Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2005
Featured picture tools |
---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
A graceful picture of soybeans in the pod. Crisply focused and artfully composed.
- Nominate and support. - Denni☯ 04:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed nomination header. A {{NowCommons}} template won't work in a header. - 131.211.51.34 07:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not too sure about this. It's nice, but a tad small for a still life. Colors/Balance tho are tweaked to give it a nice warm hue. Also, what's the liscencing information?~Cliffhanger407 03:08, October 19, 2005 (UTC)
- USDA image. Hence, public domain. Denni☯ 22:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't think its necessarily tweaked. golden hour will do this to a photo. Sometimes this is distracting but I don't have a problem with this one. Diliff 23:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. It's a nice, clear image, but the colours are a little off-putting. Enochlau 02:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support Clear --Fir0002 07:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Not ideally high res but not bad either. Very demonstrative of soybeans though. Diliff 09:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, first off, it's probably bad featured pictures etiquette to add two of your own pictures at once, but I honestly couldn't decide. I love them both so much. Normally, I wouldn't do this unless someone else suggested it first (as in the Crepuscular Rays nomination.)
Anyway, these pictures appear in the article Morning glory. I believe they truly capure the stunning beauty of a morning glory flower. And the water drops (that's real rain, not water sprayed from a bottle!) only enhance the effect.
- Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry to start the comments with something negative, and I know you are a skilled photographer, but I don't like the loss of focus on the near edge of the flower, in both photos. So I could not support - Adrian Pingstone 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. I wouldn't be phased even if every single person voted oppose. You can't win em all, no reason to get all down about it. Although I must say, stopping down to the maximum aperture in the 7:30AM light wasn't really an option, especially without a macro-tripod. ;( And I personally think the focus in the second picture draws the eye towards the white center, and the stripes running into it, but that's just me. =0PiccoloNamek 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support, especially the second one. I just love the colour of these flowers, I should get some for my own garden. Raven4x4x 10:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support second one. Impressive. Glaurung 07:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support Second version only. I totallay agree with Piccolo in that the focus on the picture draws the eye towards the center. --Fir0002 07:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - because the forward parts of the flower are slightly blurrred - Adrian Pingstone 08:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral to first (out of focus bit not that bad, and the picture is ok), whereas oppose to second (out of focus bit in your face, uncomfortable crop). Enochlau 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support either. The tight crop is artistic and appealing. Rhobite 22:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support, first picture only. The second picture does not show the entire flower and is too detailed, regardless of its artistic merit.Jeeb 04:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Promoted Image:BlueMorningGloryClose.jpg Raven4x4x 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Was this ever a difficult image to get, especially considering my camera's less than steller autofocus ability in super macro mode. But I was determined. I set the shutter speed as high as it would go and put the camera into high speed shutter mode... and this is what I got. This picture appears in the article Flower-fly. It is the only picture of a non-bee-mimic flower fly, and the only picture of one in flight. If I only had access to a higher shutter speed, then the wings wouldn't have been blurred! Anyway, this bug-in-flight shot is a pretty good picture of a Flower-Fly, getting ready to feed from a flower. It's well-exposed, clear, and illustrates the subject very well.
- Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 00:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- You say 'well exposed', but the insect itself is over a rather dark background it places, it makes it hard to see properly. Other than that it's a very nice picture. Raven4x4x 09:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Looks fine on my monitor, although if enough people complain I suppose I could dodge it a little. The shot was exposed for the insect and the flower, and was taken facing directly into the woods, hence the darker background.PiccoloNamek 10:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Raven4x4x, it is a little dark on my 19 inch CRT monitor, I'd welcome a slightly lighter version - Adrian Pingstone 08:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing it people. I'm afraid if I "fix" the image for people who think it's too dark, then it will appear far too light for people with properly calibrated monitors. I've spoken to several of my friends on AIM, and it doesn't appear dark to them. Maybe you should try this: [1]. But, because I'm such a nice guy, here is a version where I dodged the bug. There's nothing I can (or will) do for the background.
- Thanks for your response to my and Raven4x4x's comments. Don't worry, I still intend to Support the original or the lightened pic, I love both. The viewers impression of dark and light is not only a matter of calibration but of preference. Maybe I prefer lighter pics. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Both images look exactly identical to me on my laptop's LCD... Enochlau 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support either, seeing as I can't tell the difference between the two. Stunning shot. Enochlau 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oy, I can't win can I? I can tell the difference even in the thumbnails. =/PiccoloNamek 01:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well I can certainly tell the difference, and I do like the lighter one a lot. I suppose this goes to show that the difference between an image being too light, too dark or just right is in the computer you view it on, or person themselves, as much as it is in the image. Raven4x4x 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support Orignal version. Lightened version looks somewhat washed out on my laptop, and fairly washed out on the calibrated monitor here. --Gmaxwell 05:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support both. Raven4x4x 10:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support both; very slightly prefering the original. Unschool 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support Second version. Lighter looks better on my LCD. I can appreciate the difficulty of such as shot (I took something similar - Image:Bee mid air.jpg) --Fir0002 07:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support both. A great image - Adrian Pingstone 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great work! The Singing Badger 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I know I'm pretty late getting involved in this one but I've just added a second edit that I think is an improvement on both. I've lifted the shadows slightly (this is a subjective improvement). I did find that it looked as though the background was too dark and the bug disappeared into the shadows a little. You may disagree with me. :) Also, I ran the image through NeatImage to remove the noise (which was in the original, but accentuated when the shadows were lifted. This has made it look a lot smoother. Again, your tastes may vary. Some like the rough, raw look. And finally I gave it a very minor sharpening, as the original already seemed sharpened slightly. Personally I think this is the best of the three but feel free to disagree. Comments? Diliff 13:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've compared the second and third pic and think the change in brightness and sharpness is minor. So my vote remains as above - Adrian Pingstone 13:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- The change was intended to be minor and subtle. However, the change that you didn't comment on was the noise reduction. My edit does not have nearly as much background noise. Anyway, I don't have a problem with any of them. I just thought mine was an improvement.Diliff 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yours is certainly an improvement but subtle like you say. Thanks for the effort you put in to change and upload the pic, I didn't intend to "put down" your changes - Adrian Pingstone 12:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- The change was intended to be minor and subtle. However, the change that you didn't comment on was the noise reduction. My edit does not have nearly as much background noise. Anyway, I don't have a problem with any of them. I just thought mine was an improvement.Diliff 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've compared the second and third pic and think the change in brightness and sharpness is minor. So my vote remains as above - Adrian Pingstone 13:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Promoted Image:FlyingBugPollinating-Oct15-lighter-cleaner.jpg Raven4x4x 04:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
(Note: Thumbnail size increased due to image's wide aspect ratio.)
A self-nomination. I created the final image by taking and combining three separate images. Taken just before the game on 9 October 2005 (see caption). Currently appears in Aussie Stadium, A-League and Sport in Australia.
- Nominate and support. - Chuq 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to me. The "Bay 35" sign is a little distracting, but it is a part of the Aussie Stadium. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 06:33
- I wonder whether people are going to complain about the fisheye lens ;) Enochlau 06:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I still think the distortion is disturbing. However, on this picture, it isn't due to a fisheye lens, but to the combining of the 3 images. Globally the result is the same (distortion). Unfortunately the trick I normally use to fix fisheyed images does not work well on this picture (too large HFOV). I won't vote on this one ;-) Glaurung 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I will! =) Seriously, I love the effect of the lens. Photography by nature tends to be rather "flat" when compared with 3-D reality, but the panorama gives an illusion of three dimensions. Support --Kerowyn 05:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. Interesting and impressive, but a pity about that "35". Enochlau 07:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I'm a bit partial to panoramas and this is pretty good. Its a shame about the stitching issues in the crowd, but that is virtually impossible to avoid. Other than that, I can't see any stitching artifacts - Looks fine to me. Very clear view of the stadium. I don't think that the 35 is overly distracting and as mentioned previously, it is just part of the stadium. Diliff 12:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, it fits the articles well, but I just don't find it particularly interesting. It looks like any other sports stadium. Too much concrete and crowd, and not enough field. And the players aren't even playing. Stephen Turner 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose, mainly because it seems a bad choice for a pic to show what a stadium is. Halibutt 23:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it was ever intended to show what A stadium is - it was intended to show what that particular stadium is, or more appropriately, what the view is from that particular angle, and I think in that sense, it does a pretty good job. Diliff 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Halibutt does have a point though. We can't very well have featured pictures of every stadium out there. Our general unwritten policy has been that the featured picture candidate should not be of a topic for which we already have a featured picture. That is why we don't accept fractals or nebulas too easily anymore; they'd have to be pretty stunning to get past the fact that we already have such images as featured. So, when you pick an image, you can easily think of it in terms of "this will represent the topic of _____" (in this case, a stadium). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 13:50
- Note: I'm the photographer/submitter so I may be biased here! Have you looked at the Stadium article? (Admittedly, I hadn't until I read these comments) There are few pictures there, but none of them are featured, and none of them show as much of the inside of a moderm stadium as this image does. When I took the pictures I only intended it to be an illustration for the Aussie Stadium aticle, but now that I have looked at the Stadium article I'm contemplating putting it there as well. I'd also like to clarify what Halibutt means by "seems a bad choice for a pic to show what a stadium is" - in what way? Doesn't it look enough like a stadium? -- Chuq 01:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with Chuq - compared with the other pictures in Stadium, this one looks quite exceptional. However, it might not be appropriate as an illustration of what a stadium looks like because: a) it's distorted b) doesn't quite show the structure much (from an architectural point of view, you're missing a lot of the roof supports etc) c) it's not quite full (although few of the other ones at Stadium are either...). And in response to Brian, what pictures of stadiums do we currently have? A quick search reveals none - so the floodgate argument doesn't really apply yet like it does to fractals. Enochlau 11:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Actually in defense of the panorama, I have to say that it isn't really distorted at all. This is actually pretty much what it would look like if our eyes had such a wide field of view. The distance between the ends of the pitch and the centre where the photographer was sitting is quite large, and it is pure physics that dictates that it should look the way it does. If the viewer was much further way (which is in reality impossible) looking THROUGH the seating of the stadium, then yes, you would avoid most of the 'distortion', but from the angle of view that is realistic, the way it looks is unavaoidable, panorama or not. Diliff 03:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with Chuq - compared with the other pictures in Stadium, this one looks quite exceptional. However, it might not be appropriate as an illustration of what a stadium looks like because: a) it's distorted b) doesn't quite show the structure much (from an architectural point of view, you're missing a lot of the roof supports etc) c) it's not quite full (although few of the other ones at Stadium are either...). And in response to Brian, what pictures of stadiums do we currently have? A quick search reveals none - so the floodgate argument doesn't really apply yet like it does to fractals. Enochlau 11:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it was ever intended to show what A stadium is - it was intended to show what that particular stadium is, or more appropriately, what the view is from that particular angle, and I think in that sense, it does a pretty good job. Diliff 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose The image is too busy and just isn't that spectacular. Also, the stadium looks slightly tilted (Right higher than left) --Ironchef8000 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great image. Shows the entire field and parts of the crowd at near and far distances, plus the effect of the sun on the field is striking and it is not over/under exposed. Really like the wide angle. Jeeb 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Taken in the Palmyra Atoll by the USCG. Very nice colors.
- Nominate and support. - AllyUnion (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Fluffy :) And a very nice picture as well. Raven4x4x 05:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. What a cute little birdy! —DO'Иeil 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Nice. Mstroeck 10:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support, it's stunning. Halibutt 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support Focus is a little out IMO (more focused on the branch end I think), but still a good shot. --Fir0002 12:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Rhobite 01:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Enochlau 07:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Nice to see some of our wonders. -- Thorpe talk 10:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - sorry, but it's just a little off-focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support - a good wikipic Brookie: A collector of little round things 19:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Hehe... you said booby. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Sula sula nesting in Heliotropium foertherianum.jpg Raven4x4x 11:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
this is my first nomination here and I hope I don't mess up things. I really like this picture. :)
- Nominate and support. - Alensha 21:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. Good picture but I wish the bottom weren't cropped - it seems to be cutting something off. Rhobite 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I like it. Halibutt 11:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't like the old style building illuminated with harsh electric lights. Also the bottom seems cut off. Enochlau 08:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like the photo but as far as a featured picture goes, its just a bit too obscure and doesn't really demonstrate the architecture or its setting very well. It looks like the sort of building best photographed from further away (if possible) and during the day. Diliff 12:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. What is this picture about? The object in the foreground, or the church? Also, the artificial lighting doesn't really add anything. I would probably support this if it was taken from an other angle and during day-time. Mstroeck 12:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. This does not add significantly to the Veszprém article. It is not even on the page! --Dschwen 13:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's not on the page because the article is still too short and there's no place for further images. Alensha 14:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's no excuse. Featured pictures need an article. If it's not in the article, exchange one of the current pictures for it, or submit this to the commons and vote on it there. Enochlau 20:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- done & thanks for pointing this out, I'm still a newbie to this :) Alensha 00:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- There's an easy way to add a pic to an article that has no room. Just start a gallery at the bottom of the article. Get the gallery code from the Hot air balloon article - Adrian Pingstone 21:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- done & thanks for pointing this out, I'm still a newbie to this :) Alensha 00:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's no excuse. Featured pictures need an article. If it's not in the article, exchange one of the current pictures for it, or submit this to the commons and vote on it there. Enochlau 20:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's not on the page because the article is still too short and there's no place for further images. Alensha 14:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. However, the light in nthe middle-left is a little distracting. Could something be done about that? - JDH Owens talk | Esperanza 11:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Good photo of popcorn, and have others: Image:Popcorn03.jpg, Image:Popcorn04.jpg, for choice.
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support, sharp and well-composed. I like Image:Popcorn03.jpg better but I would support 02 also. Rhobite 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- TomStar81 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral on this one. I prefer Image:Popcorn03.jpg actually - it seems a little sharper, and I feel more comfortable with images that aren't so zoomed in/closely cropped. Enochlau 07:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral too. Out of those three, I like Image:Popcorn03.jpg the most. The featured photo seems a bit underexposed in the foreground and being so close doesn't really add anything to the shot. Diliff 12:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I purposely added those options so that if people liked them better they could vote in favor of it. --Fir0002 22:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- oppose - does nothing for me. Actually, not accurate: made me want to eat popcorn. Which is annoying as I have no easy way of procuring any right now. But I don't see it fitting as a featured picture. --bodnotbod 10:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support Image:Popcorn03.jpg. It's unusual and that is why I like it. It looks like one of those impossable jigsaw puzzles that I see in games stores. Raven4x4x 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- oppose. A mundane topic and mediocre photos.Jeeb 03:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please make an effort to provide constructive criticism, or at a minimum, refrain from insulting other people's work without giving any reason. Rhobite 03:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll retract the "mediocre"; the pictures are OK, but they are of a completely un-noteworthy topic and do not contribute substantively to the article. Jeeb 04:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, for sadly I don't feel this adds anything to my current ideas about popcorn. The structure and focus aren't striking either. A nice picture, but I don't feel this is featured picture material. Arndisdunja 21:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice photo of the Shrine. Other versions: Image:melbourne_war_memorial02.jpg, Image:pillars_at_front_of_war_memorial.jpg
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It looks a little dark I think. Enochlau 11:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It's rather dark and you have dust on your sensor! Lots of it. Better clean it off. In the meantime, I think I will do some healing. Edit: Man, that picture was livid with dust spots! I don't want to sound negative, but I think you might want to have your camera's sensor cleaned off, or at least blow on it with some compressed air. Anyway, I think I got most of them. How's this?
- Thanks for your work, but I think the photo has lost too much of the warm hues of sundown. The sensor itself won't have dust on it as there is filter in front of it; even so, I don't know about the photo being livid with dust! But dust is a problem I have noticed with the 20D, whenever you use high shutter speeds it tends to dislodge tiny dust specks. And of course dust for some reason perfers to settle on a nice clean lens face than on anything else! Its quite a common problem with DSLR's. Anyway I have cleaned it since that photo was taken (which was about 1/2 a year ago), but I prefer not to fiddle down if possible (much rather use the clone tool in Photoshop).
- I can upload the orignal file if you really want a crack at adjusting that - but I prefer not to upload the originals as it takes forever - and I like to keep the full size my own.
- Fir002 - Your sensor does indeed have a lot of dust on it. You're right though, there is a filter a couple of mm above the actually CMOS itself, and the filter has dust on it. The reason why you see it in higher shutter speeds is not a function of the shutter speed itself, but rather the fact that in program mode when photographing a brightly lit subject, which I am assuming you've used, it will generally use a balance of stopped down aperture and slower shutter speed. It is the stopped down aperture that increases the visibility of the dust on the sensor. When light passes through a a tight aperture, it hits the sensor at a much 'straighter' angle (because the light coming in at an angle is blocked by the aperture), and the specks of dust create a more visible shadow. When light passes through a wide open aperture, there is a greater chance of it coming in at an angle, and thereby hitting the sensor 'around' the speck of dust. Thats the basic explanation for it, anyway. I recommend you investigate cleaning solutions for the camera. It isn't essential but you will minimise the amount of dust that accumulates on the sensor if you clean occasionally. The longer you have the camera, the more dust you'll get. Its very unlikely to go away by itself. :) Diliff 02:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your detailed comments Diliff, but I was aware of the issues you raised there. I read this website (which at the time of writing this comment seems to be down - hence the link to a google cached version) and it does a good job explaining the different options for cleaning the sensor (if you are using compressed air you'd want to be pretty carefull). I have obviously cleaned the sensor a few times, but as previously mentioned due to the difficulty and risk I do not clean often. Thanks again and sorry if I sound a bit tense. --Fir0002 09:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. I misunderstood and thought you had not yet tried to clean it. But I don't think high shutter speeds will 'dislodge' dust. It just accumulates over time. Nothing more to it really. ;) Diliff 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work, but I think the photo has lost too much of the warm hues of sundown. The sensor itself won't have dust on it as there is filter in front of it; even so, I don't know about the photo being livid with dust! But dust is a problem I have noticed with the 20D, whenever you use high shutter speeds it tends to dislodge tiny dust specks. And of course dust for some reason perfers to settle on a nice clean lens face than on anything else! Its quite a common problem with DSLR's. Anyway I have cleaned it since that photo was taken (which was about 1/2 a year ago), but I prefer not to fiddle down if possible (much rather use the clone tool in Photoshop).
- Oppose. The shadow is too distracting.
New edit has visible quantization and artifacts. Also a minor nitpick, there's a faint USM halo around the tower.Rhobite 22:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps he could upload a less harshly compressed version? Also, you shouldn't vote support or oppose until the end of the second day when the bot moves the nomination into the voting section.
- A less compressed version would be a step up, but I'm not sure that the shadow can be fixed. Please do not remove my vote again; I promise that I will change it myself if I feel the picture achieves featured quality in the future. Rhobite 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Rhobite, the reason that your vote was removed is that you are not supposed to vote in the first two days of the nomination, only to comment. I do prefer the lighting of the edited version, but there are a lot of artifacts on the sky. Raven4x4x 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- A less compressed version would be a step up, but I'm not sure that the shadow can be fixed. Please do not remove my vote again; I promise that I will change it myself if I feel the picture achieves featured quality in the future. Rhobite 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps he could upload a less harshly compressed version? Also, you shouldn't vote support or oppose until the end of the second day when the bot moves the nomination into the voting section.
- Comment. I have uploaded another version --Fir0002 12:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, that's a lot better. Raven4x4x 12:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Although its a high resolution image and quite sharp (albeit a little too sharp, I can see haloes), I just don't like the overall composition that much. It has the look of a tourist snapshot and although you can basically see what the shrine looks like, it isn't really something I would consider exceptional in any way. This applies to all versions I think. :) Adjusting levels/saturation can make it look 'prettier' but not a better photo. Diliff 02:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Regardless of the touching up, I would have to agree with Diliff and say that composition-wise, the photo lacks a little umph. It shows the shrine ok, but there's nothing special about it. Enochlau 07:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - don't like these Brookie: A collector of little round things 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Great colors IMO.
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The contrast between the light and dark sides is somewhat disconcerting, and it seems oddly cropped, but otherwise a nice photo.PiccoloNamek 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I don't mind the contrast but maybe there's a better way to crop this. Rhobite 22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. Not one of your better flower pics sorry. Enochlau 07:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- oppose when you try to examine the flower that's in focus the busyness of the surrounding ones distracts you. --bodnotbod 10:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per bodnotbod. Thelb4 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Thought this picture was striking; it's a picture of a Flemish harpsichord with detailed decorations, and the blue background adds to it nicely. It's used in both harpsichord and the History of music articles, and was taken by fr:Utilisateur:Ratigan (uploaded by Gérard to en). A lower resolution version (that's the one actually linked to in articles) with description can be found at Image:Flemish harpsichord small.png.
- Nominate and support. - Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Several comments. Firstly, I don't see any need for a separate smaller version to go in articles, as the image can be shunk down to any size in the articles. Secondly, I think jpeg is the prefered file format for photos, not png. Thirdly, this is a very nice picture of a beautiful instrument. I don't remember any musical instruments being featured pictures before.
Raven4x4x 00:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well the lower resolution version would be useful if it were JPG since the png is going to be large shrunken down. My own comment is that the resolution is a rather low, rather than a PNG of a low res image, could we not get a higher resolution JPG? ... Though I might be somewhat biased in my thoughts on how large instrument photos should be... --Gmaxwell 07:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: fr:Utilisateur:Ratigan and Gérard are the same person. I could upload a larger image, if so wished. Gérard 09:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't realize that Gérard and Ratigan were the same user! I'm not sure why the smaller version is linked to in the article, but I've asked Gérard. Judging from a previous post, I think he had some reason to use the smaller picture. I've also requested Gérard to upload a larger image if he has one so that's it's the same size as the life-size bassoon (:-), yes, I know it's not really life-sized...) Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support for a higher resolution JPEG copy of this image. As a PNG file, it is not particularly suitable but it is an excellent photo and very worthy. Diliff 04:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. The brick wall and the tiles detract from the elegance of the harpsicord. Also, is the chair a little fuzzy? Enochlau 07:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support Gérard 15:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
( + ) Support. Halibutt 23:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - pic is sloping badly, just have a look at the harpsichord's legs - Adrian Pingstone 15:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too small. Very ugly wallpaper and bench cover are highly distracting.--Deglr6328 03:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- I could ask Gérard to upload a larger image if you want. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 15:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Neutralitytalk 20:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I like this image. It is clear and colorful. --Ironchef8000 16:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted but this was very close. A larger version would probably pass. Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The instrument shows a mixture of 16th-17th c. Flemish features (the paper decorations) and 17th-18th c. French ones (the keyboard with black rather than white naturals). Something typically Flemish would be preferable. this is cool
I really like the warm colors in this photo.
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support, pictures of sheep are inherently amusing, this one exceptionally so. The flaws that others see in the picture are too subtle for me to see. The Singing Badger 22:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Did you apply a gaussian blur to certain parts of this photo? The bottom part of the beach looks oddly foggy. I like how the middle sheep is looking directly at the camera.PiccoloNamek 14:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, the sheep looking at the camera is the key element of this photo but unfortunately it is overexposed. Rhobite 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it's over-exposed. Just well lit. Raven4x4x 06:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, the highlight is, in fact, blown. ;)PiccoloNamek 08:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I don't think it's overexposed (it's just the great Aussie sun); content-wise, it's very representative of rural areas. Enochlau 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I like this a lot. Sometimes things are bright in real life. Raven4x4x 09:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- comment (please note I am not one of the photographic experts in this process, so it may be unwise to act on my pronouncements!) I think I'd enjoy it more if it were cropped differently. I find the top half of the picture dull, so maybe some of that could be lost, and perhaps some of the right side too, so that the star sheep and his immediate companions are more prominent. Anyone agree? --bodnotbod 11:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Personally I'm quite convinced that this photo is cropped to the best effect in the current version because to me that burnt dry grass on top is not only a great "aussie" type grass, but it contrast so sharply with the green grass the sheep are eating in the foreground (which happens to be next to a road). As to the RHS sheep, I kind of like it. --Fir0002 09:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support, its brilliant. Both the colours, the composition and the topic seem perfectly chosen for a wikipedia pic. Halibutt 23:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hal, there is no {{Support}} template, please don't try to use it again.PiccoloNamek 02:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support.PiccoloNamek 02:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I always like pictures of sheep but these are particularly amusing. I also, as above, like the contrast between the dry grass and the "alive" grass. --Celestianpower háblame 00:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Promoted Image:sheep_eating_grass_edit02.jpg Raven4x4x 07:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
My reason for nominating is simple: it's gorgeous. It's an entirely natural photograph, not an artificial montage. The black band on Saturn is the shadow cast by its rings. The picture as a whole gives a great indication of the relationships between Saturn, its rings and its moons.
Created by NASA.
- Nominate and support. - The Singing Badger 16:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support, breathtaking image. Rhobite 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. indeed, awesome. Halibutt 11:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- TomStar81 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. It shows some interesting features, but I just find it a little uninspiring. Enochlau 07:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-26 22:27
- ( + ) Support Reality can be stunning sometimes... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support Out of this world! :-) A tad too compressed though (51KB) --Fir0002 09:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- There's a tif on the source page if you want to recompress it yourself. I don't see any glaring artifacts, however. (Support.) —Cryptic (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea. I went ahead and recompressed it at a better level from the TIFF. It looks slightly better now. Rhobite 03:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- There's a tif on the source page if you want to recompress it yourself. I don't see any glaring artifacts, however. (Support.) —Cryptic (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Wow! RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Gotta love HQ space photos... :D Staxringold 21:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems artificial, but isn't, and that makes it beautiful. Titoxd(?!?) 05:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Rogerd 03:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support That is a really nice picture. --Ironchef8000 23:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Dione 2005 Oct 11 (PIA07744).jpg Raven4x4x 07:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Self-nomination. I took this portrait of my great-grandmother for the Ageing-article, and I think it works fairly well.
- Support self-nomination. - Mstroeck 07:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems a little flat. Perhaps an increase in contrast would help? I uploaded an edited version. Personally, I think it does a much better job of capturing the oldness of her. I also added a very slight metallic blue duotone effect.PiccoloNamek 18:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks PiccoloNamek, that's great! You are of course right, it could use some more contrast. Sorry for being such a lazy ass and letting other people do the post-processing. I'm fairly new to digital photography and am not really firm with all the tools yet. Mstroeck 18:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Well, I feel like I'm the scrooge of featured pictures at the moment, but I don't feel like this is outstanding. It has a lot of potential, but I just don't like the angle. It is just begging to be rotated a little so you can see the face from the front, or even from a three-quarter angle. I think as human beings we desire to look at someone in the eye, to observe and feel what they feel and I just don't have that connection with this photo. I would support a photo like this if the angle is better but I don't think I would as it is. Sorry, just my opinion! Diliff 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- No need to apologize. I don't want to get too philosophical here, but: "the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article." I specifically didn't want any of the pathos that often comes with pictures of old people, but something that can effectively visualize the effects of ageing in an encyclopedic article. This picture is not about a person, it's about a concept. After all, it's supposed to be used in articles, not in a photo competition. But that's just my opinion and of course open to debate. (By the way, I actually have pictures taken at other angles, but I wouldn't consider them worth adding here. The incredible way age can change a human face is not nearly as evident from the front.) Mstroeck 12:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that is necessarily true. It depends on the photograph. Raven4x4x 13:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- You're right. I probably didn't add enough emphasis on that point, but I also think in addition to it not being a photo that grabs me visually, that you would also have a better view of the effects of aging from the front or three-quarter angle view. And to elaborate on what I was saying originally, when I mentioned that I think humans seek eye contact, I was alluding to the fact that we would usually see the effects of aging from that angle too and it would be more relevent.. You're right though - for an image that seeks to show the effects of aging from that particular angle, it does do that, but whether it is as relevent (for reasons mentioned above) as it could be is debatable. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the image. I just think the composition could be improved. Diliff 14:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- No need to apologize. I don't want to get too philosophical here, but: "the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article." I specifically didn't want any of the pathos that often comes with pictures of old people, but something that can effectively visualize the effects of ageing in an encyclopedic article. This picture is not about a person, it's about a concept. After all, it's supposed to be used in articles, not in a photo competition. But that's just my opinion and of course open to debate. (By the way, I actually have pictures taken at other angles, but I wouldn't consider them worth adding here. The incredible way age can change a human face is not nearly as evident from the front.) Mstroeck 12:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the total side-on view, I'd want to see a little more of her face - Adrian Pingstone 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose as per my previous comments. Just not featured picture material to me. Diliff 08:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. As above: showed on side of face, not exceptional, doesn't really show enough of the aging effects. Enochlau 10:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral There are some good elements with this photo, but it isn't quite worthy. --Fir0002 09:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. See above comments. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
An informative diagram on the steps it takes to create a botnet; used in the Botnet article; created by User:Fubar Obfusco.
- Nominate and support. - Bash 01:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - I find the faces a little... different to the style I would ideally expect to see in Wikipedia. But that's hard to define, hence the weak. --bodnotbod 10:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - the faces and the fact that it looks quite different are the reasons that made me put this up for FPC. --Bash 03:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Although it certainly is different as outlined above, and I agree that it's informative, I think that the flat 2D graphics and the colour scheme put together make for one uninspiring diagram. It's ok, but not exceptional. Enochlau 10:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Changed the colours around a bit. See if you like the 2nd one better. --Bash 18:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak oppose It's interesting, but the picture would need to be bigger than the space limitations for POTD. It doesn't have much immediate effect. --Kerowyn 05:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- ( − ) Oppose After reading the description at the bottom I got what you were showing, but a diagram really should contain all the data in itself and not require explanation (except intricate things like a motherboard). Also not too keen on the icons used to show spammer etc. --Fir0002 09:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This really made me laugh and I think we need to encourage creative diagrams like that. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. A little flat and not very...can't think of the right word...professional looking? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a clear diagram, however I do not believe that it is a very high quality image. I dont think that this belongs on wikipedia featured pics, but it might be useful for an article. --Ironchef8000 02:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. If it was recreated with a more modern graphic design then I would probably support it. It has potential. Diliff 03:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)