Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG“. Danach klicke auf die Schaltfäche mit der Aufschrift „neue Nominierung aufstellen“.

Schritt 2: Folge den Anweisungen der geöffneten Seite, und sichere sie.

Schritt 3: Füge manuell einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Kandidatenliste ein: Hier klicken, und füge folgende Zeile OBEN bei der Nominierungslist ein:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG}}

Abstimmung[edit]

Du kannst folgende Vorlagen benutzen:

{{Support}} ( Support) (Stimme zur Unterstützung des Exzellenz-Status'),
{{Oppose}} ( Oppose) (Stimme gegen den Exzellenz-Status),
{{Neutral}} ( Neutral) (neutrale Meinung, keine Stimme),
{{Comment}} ( Comment) (es folgt ein Kommentar, keine Stimme),
{{Info}} ( Info) (es folgen Informationen, keine Stimme),
{{Question}} ( Question) (es folgt eine Frage, keine Stimme)

Du kannst angeben, dass das Bild keine Chance für eine erfogreiche Kandidatur hat. Benutze die Vorlage {{FPX|reason}}, wobei reason angibt, warum das nominierte Bild klar unakzeptabel für die exzellenten Bilder ist.

Weitere Vorlagen gibt es hier.

Bitte füge ein paar Worte an, warum dir das Bild gefällt oder nicht gefällt, insbesondere wenn du dagegen stimmst. Bitte denke auch daran, zu unterschreiben (~~~~). Anonyme Stimmen sind nicht zugelassen.

Abwahlkandidaten der exzellenten Bilder aufstellen[edit]

Mit der Zeit ändern sich die Standards für die Exzellenten Bilder. Es kann entschieden werden, dass Bilder, die vorher „gut genug“ für die Exzellenten waren, es nicht mehr sind. Dies ist zum Aufstellen eines Bildes, welches deiner Meinung nach es nicht mehr verdient, exzellent zu sein. Dazu wähle mit

{{Keep}} Keep (das Bild verdient es immer noch, als exzellent zu gelten) oder mit
{{Delist}} Delist (das Bild verdient es nicht mehr, als exzellent zu gelten).

Wenn du denkst, dass ein Bild nicht mehr den Exzellenz-Kriterien entspricht, kannst du es für die Abwahl nominieren, indem du den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:) hinter den bereits stehenden Text im Feld kopierst:

In der eben erstellten neuen Seite für die Nomination des Abwahlkandidaten solltest du einfügen:

Informationen über den Ursprung des Bildes (Ersteller, Uploader),
Einen Link zur originalen Exzellenz-Kandidatur-Seite (es erscheint unter „Links“ auf der Beschreibungsseite),
Deine Begründung für die Nominierung und dein Benutzername.

Danach musst du einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Liste der Abwahlkandidaten manuell einfügen.

Richtlinien für Exzellenz-Kandidaten[edit]

Allgemeine Regeln[edit]

Nach dem Ende des Abstimmungs-Zeitraumes wird das Ergebnis am Tag 10 nach der Nominierung festgestellt (im Zeitplan weiter unten gezeigt). Also dauert der Abstimmungs-Zeitraum 9 Tage, plus die Stunden bis zum Ende von Tag 9. Stimmen, die an Tag 10 oder danach abgeben wurden, werden nicht gezählt.
Nominierungen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
Mitwirken bei Diskussionen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
Nur Nutzer mit einem commons-account, der mindestens 10 Tage alt ist und 50 Beiträge hat, können wählen. Ausnahme: Die eigene Nominierung kann gewählt werden, unabhängig von Alter und Beiträge.
Die Nominierung zählt nicht als Stimme. Unterstützung muss explizit angegeben werden.
Nominierungen können vom Einsteller jederzeit zurückgezogen werden. Dies geschieht einfach durch das Schreiben von „I withdraw my nomination“ (eng. Ich ziehe meine Nominierung zurück)
oder durch Hinzufügen von {{withdraw|~~~~}}.
Denke daran, das Ziel von Wikimedia Commons ist es, einen zentralen Speicher für freie Bilder, genutzt von allen Wikimedia-Projekten, bereitzustellen, einschließlich für mögliche zukünftige Projekte. Dies ist nicht einfach ein Speicher für Wikipedia-Bilder, deshalb sollten hier die Bilder nicht danach beurteilt werden, ob sie zu diesem Projekt passen.
Bilder können vorzeitig am Tag 5 (fünfter Tag nach der Nominierung) von der Abstimmungsliste genommen werden („Regel des 5. Tages“):
1. Wenn sie keine Unterstützung erhalten, die Einsteller nicht mitgezählt.
2. Wenn sie 10 oder mehr Pro und kein Kontra erhalten haben.
Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPX}} markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden, vorausgesetzt, das Bild hat außer von den Einstellern keine positiven Stimmen (Unterstützung) erhalten.
Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPD}} (FP denied) markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden.
Es dürfen von einem Benutzer maximal 2 Nominierungen gleichzeitig platziert werden.

Regeln zur Wahl und Abwahl[edit]

Ein Kandidat wird in die Galerie der exzellenten Bilder aufgenommen, wenn folgende Bedingungen erfüllt sind:

Passende Lizenz (selbstverständlich)
Mindestens 7 positive Stimmen (Pro-Stimmen)
Das Verhältnis von unterstützenden zu ablehnenden Stimmen ist mindestens 2/1 (eine Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit)
Zwei verschiedene Versionen desselben Bildes können nicht beide exzellent werden, sondern nur das mit der höheren Zahl an Stimmen.

Die Abwahl-Regeln sind dieselben wie zur Wahl der exzellenten Bilder bei gleichbleibenden Abstimmungs-Zeitraum. Die Regel des 5. Tages gilt für Abwahlkandidaten, die keine Stimme für die Aberkennung des Exzellenz-Status' bis zum Tag 5 erhalten haben, außer die des Antragstellers.

Ein erfahrener Nutzer kann die Anfrage beenden. Wie man eine Anfrage beendet, siehe unter Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun, wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

Vor allem sei freundlich[edit]

Bitte bedenke, dass das Bild, das du beurteilst, das wohlüberlegte Werk von jemandem ist. Vermeide Phrasen wie „it looks terrible“ (eng. sieht schrecklich aus) oder „I hate it“ (eng. Ich hasse es). Wenn du dagegen Stellung nehmen musst, tu dies bitte mit Rücksichtnahme. Bedenke außerdem, dass deine Englischkenntnisse nicht die gleichen sein müssen wie die eines anderen. Wähle deine Worte sorgfältig.

Viel Spaß beim Bewerten …, und denke daran: Alle Regeln können gebrochen werden.

Siehe auch[edit]

Zum Bearbeiten der Liste mit den Nominierungen klicke auf: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
Eine chronologische Liste ist unter Commons:Featured pictures/chronological zu finden.
Ein Archiv vergangener Nominierungen liegt unter Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log.
Eine Anleitung, wie man Nominierungen beendet, findet sich unter Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun, wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

Inhaltsübersicht[edit]

Exzellenz-Kandidaten[edit]

Seite erneut laden für neue Nominierungen: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 03:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Webysther (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Great!--Ermell (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support impressive. Charles (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Per others. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 02:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by User:Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Webysther (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Just a sunset. Charles (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 20:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Japan
Info Umeda Sky Building, designed by Hiroshi Hara and completed in 1993, is the nineteenth-tallest building in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, and one of the city's most recognizable landmarks. It consists of two 40-story towers (173m) that connect at their two uppermost stories, with bridges and an escalator crossing the wide atrium-like space in the center. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support - Really cool! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by W. Pfahler - uploaded by W. Pfahler - nominated by Naturbild -- W. Pfahler (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- W. Pfahler (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support HalfGig talk 00:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support - The top and bottom crops could be more generous, but I like the bird and the composition, otherwise, and it's especially nice to see its talons curled around the branch. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Very tight crop and a not very charming illumination.--Ermell (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunate pose, crop too tight, blown highlights, very noisy background. Charles (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per other opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 12:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Pontia daplidice (Bath white) created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Neutral I like it a lot but we have to do something about that vivid CA on his legs (Or is that natural?) Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Not at all sharp anywhere. Charles (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- XRay ^talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry, but the cloud spoils the symmetry. --A.Savin 15:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

May be we have different opinions. ;-) IMO the clouds are like a cream hood. They show, it is natural. --XRay ^talk 16:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support HalfGig talk 00:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per A. Savin; also there's this sort of HDR halo effect visible. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Cloud is a good reference point Albertus teolog (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 23:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing extraordinary here. Yann (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Very visible chromatic aberration on the body of the snimal, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Cayambe, That is not CA but Structural coloration on the snake's scales, which is caught rather well here. --cart-Talk 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@ cart: ok for this. But it looks very unnatural and unattractive here. See my annotation in the image. --Cayambe (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Its is really natural, serious. Is a skin condition affects some snakes exposed to sun. [1] -- Webysther (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying if it looks attractive or not, just explaining what it is. Some may find it cool and others may think it ruins the photo, that is up to the individual viewer. --cart-Talk 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The surroundings are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 05:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info All by me -- Alandmanson (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Nice, but small. Yann (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Info Oops! Sorry; high-res version uploaded --Alandmanson (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Question Have more than high? ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    - Info Nope - this is a full-res crop. --Alandmanson (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support I like it. --Ermell (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support PumpkinSky talk 17:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support I like the symmetry. Charles (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Drinking buddies at the watering hole ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Kata Tjuta, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Northern Territory, Australia
Info created & uploaded by Dimageau (Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in Australia) - nominated by Seb26 -- seb26 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- seb26 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but this looks more like a painting than a photograph.--Peulle (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
~~Support~~ nice light, interesting colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC) I change my vote to Oppose, because quality. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Alchemist-hp, can you tell me why this nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagangarbh cottage with Buachaille Etive Mòr.jpg got an oppose from you for a tiny amount of sharpening halo, and yet this mobile-phone-panorama, which is one of the poorest technically I've seen in a very long while at FPC, gets your support? Please can you look at it again, so we can FPX this. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: you are right. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Strong posterisation, quality problem, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Terrible technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Aleksander Uurits - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Info Artwork by A. Uurits (1888-1918). "Portrait of a Lady" (1917).
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 22:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Charles (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Blurred a bit and not so sharp. Just average quality, no WOW for me, sorry. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

another revenge vote from George. Charles (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, don't take offense. There is no "revenge" anyway. You can see my support votes of Your nominations here and here and here and more. Very friendly, -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, George. I'm too touchy today! Charles (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

All OK now, have a good day!

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Lack of sharpness. Sorry. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support What's sharp is what needs to be sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Moheen El Golli Mohamed (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 21:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones,_shells_and_fossils#Class_:_Gastropoda
Info created by User:Llez - nominated by User:Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support The depth and sharpness are excellent, the lighting is good and it illustrates the subject matter well.-- Peulle (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the nomination --Llez (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support per nom. Interesting subject, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daphne Lantier 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support A nice image with colours and the reflections give a suitable wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Isn't there a better viewpoint to eliminate the horrible building on the right? Charles (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ sorry, but the "white" of the building is too bright (burned out) and unsharp for me, otherwise very nice. Can you try please to rework this image from the raw? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed @Alchemist-hp: Thank you for your hint. I just made some improvements in the white areas. --XRay ^talk 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

ha, thanks, now Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Another good water-reflection pic. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support. Lovely, and I think that cropping out the building on the right wouldn't improve the picture, because of what you'd have to cut off to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Пешна (4862122015).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 10:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Nikolovskii - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Very nice idea and composition. Please upload a better resolution. --XRay ^talk 15:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Done I have uploaded a version with higher resolution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I can't see any reason to feature this. Charles (talk)
Oppose the white edges ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Clearly oversharpened, per Alchemist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Morning in Langtang.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 09:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Very nice composition and colors. Please add geo location and upload a better resolution. --XRay ^talk 15:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support, although it would be nice to see a slightly larger version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Stunning image - but then I am a sucker for repeated mountain ridges! For me the pixel number is not an issue, but I would love to fly to the spot on Google Maps - geo location would definitely add to the value of the image. --Alandmanson (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose At only 3.7MP, 40% linear resolution compared to 24MP camera, this is too small imo for a landscape FP in 2017. Please upload a full size image for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Alandmanson (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 05:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata# : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment I'm biased of course, but does this image File:Southern hawker dragonfly (Aeshna cyanea) female.JPG not show the dragonfly better? Charles (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Too much random shadows everywhere. We don't have so much of them in other FPs of this type. -- Pofka (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Pofka. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 04:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural The Netherlands
Info Walking tour of the Balloërveld. Cycle path next to the sandpath. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose sorry, but boring and uninteresting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I also think that it looks like a casual shot with a B&W effect. -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Araçari-poca.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 00:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
weak support technically not perfect but impressive enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak support Quality of the bird is doubtful, but probably could fit minimum requirements. -- Pofka (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Background is working at cross-purposes to the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
weak support per Martin -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment It's too dark at the moment and the bits of tree, as Daniel says, are off-putting. Charles (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment What about categorization, location, things like that?--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 22:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Chroicocephalus ridibundus ( Black-headed Gull ) created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by User:El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk)-- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose It's not very sharp for a very common bird. The sky is dull. There are better images in the category gallery. Charles (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support, pace Charles, who has a reasonable argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Reminds me of my gull. --A.Savin 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
weak oppose Sorry, but the most important part, the head, as well as the upper front body, are a bit too washed out. PumpkinSky talk 17:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose there seem to be better images of that bird. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Harebells by a road.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 21:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info A "star" harebell with its "chorus line". Last attempt with a more innovative way of photographing plants, after this I'll go back to the old "safe" style. All by me, --cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I'd go back to the old "safe" style! Composition/background doesn't work. Charles (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Январское побережье.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 18:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daphne Lantier 19:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Looks extraterrestrial. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support This image definitely has huge wow factor for me - it also looks to have been taken under challenging conditions.--Peulle (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Tones and textures… ♥ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Impressive. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Lovely. For this kind of camera a better resolution would be nice. And it looks like JPEG artifacts or unsharpness (at the right). --XRay ^talk 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Neutral It saddens me not to support this, but at least author could have used a better downsampling algorithm (which I think are the JPEG artefacts mentioned above)... Looks like a simple "mean value" one... - Benh (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Is it just me or the colors seem rather unnatural. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support per others, in spite of the criticisms, which may be valid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 15:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Asterales
Info All by Deniev Dagun (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose; just doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The image is unique in a way, as it seems to focus on imperfection rather than the typical crop-photo-esque exactness often strived for by many photographers. Despite this, the photograph technical flaws that can't be overlooked. The depth of field is too shallow, resulting in too much area being out of focus, and the area that is in focus still could be sharper. Along with that, the colors and exposure aren't quite right: there are several places with notable clipping, and IMO the blue sky is a bit dominating over the subject (though that is hard to control). Overall it was a good concept, but with subpar execution. Sorry. WClarke 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Interesting, but not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 14:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Maldives
Info A last summer greeting from Thudufushi, a vacation resort in the Ari Atoll, Maldives. This time a deliberately touristy motif with pretty much everything the tired westerner desires - a white beach, the azure sea, a shady palm, and a cocktail bar (the large stilt house)... :-) All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak, regretful oppose Seems to have involved a lot of thought and effort, but ... still looks like the average website background image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Support HalfGig talk 00:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 06:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Interior view of the Shah Mosque, renamed to Imam Mosque, after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, located in the northern section of the Grand Bazaar in Tehran, Iran. It was built to the order of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar of Persia during the Qajar period, as one of several such symbols of legitimacy for the new dynasty. At the time of completion, the mosque was considered to be the most significant architectural monument in Tehran. All by me, Poc o² 06:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Poc o² 06:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Fascinating details.--Ermell (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Great detail. Unusual position (to one side rather than central). -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daphne Lantier 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --cart-Talk 07:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I Support another of your beautiful pictures of a great Iranian mosque, as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support impressive! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Very subtle in some ways. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Nice. -- Pofka (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --XRay ^talk 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 05:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata# : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Background not as good as your exisiting FP File:2013.07.01-21-Wustrow-Neu Drosedow-Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg Charles (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Charles; the background is too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. I was sceptical before I've nominated it. But not because of the background but of the dry leaves. --Hockei (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 13:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support an obsolete technology -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Very weak oppose I would like to like it but that crop of the strap in the background gets in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I think the choice of base/background grey is a poor one. Generally pure white is most useful for a wide variety of purposes, though many photo images also enjoy a pure black background for such items too. The result is an image that just looks under exposed. It isn't very clean either -- if you examine our best photo/game FPs then you'll see they are meticulously clean. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
weak oppose I actually like the grey background, as it interplays nicely with the several different types of grey of the camera. It's good enough on a technical level – including lighting, which turns out to be a problem in similar nominations quite often. The problem is: I am not Wow-ed. To my mind, there is a certain level of perfection required to bring a very good product photograph like this to "wow, this is awesome" level. For example, cleaning your subject thoroughly can be quite tedious, but it's definitely worth the effort (compare e.g. the works by User:Evan-Amos). The strap should be either made a feature of the image or hidden behind the camera. The crop is too tight for me, especially at the top and bottom. There are some blown highlights on the top. These are of course details that could be unavoidable in most other kinds of photographs. But in a controlled studio environment the photographer has the chance to spend some extra-time on perfection, and that's what I personally expect from a Commons FP (but not necessarily Wikipedia FP) in this category. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 04:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural Netherlands
Info Dredged wood that has lain for years underwater.

The wood on this image has been under water for years. It has been removed from the lake during dredging operations. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose A more selective crop (see note) might work better here and B&W is not doing this documentation photo any favors. With color, the waterlogged logs might have contrasted well with the green(?) grass and plants and giving the viewer a clue as to what this is. In B&W it looks to much like ordinary burnt firewood. --cart-Talk 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. Photo cut out. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Question: this picture is better? --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's better, but the plants were not as interesting as I hoped for. I think that for such an image to work, you need some extraordinary feature in the wood, dramatic light or something beside the log that is beautiful, creating a contrast. Sort of like this log. --cart-Talk 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose why B&W??? Boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak Support IMO a good idea to use black-and-white to improve the structures. --XRay ^talk 15:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 18:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged damselflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support High quality, except I don't like the crop - too tight at the right and too much at the bottom and top. Charles (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support as per Charles. Daphne Lantier 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Following the positive votes above @Hockei:, do you wish to change the crop? Charles (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Info The raw photo is currently not present for me. Independent from that I like the crop as it is. The stem waving in the wind shows the fragility of everything. I don't know at the moment what exists right and left. Either disturbing thinks or uninteresting emptiness. --Hockei (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support, but a little wider crop would improve it. -- Pofka (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support I agree that the crop could be slightly better, but this is still of high quality.--Peulle (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 16:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daphne Lantier 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This seems a strange angle to take the photo with the ends of the pincers out of focus. Charles (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Just doesn't wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Probably wrong angle, which doesn't create wow effect. -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 07:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Bottom view of one of the iwans of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran. The mosque, located in the center of the city, was built in the late 18th century by master-mimar Ustad Haj Sa'ban-ali. The mosque consists of two large iwans, one in front of the mihrab and the other by the entrance and the courtyard in the middle. All by me, Poc o² 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Poc o² 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --SDKmac (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ for now: I see chromatic aberrations on the wires up by the blue sky. Come on, Poco, you're such a good 'tog I expected you to fix stuff like that ... :P --Peulle (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

CA removed Peulle, just didn't see it... Poc o² 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you got it all? I'm still seeing some green. Maybe the cache is not refreshed; I'll wait and check again this evening.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I got it all at 100% view, but saw room for improvement at 200%, so there you are :) Poc o² 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good. :)

Support.--Peulle (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Peulle, the FPC page reminds voters not to judge the photographer. We are here to review the image, which at 44 MP with sub-pixel CA in the original image, is really imo quite a petty reason to oppose. If this image was a Flickr upload, where minor issues generally don't get fixed, would you have opposed? I would hope not. Please leave such pixel peeping "improvements" as a polite request rather than a oppose. Your oppose clearly interrupted the flow of support votes, so is not without harm, and it encourages other voters to pixel peep themselves. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your question is 'yes'. I oppose any image that has such clear CA.--Peulle (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only suggest you read some books on what makes a great photograph. You might then notice that (absence of) CA does not figure in the criteria. Please consider that your oppose votes on such will actually deter good photographers from participating here, and that is not good for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Under the "color" section of the QI/FP guidelines, CA is listed as one of the issues/common problems and I have seen images rejected from both QIC and FP for this reason. In FP, this should of course be weighed against the criterion "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." On the voting issue, I have looked at the FP voting section and see that while there is a "request" template I admittedly could have used, you are contradicting yourself: you give the example that problems with flickr images would not be fixed, so how do you expect a "request" to have any effect in such circumstances? As for whether my vote would deter others from voting to support, I feel I cannot oblige you; I must have faith in other users' ability to judge for themselves. I vote the way I see fit, others will hopefully do the same. --Peulle (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

While chromatic aberration is indeed a flaw, we are not robots nor is the any requirement that an image is technically perfect, whatever that might mean. The "wow factor" get-out for low technical quality is intended for images far lower in technical quality than this. The kind of flaw you point out here is irrelevant. It's a kind of nit picky "improvement only visible if pixel peeping very closely on a 100dpi monitor at 100%". Stick a High DPI monitor on your desk for all our sakes and you might appreciate how utterly irrelevant a faint blue tinge on the edge of a black line on a 42mp image really is. I don't "contradict myself": I was rather assuming you were a reasonable person, and were only pointing out the CA because you knew Poco would fix it. My Flickr question was supposed to be rhetorical. Your response, that you feel the need to oppose a great image because of sub-pixel CA, is quite remarkable. I have seen, over the years, good photographers leave this project over votes like yours. So there's nothing theoretical about that. Don't base your judgement of makes a great image is based only on Commons Image Guidelines: buy some books. Digging your heals in and saying "I vote the way I see fit" is no attitude to have. I'm not asking you to follow my opinion on what is great, there are plenty great resources on photography, and absolutely none of them focus on CA. Please leave CA issues for when you next choose what prime lens to buy, and not for when selecting great images. At 44MP, this sort of nit picking just makes Commons look foolish, and really is a huge turn off for proper photographers. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like your reasoning: it sounds like you're trying to pressure a fellow Commoner to vote the way you want, which is something I cannot accept. On the one hand, you're saying you don't want me to follow your opinion, but your whole line of reasoning definitely does: you want me to think the way you do - and I don't. As the Guidelines point out, different users may have a difference of opinion, which is the purpose of the voting system. I also disagree with your evaluation: these were not tiny CA barely visible by means of "pixel peeping", but clearly definable streaks of colour visible at 100% view. As for sources you want me to study, I use only one: the Commons FP/QI Guidelines. CA is listed as a possible problem and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Whether photography books say otherwise is simply not relevant to me. If you're suggesting that any Commoner who has not actively studied photography should not participate in this project, well, I disagree with you on that as well.--Peulle (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"visible at 100% view" == "pixel peeping". That's the definition. And it isn't a compliment. Peulle, the guidelines were written when many images uploaded to Commons were barely 2MP, and many from that age, if you view on a HD screen, will not even fill the monitor. So, worrying about people viewing at 5x magnification wasn't in the minds of that guideline. This image is 1.4 metres tall if viewed at 100dpi. And you are juding something only visible from close up. Do you think, if Poco got this on the cover of National Geographic, that you could see the CA even with a magnifying glass? There is more CA (and colour moire) in your last FP than in this one, and it is only 6MP (from a 24MP camera) vs this 44MP. So, downsizing and CA. Are you willing to delist your own 6MP FP, or accept you are being ridiculously and harmfully picky on a 44MP image? If that's a downsized image you got to FP, then you are being hypocritical to pick faults on Poco's generously full-size upload. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now, among us, and if I've to be honest I do consider the CA comment (specially the second one) pixel-picking for such a big image. I've already participated in similar discussions of whether it is fair and healthy for the project to use oppose votes as pressure measure to get a fix for small flaws, and I still believe that this is not a good practice, specially when you all now that I'll fix all quality issues anybody addresses here. Poc o² 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no CA that I can see in my bridge photo - it was removed in PS. Nor is it downsampled, it's cropped to get rid of the disturbing trees. Oh and @Poco: I didn't mean to pressure you; if the photo had gained enough votes even with my oppose that would have been fine by me - this is a democracy. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is CA and colour moire to similar degree to Poco's earlier uploads. But to be completely fair here, you need to blow yours up to 250% so it is 41MP also. Then pixel-level flaws just jump out at you and there is no need to squint at the screen, whereas at 44MP Pocos's image is great. You believe in judging the images equally don't you? I magnify both images to same size on my desktop. Or do you think your 6MP image should not be examined as closely as a 44MP image? Perhaps you should judge Poco's image at 40% so it is similar size to yours? In other words, you are unfairly criticizing an image because (a) it was taken by a higher resolution camera and (b) generously uploaded at full size. If instead, we judge all images at FP equally, you need to find a balance between merely looking at it full screen and looking at it 100%. If you view everything at 100% then (a) you are only looking at a tiny part of the picture and (b) you are more likely to oppose technically superior images like this one simply because they are offered in higher resolution. And that's just daft, and quite harmful to this project. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point about high resolution possibly weighing up for flaws, but if you're saying we should not judge images at 100% anymore that's news to me. Oh and since you're a pro perhaps you can tell me what is the difference between CA and the remains of CA; I did remove it from my photo using software, so what wer're seeing is traces of the CA that used to be there. ...--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think most people have worked this out, but clearly not everyone (especially at QI). Photographers often point out minor details that are only visible at 100% as suggestions for fixing because many of us are perfectionists and improve techniques, but that doesn't translate to those issues being something to oppose over. If you notice the FPC page only requires photos are of a "high technical quality" and goes on to list various aspects (focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field) to consider -- nowhere does it say that images must be judged at 100%. The "complete guidelines" are just that, guidelines, and mostly aimed at beginners in photography and are generally a bit out-of-date. Really I think the page should be archived and replaced with something shorter, and with separate teaching pages for beginners who don't know about JPG compression or CA. The CA/moire in your photo is getting out-of-scope for this FPC so ping me if you are interested. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Interesting image and great technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Almost an abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support I like the thing with making the hanging lights appear like a coronet instead. --cart-Talk 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 22:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Eduard Wiiralt - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Info Eduard Wiiralt (1898–1954) is the most remarkable Estonian graphic artist and his etching Hell is one of his iconic works. Rights of that work are owned by Estonian Ministry of Culture who allowed the work under CC BY-SA 4.0. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Peulle (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daphne Lantier 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 20:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info |c|u|n| by Laitche (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support As always! ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Clearly.--Peulle (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daphne Lantier 21:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Excellent! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --cart-Talk 07:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}
Comment Not very much definition. The lens I guess is the limitation. Charles (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support - Benh (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Don't understand the voting here compared to this current nomination which has comparable sharpness and size of birds in pixels. Yet the other photo is a great picture and this one is not. The tree trunk is distracting and diagonal intersects the birds head. We already have a better FP: File:Kingfisher eating a tadpole.jpg with no distracting background at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I agree. This cannot compare with existing FP. Charles (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Really sorry but I agree completely with Colin. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per Colin Poc o² 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Colin--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Colin. It's a pity because the quality is good and the right side of the image is optimal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Question This is the part of FP I'm still unsure of; when images are similar. Should this be a "delist/replace" discussion? We have had several images of the same species of bird promoted before - just how similar do they have to be before they overlap?--Peulle (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment That's been an ongoing debate. People will never agree. In this case, I think they are dissimilar enough for both to be listed. PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I guess we'll have to settle it democratically, then. Thanks to Colin for pointing it out and then people can decide for themselves.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 08:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Renato Augusto Martins, nominated by Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --cart-Talk 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Another great work of yours Renato! Poc o² 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I cannot find the focus point. You can correct me, but as far as I can see it isn't on the birds. --Hockei (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose nice shot, but out of focus and partly over-exposed. Charles (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Nice. And we've got supports on less sharp OOF still ceilings, so I'm personally fine when there's slight issues on action shots. - Benh (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak support Beautiful but out of focus. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Per Benh. Too many votes looking at the pixels and not the picture imo. -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Per Benh although I prefer downsampling(8MP) in this case. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support I'm totally fine with an action shot not being perfect. It's good enought for me as FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Support HalfGig talk 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Caminho das pedras.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 01:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Carolach - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Sky is a little blotchy. Certainly OK for QI, but is it good enough for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose The view is nice but not outstanding comparing it many other FPs that make a difference thank to great ligthing or spectacular view. I don't see any of both here. The picture is also tilted in cw direction Poc o² 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose Pleasant but not outstanding as noted by Poco2. I think QI would be fine for it. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 18:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Sant'Andrea in Campo is a Romanesque style, Roman Catholic church in Montefiascone, province of Viterbo, Italy. he church is mentioned in documents from the year 853 as a church in Campo or in a rural location. The church while narrow and later within the town walls, had three naves. The portal and internal columns are Romanesque. All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- I like the colors. --Pine^✉ 05:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Support, although slightly asymmetrical --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Measured support per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Not symmetrical, distortion on the left lamp ;), blown highlights, barrel distortion, over NRed. Below the church standard generally speaking. - Benh (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Support though not exactly symmetrical (the photograph has its center between the 2nd and the 3rd row of tiles in the central aisle); that apart the photographs keep good resolution of details even with zoom it at its fullest. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Benh. Folks, do you really think this merits being featured along with the church interiors of people like Diliff? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose At first I thought this was an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but it's not. That loses the wow factor for me. QI, sure. FP? Not for me, sorry. --Peulle (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support At first I thought this was just an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but, hey, surprise, it's not! ;-) Great work! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Per Martin. PumpkinSky talk 14:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support With everything going on in this photo, B&W is definitely the right choice in this light. The artistic 'old school' feel to this is very nice. --cart-Talk 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daphne Lantier 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I like B&W sometimes, but the composition here doesn't wow me. --Pine^✉ 05:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Support--XRay ^talk 19:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. The bright left side of the tower at the bottom left ruins it for me. It's generally not a good idea to put eye-catching things at the edge of a composition, and the heightened contrast due to the B&W conversion makes it worse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Peulle. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, this is just too busy for me: Busy cityscape, busy sky and high contrast. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low for me so to speak, I'm missing a clear subject. In this case, I think I'd prefer the color version, as the colors help me to separate the different elements of the scene. I'm certainly not opposed to B&W images at FPC in general – I'd love to see more of them being nominated here so by all means please keep them coming. --El Grafo (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Without B&W effect it would have absolutely no chance. It looks pleasant with that effect but still the scene is not exceptional. -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
A good photo, to be sure, but weak Oppose per other opposers' remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Diego Garate Maidagan / Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Lacking in detail and sharpness - I know such shots are difficult but still. --Peulle (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Neutral Certainly has some WOW, but it's a bit weak in terms of sharpness. I don't really understand the camera settings (F20 @ 1/80, ISO 200). Sure, the wall looks slightly curved, but I don't think it was necessary to stop down to F20 to get sufficient depth of field at 10mm? I'd certainly support it over at VIC, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Unsharp, and dark area at right is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Exceptional but lacks technical quality. Pity as it really had potential. -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:09:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Yves Picq - uploaded by Yves Picq - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Support I like this a lot; good capture as she looks at the camera just as she exits the hut.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

weak oppose The composition looks unbalanced to me. I think it would benefit from additional Lead room on the right, or at least a tighter crop on the other sides. Otherwise very nice! --El Grafo (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
weak oppose El Grafo is right - the lighting is also a bit unfortunate --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment We have very few images of this kind. So it is a pity that this picture has shortcomings (it looks tilt, left crop is not OK, etc.). Yann (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak support Indeed it has issues but we really lack this kind of pictures and I think it could fit minimum requirements as the composition is really nice and quality is tolerable. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Sakha Republic - Russia. Created by Виктор Габышев - uploaded by Виктор Габышев - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Neutral Can we get rid of that giant bug on the lens (at least, that's where I hope it is) between the upper tree branches? And do we really need to have such a dramatic title? "Life and death by Lake Ozhogino" ... OK, I get it, and it sort of fits the mood, but I think it's too much for this forum. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak support --Laitche (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --AM (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Daniel, and I also don't like the crops. The motif is great, however, so I'd love to see a somewhat wider view of it without an insect on the lens. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 08:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info A woman fishing for shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) in Brofjorden at Holländaröd, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. Her technique is simple but effective. She has bait in small net bags on strings in the shallow water under a makeshift jetty. The bait attracts crabs and as soon as they climb onto the bag, she hauls all of it up and into her landing net. The crabs are collected in a bucket, later to be cooked and eaten. The complete series can be seen in the file's page. She is not bundled up to cover her identity in the photos, it was cold and windy on the fjord and this is how she looked. All by me, -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

~~* Oppose~~ I'm sorry cart, the image's really interesting (I've never seen anyone fishing like that) and somehow also quite funny - but the main subject is just not very sharp... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, capturing a moment with a moving target, handheld, strong wind and light conditions changing all the time due to clouds, this is about as good as I can make it. Anyway, some additional Lightroom sharpness added. --cart-Talk 16:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

weak support Thanks for the explanation - and for adding a tad additional sharpness --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak support -- Pofka (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The sharpness problems exclude this photo as a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support HalfGig talk 00:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Zeitplan (Tag 5 nach der Nominierung)[edit]

Sun 16 Jul → Fri 21 Jul
Mon 17 Jul → Sat 22 Jul
Tue 18 Jul → Sun 23 Jul
Wed 19 Jul → Mon 24 Jul
Thu 20 Jul → Tue 25 Jul
Fri 21 Jul → Wed 26 Jul

Zeitplan (Tag 10 nach der Nominierung)[edit]

Tue 11 Jul → Fri 21 Jul
Wed 12 Jul → Sat 22 Jul
Thu 13 Jul → Sun 23 Jul
Fri 14 Jul → Mon 24 Jul
Sat 15 Jul → Tue 25 Jul
Sun 16 Jul → Wed 26 Jul
Mon 17 Jul → Thu 27 Jul
Tue 18 Jul → Fri 28 Jul
Wed 19 Jul → Sat 29 Jul
Thu 20 Jul → Sun 30 Jul
Fri 21 Jul → Mon 31 Jul