|
|
|
|
Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.
If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section.
For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions in support (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also nomination results.
If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons, to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.
- To see recent changes, purge the page cache
|
Featured content:
Featured picture tools:
|
How to nominate
Step 1 - Evaluate
The submissions will be evaluated using the criteria listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? Please read the criteria before submitting a picture to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of making it. If you are unsure if your picture will fulfill the criteria, or would like advice on improving your nomination, please consider adding it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for initial assessment. If you find this process too complicated, see below.
Step 2 - Create subpage
Create a page to place the image on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
Step 2.5 - Transclude and link
Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).
Step 3 - Update image
On the nominated image's page use the 'Edit page' button to add the fpc template like so: {{FPC|title}}. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.
Too complicated?
If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to Wikipedia:Picture peer review following the simpler instructions provided there. You can mention that you would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but that you don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, they will add it to FPC on your behalf. Alternatively you can request a regular FPC or PPR editor to submit an image on your behalf by contacting them on their talkpage.
How to comment
- If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
- If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.
- If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
- To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.
Editing candidates
If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.
Is my monitor calibrated correctly?
In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.
On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background.
Note that on a LCD display (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical info.
|
- To see recent changes, purge the page cache
- Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.
Current nominations
Original - replica of the wind-rose in Pedro Reinel's nautical chart of c. 1504 (see here). It is the first known to clearly depict the fleur-de-lys. The practise was adopted in other nautical charts and survived till today
- Reason
- high quality depiction of an historical wind-rose, adding significant value to the articles
- Articles this image appears in
- Pedro Reinel, Compass rose, Fleur-de-lis
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
Original - The chart of Pedro Reinel (c. 1504) is one of the oldest known nautical charts with a scale of latitudes and constructed on the basis of astronomical observations. This new cartographic model was developped by the Portuguese in the second half of the 15th century and it is known as the "plane chart" or "latitude chart".
- Reason
- Good quality depiction of a very important historical document, of a kind poorly represented in Wikipedia
- Articles this image appears in
- Pedro Reinel
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Reason
- Early landscape of Havana, Cuba from the seventeenth century. High resolution historic file. Restored version of Image:Havana 1639.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- History of Cuba, Havana, Morro Castle (fortress)
- Creator
- Joan Vinckeboons (attr.)
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support High resolution and great EV. Definite historic value. Jordan Contribs 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Original - Cercophonius squama is a south-east Australian scorpion
- Reason
- Good Quality, found it whilst in the shower so paper background
- Articles this image appears in
- Cercophonius squama, List of scorpions of Australia, Scorpion
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. Good find, although I hope you don't meet them that way very often. DurovaCharge! 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good details and shadow. EV is definitely there but the article is too short. Could you add it to Scorpion as well? Muhammad(talk) 10:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Jeez, before long, Australian contributors will have about 90% of the user-created FPs. Nice capture, the highlight reflections could possibly be improved on with more diffuse lighting, but plenty of detail and a worthy FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good, large image of Saddam Hussein in an important part of his life. Indisputable EV.
- Articles this image appears in
- Saddam Hussein, Abu Nidal, Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein, Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Trial of Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline, Execution of Saddam Hussein
- Creator
- U.S. Military/Defense Department (Edited by jjron))
- Support as nominator --Fryslan0109 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Hi rez, sharp, and irreplaceable (he's dead). Still, it has the hand in front of the face and the color splotches.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not imperfect (it's a bit compressed for such large dimensions), but overall a good portrait and excellent ev. DurovaCharge! 04:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support A good portrait with EV. Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- The caption may need to be lengthened, maybe add some of crimes he was charged with? Muhammad(talk) 10:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Closing note: original version, for which replacing is required. MER-C 06:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I expanded the caption with info from the Saddam Hussein lead. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose As mentioned above, the hand in front of his face is somewhat of a distraction and definitely hinders the overall composition. The fact that it is completely out of focus further impede's the overall quality. -- mcshadypl TC 17:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The hand a bit spoils this good portrait and I also think that image is a little too dark. Andrew18 @ 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - The hand doesn't bother me. A good historical portrait -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Original - Shiprock, a rock formation nearly 1,800 feet (550 m) tall in northwestern New Mexico.
- Reason
- Encyclopedic, attractive, some positive feedback on PPR
- Articles this image appears in
- Shiprock, U.S. Route 491
- Creator
- bowiesnodgrass (Flickr)
- Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support This seems to be the week for landscapes of the American Southwest. I may have to get out my camera and (gasp) shoot something, rather than just restore. DurovaCharge! 23:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is it just me or is this way off level? Noodle snacks (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, judging by the scree at the base this is quite a bit tilted. vlad§inger tlk 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Check the erosion patterns; they're consistent with a feature on rising ground. DurovaCharge! 06:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional support Needs tilt correction. (Unless the consensus is that it doesn't.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Weak Support - Quite a bit of the sky is blown. Will support tilt corrected version Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose 1) Shiprock is much darker than this IRL 2) It'd be more enc if it showed the dike, 3) blown sky, 4) purple fringing, 5) tilt. de Bivort 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I don't believe it is tilted. The fracture lines are pretty much vertical, and if the ground is slightly sloped - which is, of course, entirely possible - we would see what we see here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- The vertical lines in the rock lean to the right quite a bit, so probably it should be leveled such that they are vertical? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution, high quality stitched image detailing the layout of a large wind farm - a well known California landmark
- Articles this image appears in
- San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm, Wind farm, Wind power in the United States
- Creator
- Mfield
- Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment These are the windmills Durova was asking about in my Joshua Tree pano nom. For those that will notice, the small area of softness in the lower center is caused by heat rising off the mountain ridge just below the shot. This image is stitched from 39 shots at 300mm. Mfield (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good enc, but none of the visual appeal as in the Joshua pic. As a thumb, it actually shows almost nothing, that unfortunately lowers it's value in articles, IMO. --Janke | Talk 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support A well-known feature of the Southern California landscape used in films etc. for decades (including Less Than Zero (film)). For those who are less familiar, this large wind energy farm is adjacent to the main freeway heading east into the Mojave Desert from Los Angeles (which is a major artery for transportation to the Palm Springs resort communities, Las Vegas, and other eastward destinations). I would have supported for encyclopedic merit before the current energy crisis, and in light of events these last couple of years its ev has increased as an idea ahead of its time. Not a bad panorama, either. DurovaCharge! 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support Impressive, but I have to agree with Janke in saying that its difficult to see the windmills in the thumb. SpencerT♦C 14:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- It's a beautiful illustration of the aerodynamics of the Space Shuttle. It has high technical quality and resolution.
- Articles this image appears in
- Space Shuttle, Electron
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator --Jonnyapple (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Grainy, dubious EV in my opinion. I'm not sure if it's very useful in either of the articles it is in. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- Beautiful image, I noticed while I was looking around on Commons
- Articles this image appears in
- Olivia Wilde
- Creator
- Tao Ruspoli
- Support as nominator ----Music26/11 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low EV with the face being obscured by hair and the eyes closed. --Leivick (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support - I believe it has EV just because it's currently the only image we have of the actress... but the hair and eye problems stop me from full support... :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose- The image is far too dark and this eliminates much of the detail. With this specific angle, it is a lot more difficult to identify this person. There is just nothing especially outstanding about this picture. -- mcshadypl TC 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support I agree, it's dark but picture is also very sensual, what is a strong upside. Andrew18 @ 21:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- An unusual find among historic city panoramas: the capital of Bermuda in 1911. Some of the landmarks have remained unchanged, such as the cathedral tower at right (the city article has a 2007 panorama from the same vantage). Restored version of Image:Hamilton, Bermuda 1911.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hamilton, Bermuda, History of Bermuda
- Creator
- W.H. Wallace
Original - A view of the Seven Sisters Waterfall by the Geirangerfjord in Norway. This fjord is a prominent tourist attraction, an Unesco World Heritage Site and a beautiful masterpiece of Mother Nature.
- Reason
- It's an historic image of one of Norway's most prominent tourist attractions. It depicts the waterfall beautifully in their context. The image has the necessary EV in my opinion. For an historic image, it possesses a good tachnical quality. The resolution is high and I've done my best to restore it to the best of my abilities.
- Articles this image appears in
- Geirangerfjord and Fjord
- Creator
- Unknown, restauration by Massimo Catarinella
- Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question - What would a historic image of the waterfall have over a newer photograph? I think that if a new photograph would depict exactly the same scene, then it would likely be superior. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Fascinating old photo, but the colors are totally unnatural (colored b/w print, hardly from an Autochrome?), and I see no real need for an imperfect old image of a subject that can be reshot today. Enc would be higher in a photo history article. --Janke | Talk 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The picture was taken at sunset, so it's normal the colors are a little bit warmer. As for the old photograph versus new photographs.., Wikipedia first of all doesn't have a "new" picture which is superior to this one. Second this picture draws the most attention of all current pictures of this subject available and last but not least. Why have we featured old images in the past of structures which could currently be photographed again with modern equipment (example: Castle Neuschwanstein)? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt it was taken at sunset - note shadows! It's just colored to look so - note that the very same image, with different colors, is in a galler on the G-fjord page! Also, this is most probably hand-colored, so it doesn't show the real colors. --Janke | Talk 09:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Yes, we could have a modern picture as well, but an older photo, this carefully hand-tinted, helps establish that it's been a tourist attraction a very long time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I'm generally sympathetic to arguments about historical significance but in this case I would think the date, the photographer, the circumstances of photography, or something else about the historical context would be needed. As for the tinting: I know that we've had hand-tinted photographs before, but usually when something stands out about the technique. In this case we actually have another, differently tinted version of the same photograph, suggesting that it was in wide circulation in the period and there's nothing all that special about this one. It definitely adds to the article and I'm glad it was uploaded, but I don't see it as a feature picture. Chick Bowen 04:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose I see a lot of archival photochroms and get the same impulse. It's a beautiful medium in its own right, in spite of the technical limitations. Wikipedia has featured photochrom images of historic subjects that have changed or disappeared over time, but old landscape photography generally needs to compete against modern technology. Two examples follow. DurovaCharge! 06:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, this image was not "carefully hand-tinted". The tinting was mass produced lithography; hence the weaknesses at high resolution. DurovaCharge! 08:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- A definition of terms - a photochrom has to be hand-tinted at first, right? Even if that means you'll have to make 10 litho separation originals... --Janke | Talk 09:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Adding examples for comparison. DurovaCharge! 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
St. Alexander's Church, Warsaw. Destroyed in WWII and never rebuilt on the original scale
|
Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. A 1904 photograph that's brilliant by any standard.
|
Actual hand tinting on a photograph: an 1851 daguerrotype.
|
An 1890s photochrom before restoration. Note the imperfect alignment of coloration for the hillside pathway in the background at far right and large areas if red dye drips beneath the cart and surrounding the boy, also the mottled and blotchy tone of overall coloration. These are common flaws to the photochrom process.
|
|
|
- But the following picture is also a FP, but the building itself and its surroundings are still the same. This doesn't show much consistency in policy. But thanks for the comment Durova. In the future I will only put images like those up for FPC. As for the colors, they can be adjusted if you would like me to. --09:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think a recent, high quality photograph would give more information to the viewer. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Original - Detail of a Portuguese crochet table-cloth, around 1970 (handwork by Júlia Figueiredo, Lisboa)
- Reason
- A high quality illustration of a beautiful crochet handwork adding value to the article
- Articles this image appears in
- Crochet
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Nice work, high detail. Not, perhaps, widely usable in article, but certainly this or something like it is necessary for crochet. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support of course it's usable, Shoemaker (scold, scold). The textile arts is an underdeveloped area of the encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 05:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant "usable in a variety of subjects". This is very much a textile-arts photo, and very useful as such, but probably wouldn't be useful in any non-textile-arts articles =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support - There is a bit of a subjective tradeoff here, but i'd have prefered to have less of the repeating pattern in the frame in exchange for more fine detail Noodle snacks (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support This image adds value to the crochet article, and, as Durova said, the textile-related articles on Wikipedia are sorely in need of expansion and illustration. Jordan Contribs 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Oh course. Possibly the first FP with a orange background! haha Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Nice crochet cloth! Reminds me of my late grandma who used to make lots of those. Very nice shot too, shows the pattern of the cloth very well. Though I'd like to see more details of the actual stitches, loops and knots, but that's probably a theme for another picture ;) Luca (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- This one was made by my mother and I still use it on special ocasions. For the detail on the stitches, please see "other versions" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose it's very technical correct, but object is just a tablecloth, I do not see 'wow factor'. Andrew18 @ 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- An .svg diagram of the V-2 Ballistic Missile which clearly labels each part of the missile. I think this image meets the FPC criteria, and definietly adds to the encyclopedia, and thus I am nominating the image for FPC status.
- Articles this image appears in
- Rocket, V-2 rocket, Wernher von Braun, Ballistic missile
- Creator
- Fastfission (talk · contribs)
- Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - fixed caption with lead from V-2 article. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I always forget something, this time it was the caption. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - good picture, good EV in articles used, especially since it shows the inside of a rocket. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1- Cropped partially seen trees and to decentralize the horizon
- Reason
- A good quality (QI at commons}, high resolution, encyclopedic image of a remote part of the world. Neither commons nor wikipedia has any other images of the park and very few, if any commercial versions are available elsewhere. The picture in my opinion, does a good job of illustrating the landscape and vegetation and also shows the road which is used by tourists to explore the park. A close inspection of the image also shows a minivan of tourists. The image also shows a distinctive feature of this park, the Uluguru Mountains which appear in the mid-ground of the original image, adding more value to the image as this illustrates the geography of the park.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mikumi National Park, List of protected areas in Tanzania
- Creator
- Muhammad
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support just like at WP:PPR. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support original Good find.DurovaCharge! 23:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Not bad at all. In fact, great! — ceranthor (strike) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, preference to original. Informative, good quality shot of that part of the world. While it's unfortunate that those trees are cut-off at the top in the original, it's not a huge issue that damages EV, and I feel the original with the road running up the left has stronger composition. Did you think the colours in Alves enhanced contrast version on PPR were unnatural looking, as it seemed to have a little more 'pop' to me? --jjron (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The colours in Alvesgaspar's version seem better but after careful examination of the pictures with other pictures I have, I believe the original version has the true colours. Muhammad(talk) 11:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- It looks good in thumb, but you're right, when you look bigger the colours here do seem more natural. --jjron (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support original. We're definitely lacking in high quality images from Africa, and this one is excellent. Slightly soft/blurry to the left of the road, but not a major issue as the detail is there. Crop not as good as the original IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support original Nothing to be gained chopping half of it off. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support original - I really prefer this edited version as I believe that the washed-out colours of the original are the result of a slight overexposure. A full support if that version is nominated. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really think it looks very washed out or overexposed. I can't speak for how the scene actually looked, but I can imagine being there as it has a lot in common with the Australian outback scenery (and presumbly parts of Portugal/Spain too). The shadows look far too dark in your edit IMO and the grass is a bit too red-tinged. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support original, oppose edit. I like the wide vista of the original. --Janke | Talk 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support original, weak oppose edit - I don't see any real reason to choose a lower-resolution, cropped version when the original is there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Original - Panorama of Frederick Henry Bay in South Eastern Tasmania as seen from Acton Park.
Edit 1 - Leveling, desaturation of blues a bit
- Reason
- Strong EV, sharp image with sound DOF. Compositionaly strong.
- Articles this image appears in
- Frederick Henry Bay
- Creator
- Flying Freddy
- Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, prefer edit one Per nom, lawl at tasmanian wikispam :P.
The horizon probably needs a slight leveling though. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Two reasons. First, the point of view is not not the best and the bay is not clearly depicted; second, I don't like the symmetry and the central position of the horizon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The colours are extremely unrealistic and have obviously being overtly altered. ASPimages (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-
- Question: have the colors been altered a lot? I wouldn't expect Noodle Snacks to miss something like that. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- There was an original, afaik unaltered version here. I know the person that took the photograph, as far as I am aware it was just a levels adjustment between them. It could probably do with a little bit of desaturation on the blue channel as a result though. Of course I am a bit biased being local etc :)Noodle snacks (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Have uploaded an edit now.
- Weak support. Will change to full support if horizon is corrected. Colours look fairly real for that part of Australia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Colours are very unrealistic and gaudy. The original version shows that this has had quite a lot of saturation, and what looks to me to be poor application of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop. The grass on the RHS in particular has turned an awful shade of green --Fir0002 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Original - The Richmond Bridge is a heritage listed arch bridge in Richmond, Tasmania, Australia. It is the oldest bridge still in use in Australia.
Restiched - did a restitch ommitting the misfocused frame and a different projection also burned the RHS of the bridge slightly
- Reason
- High resolution and detailed
- Articles this image appears in
- Sandstone, Arch bridge, Richmond, Tasmania, Richmond Bridge, Tasmania
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator, prefer restitch --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support restitched - Excellent picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm wondering about the colouring on the bridge, it appears a bit bright, particularly at the right. I have a number of images of this bridge taken from both sides and even through the spans, and it's consistently considerably darker in relation to the surroundings. I was wondering if you've done some selective brightening to make the bridge stand out? Of course there could be other 'natural' reasons - perhaps it's just the sunlight hitting it at that angle on a cloudy day, perhaps they've cleaned it, who knows. Maybe you've got some other images you could compare it to as a check? I was also wondering about your dates on the image page which should give the date the image was taken - is this really photographed, edited, uploaded and nominated all on the same day, replacing your March/April version? (Along with the image below for that matter; in fact going on the times in the metadata the two images were taken only 1/2 an hour apart, which I suppose may be physically possible, so just wondering whether that's accurate or whether something unusual is happening with the dates/times)? --jjron (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly the date and times are correct, take a look at the geocoding of the two images, they are within 15 minutes drive of each other. I did take a march version with a point and shoot but that was fairly crappy, the colours were wrong and it looked really oversharpened and too bright. I uploaded over the top as the vantage point is the same and it saved replacing the image in a bunch of articles. I deliberately waited until the sun came out before taking the shot (evident by the shadows under the arches) as it makes the sandstone look better. The contrast with this and the cloudy sky is probably what causes the brightness as I haven't done any selective brightening. I took another panorama in about july, but didn't upload it as part of the bridge was in shadow due to strong sunlight. The brightness and colours look realistic to me (and I believe my monitor is well calibrated). There are two reasons you may see the bridge looking darker if you search for images, either the sun wasn't out at the time of the shot, or the photograph was taken from the other side of the bridge, which is pretty much always in shadow. I could probably tweak the levels a little and upload an edit if you like. Noodle snacks (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough re the dates - must have been a busy day :-). The images I was referring to are my own unedited images, not ones I've randomly found on the net, which is why I was asking, and why I commented about the relative brightness compared to the surroundings. Admittedly lighting may not have been ideal when I took mine, but the colouring of the sandstone in them is consistent from both sides of the bridge, despite surrounding features being a similar brightness to yours - probably most similar to the colouring at the side of the lefthand arch. Perhaps they have cleaned the sandstone in the intervening three years. --jjron (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support restitch only. The colours, etc, seem far more true to life now. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Left part is blurry. Maybe you can fix this ? Blieusong (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In a similar fashion to the current Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pioneertown, California nomination, I think that the softness in those trees is a result of wind. I did take a shot centered at those trees then crop the left off so it isn't because I have caught the edge of my lens. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The extreme LHS looks like it's been stitched from an unfocused image - there is a very strong demarcation line between sharp and blurry. Hence Weak Oppose--Fir0002 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Should be fixed now, took the time to do a restitch omitting the guilty frame and adjusting the levels in a different fashion. I also used a different projection and it looks more realistic now, addressing most concerns. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good job - Support --Fir0002 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support restitch - Beautiful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Original - The 26m Radio Telescope at Mount Pleasant Radio Observatory is the southern most antenna used in Australia's VLBI network.
- Reason
- Clear view of the dish, reciever, rotation mechanism, counter weights etc. Good quality
- Articles this image appears in
- Mount Pleasant Radio Observatory, Very Long Baseline Interferometry, Radio telescope
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support any (prefer original) as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to point out that the shot is level, it just looks slightly off due to the angle of the hillside and the telescope. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow immediately came to mind. Very well composed and little distortion. Seems pretty good for a shot at 16mm. There is a small sign of noise but nothing major. What does concern me is the dead space to the left. I'll leave that for others to decide. 1/2000s and f/8 this is how pictures should be, I'm tired of seeing f/22. Possibly your best contribution yet! Victorrocha (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-
- FWIW it's taken at 1/640s. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just stating the obvious errors many other people make when shooting static subjects.Victorrocha (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what you meant with "seems pretty good for a shot at 16mm" but if you were talking about low distorsion, this is 16mm on a 1.6 crop body, making it a 26mm in 35mm equiv. and hence the moderate distorsion. Blieusong (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support crop I'm not sure if it's because of the 16mm lens or because of the angle of the machinery behind the dish, but the the dish has a very flat almost 2D appearance. Because of that, and the LHS dead space, I think the composition could be improved --Fir0002 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have images further to the front of the dish, but you miss out on the view of the machinery at the back, so the enc is reduced in doing so. A crop is a possibility on the LHS. I would have thought that 16mm would exaggurate perspective, not flatten it (like a telephoto would), interesting though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah not altogether sure but every time I look at I get the same impression - perhaps the lack of depth comes from the lack of shadows created by the HDR? But I think the main reason is the angle of the supporting machinery - the top and bottom truss work inside the dish align with the machinery behind the dish... Compare Image:KSC radio telescope.jpg which works a lot better in terms of conveying the shape of the dish IMO --Fir0002 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support. I feel that in this case, unlike your recent Gordon Dam image, the clouds are detrimental to the image, with the telescope slightly blending into them, as opposed to say a clear blue sky. And agree with Victorrocha and Fir0002 that it appears to have a little too much space at left. Nonetheless a good shot. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was probably thinking of cropping off about half as much as has been done. In that respect the crop possibly loses as much as it gains. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, i did fiddle around when i was trying the crop, i found that cutting a little bit made the composition feel off to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom and EV. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support Original I agree that the clouds are overcooked. High EV and I like the composition with the space on the left. That's where the telescope is aimed and where all the radio waves are flying into the image. IMO it would feel wrong cropped tighter. Mfield (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cropped tighter, but i'd probably agree with Mfield, prefering the non cropped version, though the cropped version does look better in thumbnails Noodle snacks (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Depends on the use. From a photographic/artistic point of view the composition of the original is far stronger. From an encyclopedic point of view, the crop wins. I still prefer the original. Mfield (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support cropped version more EV than the original. The original may do better at commons FPC. Muhammad(talk) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support original version I don't think that cropping adds EV. IMO the part of the image that was cropped is not distracting; if anything it adds context. Tokugawapants (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support original, weak oppose crop - I just find the cropped version not as interesting or dramatic, and as one of the purposes of a featured picture is to draw the person in and make them want to learn more, the loss of the dramatic background makes the crop much weaker in regards to that criterion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support original - Considering that the EV is similar in both versions I prefer the aesthetics and dramatism of the first -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
| | | |
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
