Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Jul-Sep 2008

WP:PPRA

Please cut and paste nominations to be archived from the Picture peer review mainpage to the top of the appropriate archive page, creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary.

2012: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2011: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2010: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2009: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2008: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2007: January - June | July - December
2006: January - December

3D scanning and printing[edit]

The image depicts in a compact way the digital reproduction capabilities of the 3D scanning and 3D printing technologies.
It is not well known that 3D photocopy machines are now a (costly and slow) reality.

Creator: ALoopingIcon

Nominated by: ALoopingIcon (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

f29 is too narrow, everything is a bit soft due to diffraction, I'd suggest closer to f10-11. It needs an exposure adjustment (brighten the highlights etc), looks a tad dull now. Images of the originals superimposed over a screenshot from the program might be more effective with less distracting elements, or the rendering full screen without all the other stuff on the screen. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The progression from original to computer model and then replicant could be made a little clearer. Maybe by aligning the three. Wronkiew (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Panorama of Mikumi National Park[edit]

A good quality, high resolution, encyclopedic image of a remote part of the world. Commons and wikipedia did not have any images of Mikumi before this image.

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 11:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I can see no particular reason why this would be denied, the quality is certainly there. The only critisism I have is that there doesn't seem to be any subject in particular to draw the viewers eye. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is good. Compositionally I think its a shame that the horizon is centered and the trees are clipped at the top of the frame. As far as chosing which way the horiz should move, as a enc panorama of a park for WP I would say it should more land than sky. Also I think you could lose a little off the right, that would pull the road closer to the center, making it more of an eye leading feature. Mfield (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At the far right in the midground, there are mountain ranges which can be seen which are not blocked by any trees. The mountains are the Uluguru Ranges which surround the park. Won't cropping the right part lead to loss of this view? Will a centered road be aesthetic? Could you please upload an edit? Thanks Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I only meant to trim a small amount, I was not intending that you center the road, just that pulling it inwards towards even the first third would make it more compositionally appealing as it would more naturally draw your eye into the image. I am aware though that trimming the mountains will reduce the enc. so it is a difficult call. Right now I think it might fail FP for compositional reasons. It will be difficult for me to crop this to a better composition without reducing the size too much for an FP. Is it a stitch - i.e. do you have more resolution and/or more image outside this crop to work with? Especially foreground. Mfield (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a higher res version but no more images outside of this crop. Muhammad(talk) 21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit2 uploaded. Muhammad(talk) 21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cropped edit is a lot better. I think the other pics would not pass because of the cut off trees. When you do nominate this, make sure to emphasize the uniqueness of the pic. Some people will probably object to lack of "Wow"ness, so be prepared with an answer to those points. Also. Good picture. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for reviewing. Any other comments are welcome. Muhammad(talk) 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2 feels off level to me. Wronkiew (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Muhammad. --jjron (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Wallace at University of Alabama[edit]

There's obvious historic value here. Is this a photo famous unto itself, so it shouldn't be touched? I did a perspective correction and then cropped it. Thoughts on this?

Creator: USNWR

Nominated by: Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice picture. It's focused and is pretty good quality. In several articles. I think it might have a chance at WP:FPC. When you nominate, make sure to emphasize how famous the photo is and the importance it has in the articles it illustrates. Good choice. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wu Tingfang[edit]

An image of cultural and historic value, would like to put it through for FPC

Creator: Frances Benjamin Johnston

Nominated by: Jor dan ^Contribs 12:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Definitely. The encyclopedic and historical value are both very strong. I'd give it a nom. If you know anything about the attire, do you think it could add it to the appropriate article? That would be a further boost for the image, but even as is, I'd give it a nomination. Thegreenj 23:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Mountain Ranch Reservoir[edit]

It is very encyclopedic. I may agree it needs color adjustments, but I want additional feedback.

Creator: ZooFari

Nominated by: Zoo Fari 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unfortunately, I don't think this'll have much of a chance at FPC. Generally the only pics of nature that pass are of super-high proffesional-grade quality and "wow"-ness. I definately agree it needs color touch-up, especially the patch of purple water by the shore. I'm also not sure how much encyclopedic value it has. If you want to, you can try fixing the colors and then nominating it on FPC, but be prepared for some objections. <:) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague, Czech Republic[edit]

A view of the interior of St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague, Czech Republic.

It illustrates this part of the cathedral well, so it has a high EV. Technically, it is also a good picture. I'm not quit sure though, whether to nominate it or not. I also would like to know if it is better than the current FP and if the two could be both a FP. Current FP: see below

--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Massimo Catarinella

Nominated by: Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The current FP really is superior in several aspects. The slightly different angle, cropping, and symmetry lend a more definite subject (the three lit stained glass windows) than in yours, and the lighting is more even and the exposure more emphatic for the subject. It's okay to have more than one FP of the same subject, but give how similar these two are, I think the only way for it to pass would be to replace the current one. Given the flaws of this picture against the current FP, a replacement is unlikely. Thegreenj 04:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Chris Young baseball pitcher[edit]

It is a higher quality picture than the current main image, which is a FP

Creator: Djh57

Nominated by: Djh57 (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It looks to be a good shot - well composed, quite interesting, at a quick glance appears good quality - but the legs of the first baseman (?) are rather unfortunately positioned! That may significantly affect its chances. I'm also not sure about that fact that an image of him is already featured, especially given that they are both action shots of him pitching (like say one was a 'portrait' shot it may be a different matter). It's not like he's a particularly significant figure (talking on a world scale; I know relatively little about American baseball and he may be huge in that), but to have two photos of him as FPs, and as best I can remember, none of any other baseball player - well it just strikes me as a little unbalanced. Perhaps if you think it's good enough, a Delist and Replace nomination would be more in order? --jjron (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

London Underground 1938 stock[edit]

A nice image of one of the oldest fully functioning rolling stock on the London Underground

Creator: Sunil060902

Nominated by: Sunil060902 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

For what it is it seems a nice enough photo with quite good composition, but for mine I wouldn't think it would pass at FPC. I'm not really sure of the subject (it's not in an article), but assume it would be on this specific train, if such an article exists. EV certainly would not be great enough for say the London Underground article, or for an article on this station. However, as an image of this particular train, I really don't think it has enough detail. The photo is not particularly large, and train itself takes up maybe 20% of the photo, tops. There would be other issues too at FPC, such as the lighting in the sky, which tends towards overexposure and a bit of an uncomfortable gradient. It would certainly be well placed in an article on this train, but I personally don't think it's an FP. --jjron (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Shiprock[edit]

Shiprock, a rock formation in New Mexico

Large image size and interesting colors. I don't know whether the colors are authentic and whether that's purple fringing that I see.

Creator: bowiesnodgrass (Flickr)

Nominated by: Spikebrennan (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sky looks a little noisy at the top and the horizon doesn't seem level. Fletcher (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the tilt, I think it might have a chance... it's a pretty striking picture. A few small fixes could push it through. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Spikebrennan. --jjron (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey rink[edit]

This a very detailed diagram of an ice hockey rink, thus very encyclopedic. It appears in Ice hockey rink. Maxim (☎) 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Ysangkok

Nominated by: Maxim (☎) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I really know nothing about ice-hockey, but will give some general comments. It looks informative and there's not a lot of problems to do with inconsistencies in fonts or layouts, spelling errors, etc. In that respect it does look good. Some questions would be why do you have inconsistencies in the distance measurements for the 'zones'(?), i.e., some are at the top of the field, some at the bottom, some not there at all (I mean the 11ft, 64ft, 50ft ones)? Why does the centre 50ft zone 'look' to be about twice the width of the 64ft zone beside it - is there an error, or is this not done to scale? Why do you show radius of the circles at one end of the field, and diameter at the other end? Why do some measurements give the feet first, others give the metres first, some use brackets, some don't, some state NA/Intl., some don't. What is the top 8.5m arrow indicating? As I said I don't know about hockey, but are there only six players on the team, and why are they in the positions they are (starting positions? is it compulsory? etc)? Another thing is that no sources are given for the diagram, and these are often requested for such diagrams. Also, while informative, I wonder how compelling it is to look at - often termed 'wow' at FPC. It could do with some more work, but seems to be reasonably good. --jjron (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also know nothing about ice hockey, but Jjron seems to make good comments. However I do think the diagram is compelling to look at, if it could be improved -- it should be less cluttered. I question if giving the metric equivalent is necessary for North American dimensions and giving the imperial equivalent is needed for International dimensions. I'm also confused by the scale, and the Mom's Guide referenced on the image page seems to give different dimensions (10' + 60' + 60' + 60' + 10') than those in the diagram. Fletcher (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I missed the 'mom's guide' ref - I was looking for refs under "Sources". --jjron (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hurricane Ike Damage[edit]

I believe this is a fantastic image showing the significant damage that was result of Hurricane Ike.

Creator: larryrrr from Flickr

Nominated by: Rvk41 (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note: This image is a copyvio...it's being deleted from commons (commenting out photo). Spencer^T♦^C 00:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hurricane Ike Preparation[edit]

A Florida Army National Guardsman uses a Single Mobile User Case Set to send a situation report on ongoing preparations for Hurricane Ike in Key West, Florida.

A sharp, fantastic image of a National Guardsman sending a report on preparations of Hurricane Ike

Creator: from Flickr

Nominated by: Rvk41 (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It does have encyclopedic value, but the photographer used some funky lens and the standing man's head is all bent. It probably doesn't have much of a chance at WP:FPC. sorry. Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hose strap, folded[edit]

I would like feedback on this picture. It appeared on the front page today (2008-09-12) as a DYK item, which outright shocked me. I've never considered myself a good photographer or a particularly skilled Photoshopper (well, I can crop OK), so I've been pleasantly surprised by the honor it received. What I don't know is how well it matches up against the featured picture criteria. I don't expect this one to meet them, but I would like feedback about what I could do with future pictures I will take to get to Featured Picture status. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Jclemens

Nominated by: Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unfortunately, I really don't think this will have much of a chance at WP:FPC. It's not very "wow"ing, and it probably would be a better picture unfolded and/or on the ground without the guy's hand in the picture. If you do feel like nominating, be sure to emphasize the large importance and encyclopedic value of the picture to the article. But I really doubt it's going to make it. Sorry <:) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the above. A photo of it doing what hose straps do may add more 'wow' to it, but I don't know how practical to photograph that would be, and how much the activity itself would detract from the focus being on the hose strap itself. --jjron (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. If I were to try and get pictures of other firefighting tools, with an eye towards FP in the future, how should I best go about it? Shots of tools in action are hard to stage for composition, lighting, focus, etc. and often are not the most interesting thing in the frame. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you're shooting in action, simply getting closer to the subject often helps out in composition. If lighting poses a problem, try staging something later in the day for softer, more directional light, and try not to use flash (as it seems you have here), since it interferes with color temperature and flattens lighting. Just give it a try; it might not work out, but just having pictures of stuff in use really improves articles. Thegreenj 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what his occupation is, but lugging around a tripod or an SLR with a fast lens may not be an option, so turning off the flash may just give him blurry pictures. (Although I believe you can get Point & Shoots these days with vibration reduction, which could help). However it is certainly worthwhile to experiment without the flash. Fire photography has some interesting external links to show what others are doing, and the lead picture in that article made FP on Commons. My guess is that action shots would be prized here because they are hard to come by, and perhaps people would be more lenient with regard to technical quality. However non-action shots of tools, while good additions to articles, really need to have high technical quality and good aesthetics to make FP. Fletcher (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't need a tripod, flash, fast lens, or IS in daylight, even in the late evening! Thegreenj 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the picture of the hose strap could be underexposed if the flash didn't fire... clearly if there is enough light then you don't need it. Fletcher (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I appreciate the suggestions, and obviously have a lot to learn. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Henry Stimson[edit]

Good quality photo portrait of an important 20th century figure

Creator: Harris & Ewing, c. August 8, 1929 (PD because copyright was not renewed)

Nominated by: Spikebrennan (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's not very sharp... even in the thumb I'm bothered by the softness around the shoulders. Fletcher (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the ultra-shallow DOF is probably a stylistic choice of the time (looking at similar studio portraits from 1860s-1930s) as well as a result of the relatively large but not sensitive film of the time. Still, it's not sharp where it is in focus, and the jpeg artifacts are disturbing. Uploading less compressed version. Thegreenj 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Motivational Poster[edit]

I was so surprised to find a high-resolution public-domain example. Appears in Motivational poster.

Creator: 31st Communications Squadron (CS), Visual Information, Aviano Air Base (AB), w:Italy. (really-- a PD motivational poster)

Nominated by: Spikebrennan (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Could be a possible candidate for FP, depends on how the wind is blowing. ~~If you do nominate it, in the header make sure to emphasize how rare it is to have a free image like this.~~ :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think this is a really rare pic after all. See [1] here. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Yarra River[edit]

Well-framed image that shows a wide variety of native vegetation.

Creator: Ottre

Nominated by: Ottre (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unfortunately the image has a few technical problems. Large areas of the sky and a small area of the water have blown highlights. There is also quite a bit of noise, particularly in the leaves etc. The top of the image is quite unsharp and there is quite a bit of chromatic aberration. In future i'd suggest setting your camera to ISO 100 (or less) and a higher fnumber. In addition you need the image to appear in an article for it to be a featured picture. The image should make a useful addition to the yarra river article (representing a different environment to the rest of the pictures). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can reshoot this, as the site isn't far from my home, but don't quite understand what adjustments (one or the other) I should be making. If the main problem is the crowns of the trees in the background, perhaps there is a problem photographing "solid" landscapes using my camera (FinePix F40fd)? If so, I can change to the Easyshare M873, which has slightly better focus. Ottre (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Select a lower ISO (100 tops, lower is better) instead of 200 and a narrower apeture (say F8.0) so more of the image appears in focus and lens deficiancies become less apparent. Blown highlights could be marginally fixed with exposure compensation, but short of stacking exposures or using grad ND filters, I'd suggest supporting the camera with a tripod (or a rock) and shooting at dawn or dusk when the dynamic range is lower (See Golden hour (photography)). These suggestions should fix most of the technical issues, even if some compositional ones remain. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything here except stopping down to f/8. With a compact camera like that, you're going to get very noticeable diffraction problems stopping down that far. Probably somewhere between f/4.5 and f/5.6 you'll find ideal sharpness. Also, is your lens clean? The irregularities in sharpness make me think that some of he sharpness problems may be more from a smudge than lens problems. And stick with the F40fd; that series has a very good reputation. Thegreenj 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was probably thinking a bit much in dSLR terms with the aperture Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; but even though it is unsharp, it has an odd texture to it... has it been noise reduced? In addition, I'm not too keen on the composition, as I don't think it's very illustrative. Fletcher (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree on the composition. The Yarra River isn't hard to take photos of (the path goes for ages alongside it), and there's nothing special about the composition of this pic at all. It would be good to have a pic of the middle or upper Yarra though. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have taken maybe a hundred photographs of the middle reaches of the river, and it is difficult to get an open shot of the banks. Even at the Yarra Bend, which is a popular, flat area, you need to be at least five to six metres above the water's edge. Quite frankly, the lookouts haven't been built to that height and you would be hard pressed to find more than a few quality locations such as this. I've seen perhaps twelve in the two-hundred hectares I've walked. Ottre (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hurricane Gustav Beach Boulevard[edit]

It is a beautiful image of the fury of Hurricane Gustav, hitting the Gulf Coast, causing flooding, and using its high winds to create waves into regular streets.

Creator: from Flickr

Nominated by: Rvk41 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This picture is wayyy too small to make it at FPC. Is this the only copy? (Giligone (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, oh well I'm sorry about this, I had no idea about a size requirement. Rvk41 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Accurist Watches[edit]

A similar style of picture, the Monitinari Milano, was an FP but is this good enough?

Creator: xytramtkcsgy 14:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: xytramtkcsgy 14:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I really like that second photo. Clearly its got artistic merit being and FP on the commons. I think that its small resolution (less than the 1000px limit) would really hurt it FPC. Do you have a higher res version? - (Giligone (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, second one is two small, first one is big enough, but showing two similar watches is repetitive. I'm not sure of the encyclopedic value of the long exposure showing four seconds elapsing, although it's kind of cool to see... Fletcher (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the second one is a Commons FP - they have somewhat different criteria than we do on Wikipedia. --jjron (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that 'product' shots like this get an unusually tough time at FPC. Be prepared for that if you do decide to nominate. Things like the blown (?) areas on the left watch and the defined reflection on the watch faces would likely engender opposition. --jjron (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. Jjron I can see your point about the left watch (the over-exposed areas on the edge, plus the reflection is my head!) xytramtkcsgy 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Crocus Tommasinianus[edit]

It's the only shot of the named flower in Crocus, whilst it's not perfectly sharp it's one of my favourite images.

Creator: xytramtkcsgy 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: xytramtkcsgy 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the background is just too busy and distracting. The DoF is a bit too wide. - (Giligone (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I will try a re-crop and some re-touch work to push the background out and see if that helps. Thanks xytramtkcsgy 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Annabelle Hydrangea Bloom[edit]

There are no high quality photos on wikipedia of a this type of hydrangea and I think this image clearly visualizes the flower.

Nominated by: Giligone (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This looks well done. I like how the shaded part emphasizes the inner structure of the stems, while the sunny part emphasizes the blossoms. There appears to be some chromatic aberration at the edges, most noticeable on the left side. I'm not sure how that would affect its chances at FPC. Fletcher (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that just cause that area is out of focus? (Giligone (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Could be... I wasn't sure. Fletcher (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think its worth a shot at FPC or would they just rip it appart for the reason you've mentioned? (Giligone (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think that, even more so than the chromatic abberation, lighting and sharpness would be major complaints. The lighting is very harsh, and though there is significant shadow detail, I find it distracting. A later time of day would likely be better. If you can get this sharper (it looks front-focussed) and with better light, I think this whould stand a chance. If you decide to retake it, try a different angle—the out-of-focus blooms are probably better not in the frame. Thegreenj 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Chindia Tower[edit]

Chindia Tower in Târgovişte, Romania, built by Vlad the Impaler, in the 15th century.

It is a pleasant photo, has some EV, but I'm afraid it might be too artistic for FP, or that the subject is too small.
Note: I've just uploaded the edited photo, so it might take a while for Commons to replace the old one.

Nominated by: — Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There is a bit too much empty space around the subject IMO. Maybe a crop might improve it. (Giligone (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Think that would make the image too small. Diego_pmc ^Talk 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which is probably going to keep it from passing FPC, aside from some sharpness problems. Thegreenj 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Its barely above the 1000px limit as is. (Giligone (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Seconder

Muhammad Ali[edit]

No current FP of this prominent sports figure. Used in 18 articles.

Nominated by: smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The picture itself isn't bad, reasonably engaging (having said which my personal preference for Ali would be an action shot), but quality is poor. Even in B&W I don't think you can get with away with an image of 3,000 × 3,765px at less than half a meg filesize - quality has to suffer. Even in thumbnail we can see problems down the right side of his head, and the bigger you go the worse it gets. It could be 'cleaned up' to remove some of the dust and marks from the scan, but there's problems you won't clean-up without a better scan. Are you sure there's not a better version at the LOC? --jjron (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

White House, c. 1846.[edit]

This is the first known photo of the White House, produced during the Polk administration. This is irreplaceable, any copyright would have expired, it is completely unique, and is very historical and encyclopedic. Size requirements not met, but the uniqueness of this photo may overcome that limitation.

Nominated by: Wadester16 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Size requirements are (barely) met, but there's a much larger version on the LOC page, which I'm uploading over this. I wish people would get the largest version when transfering LOC images to Commons... Thegreenj 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where'd you get the info that this is the earliest know photo of the White House? It's currently uncited. Thegreenj 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I was quoting the caption with the photo in the article White House, though now I realize there is no citation there either. That would make my original description inaccurate, though I feel that doesn't really take away from the merit of the photo overall. Wadester16 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, larger version uploaded. If someone can dedicate the time to restore it, this picture's passing is a given; good quality, high EV, and historical value make a good combination. Thegreenj 00:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

United States Capitol Dome[edit]

United States Capitol dome viewed from the northwest.

Large, bright photo of the United States Capitol, taken on a very sunny day. I feel the color of the sky adds greatly to this photo. In addition, two flag poles are visible. There are four visible flag poles on the roof of the Capitol, one on the east and west sides of the dome (the pole on the right of this photo sits on the west side of the dome), and one on each of the house chambers. When the flag is up over a chamber, it indicates that the respective house is in session. In this photo, it shows that the Senate is out of session because the flag is not up. Thoughts?

Nominated by: Wadester16 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's an attractive photo and at a quick glance quality seems OK. Aesthetically I like it, but I rather feel that it wouldn't do too well at FPC simply because 'cutoff' building photos and building photos taken at odd angles (read pretty much anything but straight in front) usually aren't received that well at FPC. There are exceptions, but whether this has enough in it to be one of the rare exceptions I'm not sure. Anyone else have thoughts? --jjron (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's noisy and unsharp. Fletcher (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, you're right. --jjron (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Rotunda of the United States Capitol Building[edit]

View looking up into the rotunda of the United States Capitol Building

The photo is a high quality jpeg meeting minimum size requirements. It shows the detail of Brumidi's frescos as well as details of the interior of the Capitol dome. Includes one example of the National Statuary Hall Collection.

Nominated by: Wadester16 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The silhouetted statue makes for an interesting aesthetic, but harms its encyclopedic value IMO, as it doesn't give a clear view of the statue, but also obstructs the view of the rotunda. I also don't think it's a high quality JPEG -- it seems to have some noise, or possibly has undergone noise reduction; either way some of the smooth surfaces do not look perfectly smooth. And, the windows are overexposed with too much ambient light coming in. I don't think it's a FP, but a good shot and tough place to shoot, I'm sure. Fletcher (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Lincoln at his death bed[edit]

This photograph shows the passing of President Lincoln, changing the landscape on how the Union was to be rebuilt after the Civil War

Nominated by: User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looks really good. Not a very large image but meets the requirements. Fletcher (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rather suspect this isn't a photograph as suggested in the 'nom'. Probably an engraving, and given that, size would probably be called into question. Also if the people illustrated were identified it would significantly up the EV (there were some pretty well known people attending Lincoln's deathbed, even if only through their involvement in the event, and they should probably be identified). I also slightly wonder about the absence of Mary Todd Lincoln; can't quite remember the story there, but obviously she was round-abouts. --jjron (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have the list of people around the death bed. And The site that had the photo said it was a photograph, but you are that this is most likely an engraving. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would struggle unless you can find a higher-quality version. This has too many jpeg artifacts and way too much moiré patterning to be technically up to the FP standard for engravings. Thegreenj 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This is a page from Harpers Weekly, it is the May 6, 1865 edition and what i have read about says a wood engraving. I have a close friend who has this actual page Mounted in his home.

Chaffinch in flight[edit]

wonderful clarity of the bird itself with obvious motion of its wings, the bird even seems to be looking at the camera

Nominated by: Jay Wont dart (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Cool pic, but this would struggle at FPC for a number of technical reasons, chiefly: noise, noise reduction artifacts, low detail level, and flat lighting. BTW, when you're transcluding a page, put the actual title of the page (without quotation marks) in curly brackets. Thegreenj 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thegreenj, a bit too much noise on this image. Cool shot though. (Giligone (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Seconder

Thank you all for your time, I came across this image looking at birds on Wikipedia and think its just great!

Light on Leaves in Muir Forest, California[edit]

Well, I think I already know the answer to this, but I thought I'd get some response. I took this picture at Muir Forest, and I thought it was a good example of Darkness and Shade. It's also on Shrub, just for fun.

Nominated by: Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nobody responded, but yeah, it lacks wow, and not really that encyclopedic. It does show darkness and shade, but those concepts are so broad almost anything in the shade would be encyclopedic... so I think we would want a more compelling image. Nice looking pic but not a FP, I don't think. Fletcher (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Train approaching Kensington MARC Station.jpg

Solar eclipse animate (2008-Aug-01)[edit]

When reading about the eclipse, I felt this image significantly added to the article and demonstrated to me very clearly the path of the moon's shadow across the earth's surface. Although not at 1000px, it is an animation and I feel that it added sufficiently to the article for a nomination.

Nominated by: Jim (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There is a copyright notice on the image. If this is under copyright then it's ineligible for featured picture. Durova^Charge! 14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lisencing is OK. It's when the picture is fair use that we don't want it off the mainspace. Thegreenj 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the notice should be removed from the image itself. Thegreenj 21:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Leopard shark[edit]

It's the sharpest, most detailed image of the species on WP, illustrating both Leopard shark and the Hound sharks articles

Nominated by: Mfield (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It is a nice photo, but I think it is just a bit too obvious it was taken through a tank. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's the real question - does that matter? I mean, given that I can't find any better images of the species on WP? Mfield (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

William Gibson 60th birthday portrait[edit]

Professional photograph, of a high technical standard and resolution, depicting a very notable encyclopaedic subject.

Nominated by: Skomorokh 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

OK, since no one else will comment... I find these hard to judge - it's a pretty reasonably photo, but personally I prefer colour for Encyclopaedic value, however some recent successful noms have been along the lines of this. I also feel it could do with a bit of a crop at left. OK, beyond that, some concerns that could come up is that it is a bit noisy (covered up a bit by it being in B&W) and possibly with some minor jpeg artifacting, and the focus is not quite right (if you look closely it's a fairly narrow plane of focus, and the focus is at about his ears, rather than where it should be at his eyes). But famous people shots like this tend to get a bit of an easier run at FPC than many other images so that would work in its favour. Perhaps worth a try. --jjron (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although an interesting photo. The article already has alot of photos of him and the on in the info box is alot more interesting.(Giligone (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Seconder

The Assassination of President Lincoln[edit]

Of high quality, considering from 1865. Used in 13 articles. It is the most referenced artistic interpretation of the monumental events that occured that day.

Nominated by: smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is there an info as to what this actually is, i.e., its original source? It looks almost like a postcard, but that seems weird. Any ideas? --jjron (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lithograph print, therefore I am assuming it was first published in a newspaper. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I'll second this. I think it has FP potential. (Giligone (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blind monks examining an elephant"[edit]

This is a high-quality scan of an ukiyo-e depicting one of the central ideas of Anekantavada Jainism. It illustrates three articles and could easily illustrate a third.

Nominated by: Fryslan0109 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

I'm not totally convinced by the restoration (the hue is off—note the calibration sheet on the unrestored version, which indicates that it should be very slightly warmer, not cooler). Still, it has good encyclopedic value for Blind Men and an Elephant, and the overall quality is excelent. I'd give it a nomination. Thegreenj 21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at FPC by Fryslan0109. --jjron (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Mi-24 Combat Helicopter[edit]

With the ongoing conflict in Georgia, I decided to look through the FPs for Russian military hardware. Finding little, I did a quick search and found this relatively high quality shot of a Polish "Hind" which might be of FP quality. What do you think?

Nominated by: Fryslan0109 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Fixed the redlink in caption. Was wondering why the model didn't have its own article, but actually it has a pretty good one. I don't think the lighting on it is that great, but admittedly you can't shoot these any time you like. I'm no expert but I think there may be some JPEG artifacting along the edges of the bird. Fletcher (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is very likely to pass. If you post this on FPC there will probably be some edits made then people there can vote on which they like best. This is a good example of a panning shot done with an aircraft. victorrocha (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubt you can pan much in 1/500 sec, but it still came out pretty well. Fletcher (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is good except for the JPEG artifacts; they're all over the image, and especially noticiable around the edges. Does anyone know enough Polish to ask the creator for a higher quality picture? Thegreenj 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to wait for a seconder to nominate it for FP? Fryslan0109 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to nominate if you think it's ready. You don't need a seconder. Thegreenj 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: It's now up at FPC: Polish Mi-24 Combat Helicopter, and so can be archived here.--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

None needed, up at FPC

UT Austin Tower[edit]

Eye-catching picture that is a symbol of Texas, academic life, and athletic achievement (my first time in the WP:FP arena, so your help is greatly appreciated)

Nominated by: Eustress (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As is, it doesn't meet the 1000 pixel minimum. There's also some motion blur, and the angle is somewhat disorienting, so I don't think this would stand much of a chance at FPC. Thegreenj 01:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch on the pixels. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

B-36 tracked gear[edit]

Large, very clear and not grainy. Only techinal problem is that line on the right, which probably could be cropped out. Subject is unusual, as it is the only time tracks were ever used on an aircraft.

Nominated by: D.B.^{talk•contribs} 15:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like the image for what it is. It's funky, and it would catch my eye and get me to click on it on the main page. I wish the accompanying article told a bit more, but that doesn't matter for a FP. I think it's unique enough that it would be a good image for the main page. I don't usually go into details on technical quality on images, though, (except micrographs), but hopefully someone else will give you feedback in this area, and that will be a deciding factor on whether you go for FP. --Blechnic (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) PS For now, please just crop the line out and re-upload, there's no point in showing it with that portion in. --Blechnic (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I figure, that if it makes FP, it would be a good candidate for the April Fools Day POTD. I'll see about cropping the line out, but I'm going to place the edited version under the original, just see people can see both versions and maybe improve my attempt. --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 00:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does need work to clean it up, also. I like the picture, and I would like to see it used in an article and I think it would be fun on the front page, but it needs a lot of work to clean up the image. Can you do this? I don't see the point in keeping both versions, but that's your choice. --Blechnic (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The orginal image is currently being used in the articles Convair B-36, undercarriage, and continuous track. I'm going to keep both versions around as the last time I nominated a image, it needed editing and both were kept. What else needs to be done to the image? --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 02:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hopefully you'll get some good feedback from other editors. I like the image a lot, and I think my personal like won't help you in getting it ready for FPC, where people can be rather unpleasant about what is wrong with your image. --Blechnic (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too -- good encyc. value, albeit for a narrow topic. Do crop the right, please. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good timing. Support crop version. --Pete Tillman (talk)

17:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, that is a very strange-looking piece of machinery... as is the B-36, for that matter. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it caught my attention. I came across the B-36 randomly and made a spontaneous decision to see if this odd photo had a change at featured. Any chance this could be closed early, so that it can taken to FPC. --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I'm seconding this as a formality, but why don't you submit the cropped edit it yourself? Good luck with it!

Do you happen to know if any of these things survived? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any survived, but then again, I didn't know they even existed. --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 12:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ursa Major and other constellations[edit]

Sounding out the community on a slightly broader idea than this individual image. I've located high resolution files by the same artist for 29 constellations. The quality of the source files is quite good and the originals are well preserved, so these would make excellent starter projects for restoration. I've been looking to coach more people in this area and a collaborative restoration with the hope of a featured credit would be a good way to welcome newcomers to the area. My question is whether the community would accept these as candidates for featured picture: each illustrates a different constellation and the brightest stars often have their own articles. What's your opinion?

Nominated by: Durova^Charge! 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I suppose question No 1 is whether you sure these are astronomical book plates, and not astrological book plates? The short Sidney Hall article (oddly only just created) only makes some vague reference to astrology. My second issue would be the value per se of astronomical images from the early 1800s given how superseded any info they contain would be; the only value would be of historical curiosity surely, and I don't personally see that as being huge for these images. If they're astrological images then I see zero value. --jjron (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well most of the plates cover constellations that have nothing to do with astrology, and that stub was created with zero references two hours after this peer review opened by someone I had specifically asked to avoid me. I hope that doesn't disrupt this proposal, because several people have been talking to me about getting started in image restoration and this looks like an excellent way to bring more people into the area. Durova^Charge! 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Durova. --jjron (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moses[edit]

Mosaic of Moses on display at the Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis

Unique perspective and view of a central figure in world religion.

Nominated by: TheWB (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looks pretty good to me. It's technically quite good, and encyclopedic value is OK. I would prefer a slightly different crop not to cut the halo off. If you want to nominate it, I think it might stand a chance, but you need to get some more information on this particular mosaic first. I'm not sure what exactly the boundaries are between faithful copies and original works are, but since this seems like a largely faithful reproduction, you should find out the artist and the date of creation to ensure this isn't copyrighted. Thegreenj 17:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the above concerns re the halo - personally I'd say it's chances at FPC would be limited if that couldn't be rectified. I'd also worry a little about the crop at the bottom, it looks a little awkward with his beard cut-off, and assume that's not what the actual mosaic looks like. --jjron (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

TransAmerica Pyramid base[edit]

Composition, unique perspective of this building. I took this picture standing at the base of the TransAmerica Pyramid. I like the perspective of the photo and its contrast against the clear blue sky.

Nominated by: TheWB (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Great picture but, FPC must have encyclopedic value. This photo has much more aesthetic value so it would not pass. Try taking a clear picture when you can see the entire building from far away. That would be much more likely to get support in FPC. victorrocha (talk) 19:54, 231 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this a FP? Cuz that's what it says on the image page! fix if needed please. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FP on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. - TheWB (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Yorkshire Museum[edit]

I think this is a good illustration of the Museum and captures its Greek Revival architecture well.

Nominated by: Kaly99 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a photo with a lot of redeeming features and decent encyclopaedic value. Having said that I don't feel it would fare especially well at FPC. The very heavy shadows across the lawn spoil the look at the bottom of the picture, although you have caught it at a time when they're not especially spoiling the building itself (and admittedly the shadows make all that litter strewn about a bit less obvious :-)). It also gives the impression of being tilted, though I don't think it actually is - I suspect it might be that the photo has been taken to the right of centre of the building, so gives a slightly uncomfortable appearance for a 'front on' photo. There's a bit of a perspective problem too, with the sides of the building tilting inwards (something I doubt they do in real life and that may be fixable in Photoshop). There's also some quality issues - to be honest I doubt the sharpness or detail would be quite up to expectations at FPC, and there's definitely noise issues especially visible in the sky (BTW, any idea what that 'UFO' just above the wall at image-left is?). --jjron (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sharpness/detail/noise down to the camera setting? If so I'll investigate making adjustments for other photos I take.

Out of curiosity I had another look at the walls of the building as the Greek architecture this revival style is inspired by does play with perspective, for example, the columns are a different width at the bottom then the top so as to create a false perspective. I stared at the walls and they seem to lean in, I didn't really believe it so I looked at the other side and compared the wall to the line of the window and they do seem to taper. Unfortunately, the window surrounds (if they are straight) aren't completely straight compared to the edge of the photograph either.

The UFO isn't in the other photographs I took at this spot that day and some are only a few seconds after this one. There were a lot of birds around and sometimes hot air balloons do make trips over York (although they're usually red). --Kaly99 (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined a close up of the wall I took today and it looks like there are several architectural techniques involving forced perspective being used. I put the picture here in case your interested.

I'd say the perspective thing is something to do with the angle you're taking the photo on and perhaps the lens; sure there could be other issues as you suggest, and your image comparing the walls to the window-edge is very interesting, but given that the lampposts at either end of the veranda also lean inwards, as I think do the seats, I feel it would largely be to do with the photo. As you say, the columns themselves are a different story - I wasn't complaining about them.
Re the quality issues, I fear it is more to do with the camera than the settings. However do make sure you set it to take the biggest images it can take and try the highest image quality settings. Another useful suggestion is to take the photo somewhere in the mid-range of the zoom, i.e., try taking it where you are neither fully zoomed in nor fully zoomed out because most lenses suffer some problems at the extreme ends of their ranges. I don't actually know the camera in question, but you'd need a pretty good compact to get a good enough image of an object this size to pass at FPC; most of the architecture FPs are taken on DSLRs. A significant number are also stitched rather than single images, which is something you could try as that could help you to capture more detail and do some work to improve the sharpness and noise issues. --jjron (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice it's really useful especially knowing that some of the issues would only be resolved with a more expensive camera. The information about the angle to take pictures of buildings from and trying half zoom will hopefully improve the quality of the pictures I take for the encyclopaedia. --Kaly99 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Paris Panorama[edit]

A panoramic view of Paris, including the Sacre-Coeur, and the River Seine, from the 2nd floor of the Eiffel Tower.

This picture has vibrant colours, is of a large size (around 6000x2000) and has encyclopedic value.

Nominated by: Ebuz ⁶¹⁰ ? 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You have to wonder how it will hold up against the current FP of Paris. I would think not very well. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being straight forward I have to say that this will not pass, on grounds of composition, sharpness and specially noise. The sky has severe graining that cannot be edited out. victorrocha (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above already said, if you want to persue a daylight view of Paris from that location, a couple of adjustments and a reshoot could get an FP, IMO. Set your camera to the lowest ISO, or whatever the equivalent mode is, and extend your shots to the right a bit, so that the Sacre-Cœur is about 2/3 across the final image, and add an extra row of images below this one (matrix-style panorama). When you're stitching, either choose a rectilinear projection (so that the horizon is flat), or make sure the apex of the horizon is right in the middle. As is, it looks like Paris off the right side. Also, watch your seam-lines; the stitching is very visible here (duplicated windows, etc.). Thegreenj 01:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Chess King[edit]

A high quality render that illustrates both the high potential for the quality of renders from the program Cinema 4D and illustrates the playing piece well. It is on the Cinema 4D page and on the king (chess) page. benjamint 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: benjamint

Comments

Personally this is a very good render. Alone I believe it wouldn't pass FPC A whole chess board rendered would have much more encyclopedic value and aesthetic appeal. Simply put, The render is too simple. victorrocha (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Palais de l'Isle, Annecy[edit]

Good picture, good lighting. I would like to get an FP on this.Dingy (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Dingy (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's below the minimum resolution and not very sharp. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it's not below the minimum resolution (>1000px on at least one side), but it's true the quality's just not there. The sharpness is poor and there's lots of artifacting. This would not be fixable with this particular photo, but it's quite a good shot and I wonder if a re-shoot is possible? --jjron (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I would favor cropping out the people visible at far left. I don't mind some people in the background, but random people in the foreground like that give it a snapshot-type appearance. The gutter in the top left doesn't look great either. No real point in doing a crop now, since the image hasn't attracted support, but the composition is really good so it's just something to think about if you re-shoot. Fletcher (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I uploaded the wrong file, in this one the left part was removed, I had the same initial opinion. Please consider the second one.Dingy (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's even smaller than the original and doesn't solve any of the quality problems discussed above. Personally I find the composition more balanced on the original as well, though I do agree the people there are a little offputting. It'd be better if they just weren't there rather than cropping them out. --jjron (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Acorn group[edit]

High res., good pic., good lighting. I would like to get an FP on this. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Composition looks pretty good and it has some other good elements; I'd suggest a bit of a crop off the bottom as the branch currently is towards the top of the photo which looks a little odd. However this has very strange things happening in the background, even at image page size. There is a lot of noise, and there also looks to be significant artifacting which almost seems odd given the filesize. These issues would need to be fixed before nominating, but personally I suspect they are so significant it may be unfixable, or at least more trouble than it's worth given that it would be considered an easily reproducible shot. Given the likely shooting circumstances and the stated shutter speed I can only guess the ISO (not stated) went quite high and introduced all the noise; perhaps try some manual control at lower ISO and correspondingly lower shutter speed. A proper species ID is also required; 'acorn' is really not precise enough. --jjron (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at fullsize there doesn't appear to be significant artifacting - it was just that the noise was so bad. However the noise is bad right through the picture and I can't see how it could be fixed to any acceptable degree without totally killing all detail in the picture. Looking now at the full exif info I see you've shot it in 'Fast Shutter' mode which has set auto ISO, and has probably chosen the highest ISO on the camera which is beyond any acceptable level. Given I would assume this was taken in the shade, using this mode was really not a good choice. I can only suggest a reshoot taking care with camera settings. --jjron (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Manmohan Singh[edit]

'**Manmohan Singh'**, 17th Prime Minister of India.

Meets the criteria for featured pictures. Good contrast, colour balance, exposure. No distraction, no compression defects. Subject in sharp focus. Sufficient depth of field. Adds a lot to the article. More than 1000 pixels width. Please review.

Nominated by : User:Ahirwav

Comments

This seems pretty good. Some possible complaints would include that it looks perhaps slightly overexposed (I'm thinking of say the top of the turban, his right sleeve, and perhaps that bright stripe on the car behind him), the background is a bit unappealing, and to be honest it's not a particularly engaging photograph of the man with the way he's sort of looking to the side and down. Size is within guidelines, but is marginal. According to the image page, licensing from the original site is OK. While I wouldn't personally support or oppose, I'd say give it a try at FPC if you're inclined. --jjron (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite a head shot, not quite a portrait, and kind of a banal car window in the background. Fletcher (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Active duty American servicewomen and their weapons[edit]

Despite the joking title, this is a serious review request. Out of the 105 featured pictures at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Gallery, not a single one depicts an actual female on active duty (it's partly my fault; nearly 20 were my nominations). So let's do something about that. Due to copyright issues these are all American (would represent other countries if we get access to quality free license images). So here are three potential candidates; presenting them as a group. They're not exactly in competition with each other: please comment on any, all, or none.

U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant Tanya Breed demonstrates a Barrett .50 caliber rifle during a special operations training course at Hurlburt Field, Florida.
U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class Kelliea Guthrie and Senior Airman Greg Ellis guard a C-130 Hercules aircraft during cargo operations at Feyzabab Airfield, Afghanistan. (Image needs denoising and spot removal, which would be done before FPC).
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the Kentucky Army National Guard is the first female in United States military history to be cited for valor in close quarters combat, for action near Salman Pak, Iraq on March 20, 2005. Sgt. Hester's squad of 10 soldiers were guarding a supply convoy that got ambushed by a group of 50 Iraqi insurgents. Hester executed a flanking maneuver, assaulted the enemy with grenades, and personally shot and killed 3 enemy combatants with her rifle. Her unit killed 27 enemy, wounded 6, and captured 1. She received the Silver Star in recognition.

Nominated by: Durova^Charge! 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I really like the first two. I think the first in particular seems very likely to pass. Would it be possible to crop a little sky from the second without damaging the aspect ratio particularly? Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The longer I look at it, the more I also like the third, which has outstanding EV. I'd say it's worth a shot - what's there to lose? Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Opinion: The second one is very likely to pass with a bit of tweaking. The picture can do with a little color adjustment. It seems a bit too yellow. Also a slight downsize might help with the sharpness and noise. The first is a VERY good picture but I'm guessing it was taken after the gun was fired. All the smoke really detracts from the picture a shot when or before the gun was fired is probably favorable. If a picture could show a sniper and a target far away I think it might make for an interesting composition. If you need an edit just call. victorrocha (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means give an edit a try if you're interested. It sounds like you have a particular vision and I'm curious to see how it develops. Best, Durova^Charge! 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although please don't downsample. Downsampling never improves an image; at best it'll be the same, so it's really only appropriate when the original is an unmanageably large image that wouldn't lose any detail from doing so. This one looks pretty detailed at full-res, so I wouldn't. Thegreenj 03:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I've already tweaked the histogram. The suggestion about the color balance looks worth exploration and the cropping idea is intriguing. The changes I had in mind when I put this up for review were to blend in spots with the healing brush, then selectively denoise parts of the sky. What's curious is that nobody has commented on the third photograph, which is the most encyclopedic and has some pleasingly subtle compositional elements. Note the groupings of the male soldiers behind Sgt. Hester, whose faces form approximate diagonals from the upper corners that converge toward her face. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me No2 has the biggest impact image-wise, though I find its EV a bit marginal. No1 actually gets better the bigger you look at it, the thumbnail isn't much, and I'm not entirely sold on composition, but could be worth a try. No3 to me just looks like a snapshot. --jjron (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first picture best; the second is pretty good as well, although I do think that cropping out a little of the sky (as suggested above) would be a good idea. The third image is not bad, as well, although I do think the other two are better. Anthøny 15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of seeming a jerk, I don't think that any of these images is close to FP standard. The first is indistinct and looks like a snapshot, the second is OK but looks staged but the gender of the people in the photo is unclear. The third photo is my favourite and the one with by far the most encyclopedic value, but it lacks a 'wow' factor. Image:C-130 - First all female crew.jpg seems to have potential though and might be a good FP prospect. ~~and I'm biased in favour of Image:PTE Shaylee Gomes and her truck.jpg (which I uploaded and is a bit snap-shooty, but is a great photo of a woman who looks very comfortable in her job).~~ Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the third lacks a wow factor for the image itself as Nick Dowling points out, it's encyclopedia value is so high compared to the other two, that it's as if we're being asked to compare Hank Aaron's home run record and my five-year-old son's first at bat in t-ball. I would love to see an image of Leigh Ann Hester on the main page as a featured picture, even if it were this one. Is the title really necessary, "chicks with guns?" I am so lamely tired of the gender bias on Wikipedia, then being spit upon as being too sensitive when I complain about it. --Blechnic (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If any of these go to FPC (and one or more probably will), I assure you that nomination will have a serious title. No offense intended, and if this one seriously bothers you consider yourself welcome to move the page to a title you prefer. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 I already commented about on FPC and indeed I think it's the weakest. No. 2 is the most photographically interesting composition, although I agree with Nick, not so much that it looks staged, but more that the photographer tried to make it more dramatic by kneeling or standing on lower ground. As far as illustrating women in the military, unfortunately the C-130 and the stark, beautiful landscape of Afghanistan seem to overpower the image, making the soldiers look relatively anonymous to me. No 3. stands in interesting contrast to No. 2, because whereas No. 2 offers a dramatic composition, No 3. is fairly plain, just a soldier standing with other soldiers. But coupled with a good caption, No. 3 is extremely encyclopedic, showing the first woman to win the Silver Star in combat. Fletcher (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I uploaded no. 2 I wondered whether it would be a better FPC candidate on Commons where esthetic composition weighs more heavily than encyclopedic value. Some images have the former at the expense of the latter and this may be one. The androgyny is appealing in its way: on some level it doesn't matter whether a servicemember is female or male as long as the job is getting done. With the third image, I keep thinking of Doris Miller: a genuine war hero and a historic first. The only thing left to confirm is that the shot was taken on the day she received her medal. Durova^Charge! 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added nice image of female B-17 pilots in training to ferry bombers. Looks good and meets size requirements, but when viewed full size, you see lines forming a grid pattern throughout the image... I wonder if there is a photoshop filter that could clean it up? Fletcher (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What a pity that someone had to ruin the image like that. The grid pattern is a result of poor jpeg compression followed by heavy oversharpening. If nothing else, it should serve as a reminder always to save in a compressed format as the last stage of editing, and never to try to compensate for lack of detail with heavy unsharp masking. Thegreenj 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the kind of poor archival practice I deliberately avoid. If you can get a better source file, by all means send it my way. :) Durova^Charge! 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dang. It looks like that on the Air Force site, too, so it's not as though a Wikipedian messed it up. Fletcher (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did some quick googling, but I didn't turn up any higher quality versions. Thegreenj 03:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That happens a lot. Thanks very much for searching. :) Durova^Charge! 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Indiana State House Hallway[edit]

I believe that this photo could be considered for Featured Photo due to its illustration of a restored 19th-century interior that serves as the seat of government for the state of Indiana (all other photos in the article are of exteriors). The photo also has, I believe, a certain pleasing-to-the-eye quality with its warm atmosphere and rich colors.

Nominated by: HJB (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Interesting architectural setting, definitely a large enough file. I find it appealing although some commenters might object to the composition. Is the color balanced? That looks to me like yellow incandescent glow. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the composition is really confused here, not to mention barrel distortion. I think the way to go would be to take a panorama from the center of the hallway, ground floor and if there's some awesome ceiling feature then you could try a stereographic projection to solve your composition/distortion problems. MER-C 12:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

University of Saskatchewan lily[edit]

I think this is a worthy candidate for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates because of its significance to the University of Saskatchewan, and the city of Saskatoon where the campus is located. The flower is registered with the Royal Horticultural Society in London, and bears the colours of the institution: green, white and gold. It was purposely bred and propagated for the university's centennial year in 2007. The lily has been planted in flower beds around the campus and will become an heirloom flower for many people in the city of Saskatoon for years to come. I have placed this image in the main University of Saskatchewan article.

Nominated by: Drm310 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hmmm... are you sure it's really relevant to the article? I mean, does this actually help a reader learn more about the university itself? To me, it seems of secondary encyclopedic value—it's an interesting subject, but it doesn't really tell me more about the article it illustrates. Thegreenj 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Sandmartinseaham.JPG

Onion Whitebackground[edit]

A growing onion Allium cepa.
Alternate A growing onion on a white background. Notice the depression in the bulb, caused by emptiness resulting from the respiration of glucose stored which releases energy for the growth process.

Good quality and encyclopedic value.

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 08:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Have you tried putting a lamp behind the white background? Not only might you get some attractive rim light, but (assuming the light is bright enough) you'll get a pure white background, which is more attractive than the uneven gradients here. Of course, you could try to do that in Photoshop, too. Thegreenj 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't thought of that. But the onion is now gone :( Any way this could be fixed? Muhammad(talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Put the back light farther away and make it dimmer, if possible. What I'd do would be to prop the background up on a small table in the middle of a dark room, place the back light on the ground around 2m away with a sheet of paper taped over it, and use flash the expose the front. If you have time and lots of lamps, you could try a Three-point lighting setup. Thegreenj 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and don't forget to use manual exposure. Thegreenj 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Gants Hill station interior[edit]

Strong visual impression and good example of London Underground interior architecture

Nominated by: Sunil060902 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Interesting composition, but looks quite noisy. --Fletcher (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lighting is perhaps not ideal. Strong shadows in the centre of the picture - the people, and are they light posts, are very dark. As Fletcher says, also seems noisy and also appears pretty soft. I also get the feeling it's tilted (look at the tiles along the bottom edge). I do like the smaller versions though. --jjron (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not permitted to use flash on the Tube. Would the original have benefited from higher resolution? This was on "2M" (1600 x 1200). Might be tilted but only marginally (the ceiling spans seem in synch). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a question of image quality than size. I think the shot would benefit from a lower sensitivity, which entails a longer exposure. At that focal length you may be able to do so without needing a tripod, but you might want to find a location where there is more ambient light to obviate the flash, or you will get those shadows. Acknowledge it's a tricky shot. Fletcher (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically agree, but to get back to the question of size, all I can say is generally use the highest settings you have available. I'm not sure of the terminology used on Fuji cameras (i.e., 2M), but it sounds like what you've put up here is the 'fullsize' image, but you are able to shoot at considerably higher res. For sure shoot at a higher res; you can always crop and downsize later, but you can never add back in what you've lost by shooting at lower res. Also agree it sounds a tough shot - a longer exposure to get into the 'shadows' is likely to uncomfortably overexpose the lighting in the roof. I'm also guessing that you'd need a tripod to get a long enough exposure without blurring, but if flashes are banned, I'm willing to bet tripods are too. Hmmm... --jjron (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can feel my heart palpitating just thinking of it. If you don't get mugged you're going to get shot by some paranoid guard who thinks photographer = terrorist. ("Everybody down -- he's got a 'pod!!!") On a more optimistic note, isn't the rule of thumb one over the focal length for the maximum exposure time? And his focal length was only at 8.8mm. So I was thinking maybe he could get down even slower than 1/105. Or maybe not. That's a good point you make about overexposing the ceiling; I wonder if that is the kind of thing where you could use a graduated ND filter.... Hmmmm, indeed. Fletcher (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice but Tripods are banned without written permission! Also not sure how I can change the exposure time - I have a point and click camera. Anyway, I put a higher resolution version up, but it may be just as noisy as the original! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that one's even noisier than the first. Point and shoots can take great pictures, but may be challenged in situations like these. Modern P&S are cramming a ton of megapixels onto a small sensor which results in a noisier image. (Don't let anyone sell you a camera on megapixels alone). Also in low lighting with no flash, the camera needs to use a higher sensitivity (ISO) to get a good exposure, which results in even more noise. Fletcher (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off topic: Sorry, but that website has one of the most misleading illustrations I've ever seen. The second image isn't noisier that the first; to be comparable, they must be presented in equal sizes, i.e. the second must be downsampled to the resolution of the first. Ceteris paribus, cramming more pixels onto a sensor never increases noise (or more accurately S/N ratio), and in practice, the reverse actually happens. Manufacturers put more pixels into higher-end cameras, and generally, along with those pixels, newer technology, better processors, and higher quality optics. If you try to buy a 6 megapixel camera today, you're going to get a piece of crap because no manufacturer is willing to inverst higher-end components in a low megapixel camera. And since higher megapixel cameras generally have better components, they generally have lower noise when compared downsampled equal to lower MP cameras. Oh, and besides noise, higher res often brings more detail, so it's better to shoot higher MP and downsample later if you want a lower MP image. Thegreenj 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that adding pixels is no improvement, nor that new generations of cameras aren't more refined, but that adding pixels to a lower-end P&S without also improving its lens and sensor may harm image quality. This has been widely reported.[2] Indeed, to me the higher resolution image he provided looks worse. Still, I agree it's better to shoot initially in high res if you can. And just for the record, I have a year-old 6 MP camera, and while less than professional quality, no, I don't think it's a piece of crap. Any crappy images produced most likely have something to do with the operator. :-) Fletcher (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree with Fletcher. Somewhere along the line 'megapixels' became the selling point in the P&S sales wars, and manufacturers regularly just cram more onto the sensor without improving the optics, etc (in fact, often by scrimping on the other stuff that makes a good camera). At the high end of the market they may be doing the right thing, I have no argument with the Mark III Canon 1Ds at 21MP for example, but this is not the case at the lower end of the market, where the crammed little sensors are putting out awfully noisy pictures. Case in point - my almost 4yo Canon A95 at only 5MP still takes better pictures than any newer 'improved' high MP point-and-shoot that I've used. I'm not saying it's better than anything currently available, but I get consistently better results than on various more recent and supposedly improved equipment that I've used. Another issue of course is that the higher end P&Ss are now getting pushed out of the market by the decent psuedo-SLRs, the continually dropping SLR prices. They have to keep those P&Ss cheap, and often do so by cutting corners, but generally don't want to let the MP count drop because that's what so many people shop on. --jjron (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat on topic: Is there another one of those benches that you could use to steady your camera? If there is, set the camera on ISO 100 or Lo-ISO (if possible), set it on timer, and see how it turns out. Re:Fletcher, rule of thumb shutter speed is 1/(35mm equ. focal length), which is about 1/50 here. Thegreenj 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<==Good point; forgot about that. Fletcher (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, calling the D40 out is cheating :). Really, though, I get what you and jjron are saying, but I think it's blown out of proportion by both sides, manufacturers and Ralph Naders of photography. Basically, if you have 4x the pixels on a sensor, all other things equal, each pixel will have to be amplified 4x and will have 4x the noise, but when downsampled 4x (to a comparable resolution to the original) it will have roughly the same amount of noise. Of course, this doesn't work perfectly (it doesn't take into account the size of the "grain", for example), and jjron makes a point about cutting corners. Thegreenj 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I follow the logic of this technique. When you downsample the image you may lose the noise but don't you also lose detail? I don't see the point of buying all those shiny new megapixels if you can't use them. Fletcher (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, don't downsample, but don't say that fewer megapixels is better, because in the end, it's more complicated than that. A higher MP image with more noise at 100% than a lower MP image doesn't necessarily make it worse. Thegreenj 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Meadow Pippit April 2008[edit]

Scaled, noise reduced, sharpened version

I think this captures a pretty elusive bird quite well

Nominated by: Seahamlass 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This picture is amazingly well done. When I looked at it full size I have to say I was very disappointed to see that it was shot at iso 800. By any chance would you have any shot with a lower ISO setting? --victorrocha (talk) 1:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten a featured picture before at ISO 800, it just takes some work in post processing to get rid of the noise etc. I'd scale this down to 1000px high, apply a bit of noise reduction and then perhaps some sharpening, after that you'd have a good chance. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I created an edited version. The only thing that might get you now is the blown background. I wouldn't worry about it too much though as the subject itself is fine and the background isn't distracting. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bracteate from Funen, Denmark (DR BR42).jpg[edit]

This bracteate represents a number of concepts unfamiliar with many but rich in information and I believe it meets all of the quality requirements.

Nominated by: :bloodofox: (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Solid encyclopedic value and good technical quality (aside from the fact that it is rather underexposed). Brighten it up a little, and it would be an excellent contender for Commons QIs. However, I'm not sure that this stands out as one of the best image shots on WP (criterion 3). It's a valuable contribution (and a very interesting artifact), but it would likely struggle FPC. If you want, give it a try at QI. Thegreenj 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time you've taken and I thank for your advice, I will consider it. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too dark. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it too dark? That looks about the right colour for bronze of that age. Lightening it too much could make it unrealistic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at FPC by Shoemaker's Holiday. --jjron (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camel Portrait[edit]

Well focused, well framed, encylcopedic. I would like more opinions before I nominate however.

Nominated by: smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

After having a look over I would say this image is unlikely to pass. The lighting across the face is uneven to a high degree and the camel is almost entirely cut off. I know this is a picture showing the coat of the camel but the coat is not limited only to the head which makes it lose some value. victorrocha (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Barnardius zonarius semitorquatus[edit]

detailed image of the bird showing visual characteristics of the subspecies as described in the article Australian Ringneck. The difference between these two subspecies is that B. z. zonarius has a yellow abdomen while B. z. semitorquatus has a green abdomen; the latter has also a prominent crimson frontal band that the former lacks.

Nominated by: Gnan garra 10:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not sure why this has attracted no comments. I rather like it, the crop is far better FWIW. Some possible concerns at FPC. Expect some knee jerk opposes due to the subject being 'cutoff' (refer to my recent swamp wallaby nomination to see what I mean). The rail(?) it's sitting on is probably not ideal, but on the other hand it's not especially distracting. Appears to be pretty harsh lighting on the beak, what I assume is some pretty strong flash reflection, which is somewhat apparent elsewhere. Seems to be OK though and could be worth considering trying out. --jjron (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my limited experience you'd probably not go too well with the direct flash lighting or the "cut off" composition. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Lusitania docked in 1907[edit]

Panoramic image of the Lusitania docked in 1907

I was struck by this public domain image when reading RMS Lusitania and wanted to post it here for comments before nominating it as a featured picture.

Nominated by: Tempshill (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is definitely a good quality picture however, the size is definitely too small. For panoramas it is recommended that the size be at least 1000px in the smallest dimention. Pictures like this can usually be found at large sizes if you do plenty of research. victorrocha (talk) 21:21, 2 july 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've eyed that same shot several times because of the ship's historic importance. Always ends in the same conclusion, unfortunately. If it were a bigger file it would be perfect. Durova^Charge! 09:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Avro Vulcan[edit]

I am a picture noob myself, but I think this is a pretty good picture, so I would like some other opinions. Thanks.

Nominated by: Sunderland06 (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not sure it needed that much crop; I kinda prefer the original, with the radar tower not being cut off. Maybe some of the foreground grass could be cropped. You should also add the image to Avro Vulcan in which I think it would have more EV. Consider replacing this one which is of a similar angle, but lower quality than your image. Fletcher (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've cropped the original image to keep the full mast in and reduced the foreground. Also I have added the image to the Avro Vulcan page. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. One other thing I notice is that nearly all of our aviation featured pics are action shots, where the aircraft is actually flying. Possibly people at FPC will be less enthusiastic about a parked aircraft. Though we have numerous shots of "parked" birds, so that doesn't seem fair. I'd see if anyone else wants to comment and then give it a go. Fletcher (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point about it being parked. The problem I see is that not only is it parked, but it's parked in an fairly unattractive location, with that fence largely filling the bg. To go with the comparison to the parked birds, if you look at the bird FPs they may be mostly parked, but they tend to be quickly opposed if the background isn't appealing and typically 'natural' looking. I'd say that would be the real issue here. But just an opinion. --jjron (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Columbia Heights Metro Station[edit]

I think this is an amazing photograph showing the amazing design of the Metrorail's Metro Stations. The escalator and lighting makes this even neater in my opinion. I think this would be a great featured picture.

Nominated by
Comments

I really like this, but it just barely squeaks by the minimum image size requirement. It's possible people at FPC would still object. But I like it. Fletcher (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has a interesting perspective, and it makes good use of black and white, but generally B/W photos don't fare well at FPC because of decreased encyclopedic value. It makes good use of the technique in photographic terms, but it hurts its value to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Thegreenj 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found the original on Flickr and replaced it. Sharpness isn't perfect, though. Thegreenj 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I saw the original on Flickr also... I thought the electronic board took away from the architecture, which I think is amazing. I'll see if I can't find one sharper/larger/has light in bright areas for dodge and burn.
Thanks for the feedback

Seconder

Herengracht, Amsterdam[edit]

I just would like some critique.

Nominated by: Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like the composition and the picture in general, but fixing the tilt and exposure would vastly improve the photo. The picture is tilted: if you're using a tripod, make sure that the legs are extended equally and that you're on level ground (if you're not, compensate with the legs). Also, the in-camera exposure program is designed for daylight, and it'll overexpose in situations like this. I'd keep the shutter speed and close the aperture to f/5.6. This will lower the exposure by 1 f-stop and probably make the picture a little sharper. Thegreenj 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment. I didn't use a tripod because the one I always used broke down. I ordered a new one yesterday, so I will make a better picture of that same place somewhere in the course of next week. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just curious: how did you manage to steady the camera for a three second exposure without a tripod? Thegreenj 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth asking yourself, is this picture of the Herengracht, or of lights? This question will most likely be asked at FPC. It might be better to go for something that better illustrates the subject. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Crocheted hyperbolic planes[edit]

It's very different, and such a neat intersect between math and art.

Nominated by: Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's got a very interesting subject, but technical quality and the composition aren't quite FP level, IMO. The picture isn't very sharp; it suffers from some motion blur (1/10 s. exposure is tricky), plus some noise reduction artifacts and general sharpness problems. The noise level is borderline given the resolution, and the composition (cut off railing and crochet kelp leave it unbalanced) isn't quite up to par either. Thegreenj 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Salt Lake City, 1909[edit]

I've been going through the Harry Schipler photos at the Utah History Research Center, and there's some amazing stuff, but nothing as mind-boggling as this. Those hats! That house! Not how I picture staid, turn-of the century Mormons. The car is a 1909 Thomas Flyer, btw.

Nominated by: Pete Tillman (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Too small. The cut-off for FPC is at least 1000px on at least one side (and this is a minimum). For a scene like this the standard is generally higher. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly agree: Excellent image, but the scan is just too low of resolution. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, darn. [Looks at list] Yeah, most of the scans at this archive are pretty lo-res, dammit. Pity, since they're mostly 4x5 or 8x10 glass-plate negs.... Good photographer, too. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - how do you know they're Mormons? --jjron (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very belated reply: I don't, really, but there weren't many non-LDS folk in SLC back then. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Railroad workers, circa 1880[edit]

I'm partial to photos of "working stiffs", and this is a nice one, especially if it were to be cleaned up. The original is a 4x5 glass plate negative, taken between 1878 and 1882 by photographer William Edward Hook, probably at the Salt Lake City railyards. The soft focus may be a problem. Used in Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad, and could be placed elsewhere if well-received.

Nominated by: Pete Tillman (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A bit blurry, even by 1880 standards. Will be especially difficult to pass as FP with blotch in lower left corner. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to focus issue, there is deterioration or dust on the image; but even if that can be cleaned up, the aforementioned blotch in the lower left can't be cropped without cutting off the lettering in the top left. Fletcher (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could the adjacent gravel & track be cloned to cover the blotch? Pete Tillman (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cropped version, cleaned up a bit. The line was later known as the LA&SL Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad. Comments? Pete Tillman (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:SPLASLworkers4.jpeg

Cropped, sharpened, noise reduced 7/7/08

Too blurry. I've seen 1865 posed pictures criticised for quality, despite being measurably better than this. Not an example of "best work", even for the time. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we certain this picture was taken before 1900? The Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad page places this photo in the early 1900s (at least that's when it was supposedly published). Secondly, this railroad route was not given the "LA&SL" title until 1901, so how could this name be in the photo circa 1880? Finally, I am very optimistic that this was taken in Caliente, NV or Kelso, CA and the man on the far right is Thomas Flynn, my great, great grandfather . His physical appearance matches perfectly with a photo I possess that was taken in 1896 (I am going to try to get this image scanned and uploaded). He was also appointed yard foreman (note the more formal apparel) at Caliente in early 1904 for the San Pedro LA&SL Route [3] (paragraph 6).

Seconder

Fruit of the Gray Mangrove (Avicennia marina var resinifera)[edit]

Good detail on the fruit, good quality and, to my eyes, illustrates it well.

Nominated by: Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I agree with all your comments above, and its value is excellent. However, I'm not completely convinced on lighting and composition, which could be the determining factor in whether or not this is Wikipedia's best. The lighting is very flat, which makes it hard to discern detail of the top part of the subject. Somewhat harder side- or even back-light may bring out more texture—experiment with different times of day and skies (light clouds? clear sky?). As for the composition, the cut off leaves distract and I find the fruit behind the subject distracting. When I have two of a subjects like this, I try to balance them in the composition, e.g. here or here (neither of which is FP quality, though). I'm not sure what the limitations of macro focusing on your camera are, but getting a slightly lower angle and moving to the left while taking a few steps back and zooming in could make an improvement. Try some different lightings and compositions; I think if you get it right, it could have potential. Thegreenj 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Lighting is a particular issue with the mangroves here as, when they are in fruit and the are accessable, the light is usually harsh (and I'm an opportunistic photo taker). As for the composition I deliberately chose this one to avoid a lone fruit with well diffused background—so losing a sense of the plant. I was looking for a shot that showed the subject and gave a sense of the density of mangrove growth. Mainly I like it as the fruit looks so much more appealing than the usual shot of the same species- Peripitus (Talk) 03:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Dik-dik[edit]

Good quality and EV.

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Taken the camera... I would say this was shot with a 75-300mm canon telephoto? I have one and it's horrible past 200mm. I personally enjoy #1 but none of the pictures would be likely to get past FPC. The sharpness that's required is just not there. victorrocha (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also may be that it was probably shot wide open (F 5.6) which hurts sharpness with most lenses. Also at 300mm (max zoom I presume) at 1/80th of a second even VR lenses can be hard to get crisp shots. I think there is some motion blur due to camera shake - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Apollo 13[edit]

A photograph of the command module of NASA mission Apollo 13 being successfully recovered from the South Pacific Ocean. The mission was slated to land on the Moon, but an explosion en route from Earth put the lives of the crew in jeopardy. This is a crisp, high-resolution, impressively clear photograph documenting a unique historic event. I'm surprised by its high quality given that it was taken in 1970.

Nominated by: Dylan (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm sure it wouldn't pass FPC with that stripe at the bottom. Fletcher (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version added; what do you think? Dylan (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly better, so it's just a question of whether it's too grainy, and whether the composition is good enough. At this point the astronauts have already been evacuated, right, so at this phase of the mission it is just a routine recovery of the spacecraft. People may be less excited about that. But still it's a historical mission -- seems like a "maybe." Fletcher (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I'll agree with Fletcher; this could easily go either way. I'd nominate it and see how FPC voters take to it. Thegreenj 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've nominated it at: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Apollo 13 load on deck. Dylan (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]