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.
Painted Arachnis (Arachnis picta) found near Crestone, Colorad
It seems to me an image of a high quality. My only concern is the out of focus forelegs in the foreground and background. Is it worth putting it for nomination in spite of this obvious flaw?
On encyclopedic terms this picture is quite good to show the subjects and has substantial detail that's welcome in a macro. I do guarantee you that people will oppose the background for being white but to what degree I cannot say... I would probably try this at PFC to see if people enjoy it enough. About the leg being out of focus that's probably fine it's a minuscule part of the photograph compared to the part that is in focus. victorrocha (talk) 21:24, 2 july 2008 (UTC)
It's an aesthetically interesting image, with the lines of the crosswalks framing the scene, and the angle of the two cars seeming to mirror that of the crosswalks above. I also like the way the apparent calmness of the scene juxtaposes against the violent moment that must have preceded. Yet despite what's interesting about it, it really just depicts the boring aftermath of a routine accident; thus it has some, but not a lot, of encyclopedic value. On the technical side, there's a white blur on the bottom right, and the man's face seems to have some noise or compression artifacts (unless that's his complexion?). Not quite sure what I'm seeing. And not sure what others will think. Fletcher (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the crossing markings would also (rightly, in my opinion) be criticised as distracting from, rather than adding to the car accident. It is a striking image, but not FP quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without judging the picture for FPC readyness or encyclopedic value at all, I must say that the crosswalks are what make the picture an interesting photograph. They frame, draw the viewer to the subject, and act as an interesting contrast with the angles of the cars juxtaposed on them. Cropping it really would destroy the composition. The white blur shouldn't be hard to fix; I'll upload an edit when I get the chance. Thegreenj03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also enjoy this one more. The alternative has a large left side to add to the encyclopedic value of the image by providing a view of the leaves of the plant.victorrocha (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An agapanthus flower bulb after most of the flowers have bloomed.An alternate picture to the first.
I need opinions to see if I can improve this picture technically and if it is FP worthy. The review above is before the flowers bloomed. Which of the two is better?
Animation of a "glider" (a pattern in Conway's Game of Life). The "game" consists of creating an initial configuration by filling certain cells on an infinite grid of square cells, then observing how the configuration evolves under the game's rules. The "glider" is an example of a "spaceship": a configuration that translates iself across the grid.
One depiction of the glider has been proposed as a hacker emblem.
Simple but explanatory. This may be one of the best-known Game of Life patterns.
Geez Spike, 84x84 pixels? I mean you could argue that it 'serves its purpose', but honestly, at that size? Maybe at say 250x250 you could consider selling people on, but at this size I reckon you'd be taking a real long shot. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know animations can get through at 'under' the standard size requirements, but if you look at those you've linked to they all come around that size I suggested above. What concerns me is that this so tiny - even at fullsize it literally looks like a thumbnail. I was actually wondering why you'd made the thumb so small for the nom, far smaller than standard thumbnail use in articles, and then saw that that's actually its fullsize. What I thought when I first saw it was that I'd prefer to see more 'board', so that instead of the animation panning with the glider, you'd actually see the glider moving across the stationary board; I believe that's a more conventional way to illustrate these. That would be easy to accomplish with added resolution. --jjron (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hanauma Bay, O'ahu, in early June.Edit 1. Hanauma Bay, O'ahu, in early June.Edit 2. Hanauma Bay, O'ahu, in early June.
While I'm submitting photos for peer review, I thought I'd also see what people thought of this one. Its a six-photo stitch of Hanauma Bay in Hawai'i done in Hugin, and cleaned up in Windows Live Photo Gallery. In particular, I think the coral and water came out spectacularly.
It certainly has some nice elements, but even just looking at the thumbnail, it's got a nasty tilt to it - look at the horizon. This could be an artefact of the stitching, because the actual beach area looks OK, but I'd suggest fixing the tilt up if possible before trying to take this any further. --jjron (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jjron's got it right, but if you clean that up, you'll be in the clear. The only thing that worries me are the tiny people on the beach, which just bother me a little; don't know why though. Everything else is very good-looking. Elephantissimo (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just rotated the source file, and made sure the ocean horizon was lined up to a test horizontal line -- but now I'm not sure if I'm bothered by the branches in the upper-left, and I'm generally pretty lousy at airbrushing those things out. Is it OK with that, or does anyone want to take a crack at removing the branches? Tigerhawkvok (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good picture of a notable place (Arlington National Cemetary) and the yearly decoration of the gravestones on memorial day (but I am a little bias being the photographer). Plus, I just wanted to get some feedback on what makes a FP.
Welcome to the Picture peer review! Let me start by saying that I fell a little stuck on this picture. I feel that the composition is kind of odd. The only part really in focus is the front-most grave. As you get further back, they are progressively more blurred. This normally wouldn't be a problem, but a large part of the picture consists of them. The subject matter is definitely compelling though. Keep going with what you're doing because this is a good picture.
Thanks for the comment. I actually did the narrow depth of field on purpose because I thought the composition was more impressive that way, but I can see how others may not care for it. Any other comments or reasons why this couldn't be a FP? Remember (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This type of picture is emotionally compelling, so there is much potential, but I too have comments on the composition. If I could rearrange things at whim: the frontmost grave would not be obsured so much by a flag, making the inscription more legible (but maybe you don't want to do that -- I'm not sure); the lighting would be softer and not have the odd transition from shady to sunny; the tree in the background wouldn't be there; I'd crop out the flag and greenery on the right border that's cut off. I'm not sure of the best answer re depth of field; I think I like what you did. Fletcher (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Part of me likes the idea that the front of the grave is obscured (so it is anonymous) but part of me thinks it might be better with a clear namename (I keep debating about this). It was largely irrelevant since I couldn't move the flag anyway. I agree that the shady to sunny issue is not what I would have wanted, but you work with what you have. Feel free to edit the photo if you think you can make a better version. I have other different compositions that I may post when I have time. Remember (talk)
Would tend to agree with Fletcher. I don't think the DOF is an issue, you've handled that well. It just seems that this was probably not captured at the best time of day due to the harsh contrast between shadows and sunny areas. Composition could probably be a little stronger, I'd second most of Fletcher's concerns and possibly add a couple more (even that twig/leaves I think it is in front of the "Agnes" headstone would probably raise some grumbles, with the suggestion that it should have been moved before the photo was taken). Sorry, I don't mean to be overly critical, but people at FPC are pretty fussy. --jjron (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Staging the photograph would have been somewhat disrespectful given the fact that you aren't suppose to walk on the graves so there are a number of issues that I just had to work with. Remember (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to shoot graveyards in dusk or dawn light, with your camera on a tripod, and a long exposure. You can try for the shallow depth of field effect, also, but I think even the front grave is not quite in focus. You might try shooting them straight on, also. In my area, the Scouts and Legion put the flags up the night before, so shooting right at dawn is possible, if you want the flags. I shoot military graveyards from the roads. I shoot at dawn and dusk, so I can shoot differently lit graves, and I shoot from level with the tombstones on the road, to slight above and below, depending upon the lay of the land. I think this image could have enough encyclopedic value that it would be worth reshooting. I prefer a landscape format. I think the color is excellent in spite of the bright sunlight. --Blechnic (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Should I even try and run this by FP for more comments and possible promotion or would that be a burden on FP review. Remember (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the focus issue puts it out of range as a FP. In addition, this is the page for getting feedback, FPC is for pictures that you think meet all of the FP criteria already. --Blechnic (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it being a 'burden' on the FP process, but I would be 99% sure of the result. In effect, if you would like more feedback on the picture then you could look at the FPC process to provide that, but honestly don't go in expecting a promotion. And the feedback is likely to be less informative and more brutal than that given here, so I'm not sure what you'd be gaining. However, if you actually feel it has a chance, even if only slim, then I always say don't die wondering :-). --jjron (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find the transition from shade to sun to be distracting, which is basically the same problem that I had with this former FPC candidate. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:F35test.jpgA prototype of the F-35 Lightning II in flight during testing. When this photo was taken the program was still in the testing phase. Since then the program has progressed to the pre-production stage of development.
The image appears to be of a very high technical quality: zooming reveals no noise or editing artefacts or colour issues. The resolution is very high and the composition seems good to me with only a very small part of the wing of another aircraft at the very bottom of the image. The license is public domain (as a work of the US military or Department of Defense). In my opinion the image adds significant value to the article by giving a very detailed image which clearly shows the main features of the aircraft rather than specific parts (which are present but give little idea as to the overall scale of the aircraft) The image is presumably accurate since it is a work by one of the defence agencies building/designing the aircraft and there has been no unnecessary image manipulation (if any at all). The caption I made up could probably be improved though.
It is a very large and very sharp image and it is interesting as well. I added the link to the gallery it resides in on the military site to the image information because I had a difficult time finding where some other military images come from. This thing seems to have nothing to do with requirements for a Featured Picture though. To improve the image, consider a crop at the top and bottom. A little bit of the aircraft which I assume the photographer was riding in is at the bottom of the image and there is this law of thirds for pictures of all sorts that seems to be a good one, that the image should have three mostly equal areas -- so a little off the top and the bottom would probably help. After the crop, it just might make it through the FP review. It lands vertical eh? That would be very interesting to see. -- carol (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the frame that seems to work. I have no idea what they like in FP but this image now has none of the things they don't like. -- carol (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rhipidura leucophrys or Willie Wagtail is a bird of approximately 20cm in length its an extremely active bird to have captured a still photograph of it flight is quite remarkable, and that alone is worthy of FP consideration but the question is whether the photos technical characteristics are sufficient to for a nomination. For a quick reference to understand the birds size this image has one near a tea pot.
Great capture, but poor technical quality. The poor thing is riddled with jpeg, noise reduction, and oversharpening artifacts. I doubt it would pass because of those, but it's great at thumbnail size for use in articles. Thegreenj20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a high resolution image taken under a dissecting microscope. I have several images of different areas of the eye spot under different magnification but this one is probably the best. The iridescent color of the scales is visible.
I have no idea what makes an image good enough for the approval here and other places (so take this with a grain of salt -- and it would be interesting to know how that looks at this scale even), but as a reviewer, I would have liked it more if the image page offered more of a description. Suggestions for that might include downloading a photograph of the whole moth and circling the area that this image is supposed to be of. The "Other versions" attribute in the information template is a nice place to add such things. Since the reported scale of this image is so extremely different from what regular unaided eyes can see, that might need to be considered when circling the area in another image. To me, with a simple 90 degree rotation this looks like the big brushes in an automated car wash. -- carol (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a stereomicrograph image this picture is simply too out of focus, there isn't any area that is sharply in focus across the field of view. In addition it's too low dpi. However, the image would be a stunning and excellent image to the article on micrographs if you have time to orient the wing properly so that you have a level field in view, with the very tips of the scales in focus. This would superbly illustrate the limitations of a stereo microscope while simultaneously offering an excellent micrograph that shows the limitations don't interfere either with its importance as a tool or with the aesthetics of an image taken with one. I think this could be a simply stunning picture, if you worked it a bit, and it would be worth the effort. Wikipedia has some really bad micrographs, and it would be nice to have a really excellent one. This is the strongest potential I've seen so far. Also, it's a micrograph, you should include a calibrated magnification with it. --Blechnic (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As awesome as it is such a large image of such a small thing, at full size it is extremely noisy and not sharp. Will you attempt this kind of photograph again? It could be one of those really great images.... -- carol (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really seconding this nomination, or did you just put this comment in the wrong place? Sorry, but the comment doesn't really sound like a secondment. --jjron (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than likely I don't understand what "Seconder" means here. One problem with my understanding is that it would take more than a few people looking at the images here and reviewing them consistently for it to make sense without a huge review of the process. Should it be stricken from the nomination? -- carol (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Seconder" as in parlimentary procedure: you second putting this up for Featured Picture Candidate. That's what this section is for, otherwise just post in comments. --Blechnic (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my confusion -- I was tempted to move things away from here. In the days that past since I first looked at this image, I have found myself wondering if it has been upscaled. Upscaled scales, even. -- carol (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd generally advise not apologizing for confusion, it will require all of your time, and those funky trees will be abandoned to their slopes in Africa. --Blechnic (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the quality isn't FP quality. The composition is pretty good, but because of how it looks at full zoom and even about half-zoom, I don't think this will make it. The picture is just very noisy. Elephantissimo (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice shot, but one of the big things working against this would be that the bird is behind a number of branches of the tree. Sure they're only small and you can still see the bird quite clearly, but it is that sort of thing that makes the difference between a good picture and a Featured Picture :-). It also looks to me that the focus is towards the bottom of the tail feathers, or perhaps on one of those small branches, leaving the face slightly outside the optimum focal plane; ideally it would be the other way around (though I've only viewed at image page size so could be wrong on this). --jjron (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm a little fond of this picture. While I'm not 100% certain of this picture as a FP, I'd like to get other opinions of it as well before making a decision. It should probably be noted that a second image, Hurricane Cindy (1999) GOES.JPG, is cropped from the same image that Dennis is, but the whole version of the picture has not been uploaded. Comments, as always, are requested and much appreciated.
Hurricane pics aren't exactly flavour of the month at FPC after what I'd best describe as a hurricane image 'spamming' of the page a few months back. Size would certainly be an issue - it does meet requirements, but for an image like this, more would be expected. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder
A nice, clear image, but I wish it wasn't cropped so close. If I didn't read the caption, I'd have no idea where, or even in which basin the hurricane's in. It would also be nice if it was larger both directions. A goog image, no doubt, but I'm not sure it would pass FPC. Cheers, JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing size being the main point of contention, I've uploaded a larger area shot of the hurricane. Now you can make out Florida and Cuba, and you have an idea as to what basin it's in. By the way, for anyone wondering, the reason this one is a PNG while the other is JPG is because I had a fickle time getting an image upload on Commons as a JPG. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A team of obstetricians perform a caesarean section in a modern hospital. The image shows the very first moment the mother glimpses her new-born child.Edit1
I think this is an incredible pic for a few reasons. First, its the first moment of life, how cool is that? Second, I like how the lighting is just on the baby, really gives a focal point to the picture. I think there is room for some contrast edit work to it though, before it receives nomination.
The picture is very good in respects to composition with the baby clearly being the subject of the picture. I tried cleaning the noise on the image but a few layers of noise reduction have to be applied. I created an edit that is downsized if you would like to take a look at it. The largest problem with this picture is that during the exposure there was some camera shake which is impossible for me to correct. Sorry to say but this would be very hard to get through FPC. --victorrocha (talk) 3:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
With the edit I did a few layers of noise reduction to take care of the noise resulting from the ISO at 500. I downsized it to get the picture sharp. I tried changing the white balance of the picture but I decided to keep that at the original level. Lastly I would like to say that I was playing around with the brightness of the picture but that would be up to you to do (I did not see a huge difference in the composition of the picture changing brightness, but there was some). --victorrocha (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder
Support Victorroacha's edit. With the noise reduction it has lost some sharpness, most notable when viewed at full resolution. But still, to my mind the Wow-factor of this image compensates for the imperfect image quality. The FP as I'm writing this is just a boring picture of an anorexic supermodel on a catwalk. M'eh. This pic is far more beautiful and inspiring, and not nearly so easy to replicate. ("Um, excuse me, doctor? Could you put her back in the womb for just a moment? I need to lower my ISO.") Fletcher (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha to your ISO comment. I guess thats the nature of photography however. I like the edit as well. I was experimenting with the various levels of brightness, but I was never satisfied with any of the changes. I will nominate victorrocha's edit. smooth0707 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crotalus cerastes at Mesquite Springs, CA (Mojave Desert)Edit 1
I think the picture is sharp, large, and clear enough to warrant being called an exceptional picture of the animal, along the lines of other animal FP's. However, I'd like opinions on how to improve the image, or, if it is suitable for an FP nomination at all, as I am biased by my own work!
I'm not sure how it will go over with others, but I say this is a cool picture and it's worth a shot. The only thing that worries me is the amount of focus at full-size and the fact that the lighting blows potions of the snake's head. Wait for what other people say, but if nothing comes of it, go for it. Elephantissimo (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely to attract a lot of opposes. The lighting at the midday time of the shot is far too bright so the snake is overexposed and the shadows are harsh. See this one of the same snake for better lighting. The Depth of field is also too shallow - not all of the snake is clear and in-focus. I have the same camera and these issues result from leaving the wheel set to Auto. For this shot (though the lighting is too harsh and a few hours earlier would be better), I'd set to aperture priority - F 6.8, -2 stops exposure compensation and change the shot angle to get rid of the shadow in the top right if possible. I like the pose, shot angle and framing though - Peripitus(Talk)11:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I actually prefer the harsher contrast, I think it makes the snake much clearer than in the other photo, making the features much easier to identify (from a herpetological perspective). Well, one for one against here ... I'll see what a few other opinions are either way. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a brief opinion, since requested, I'd tend to side with Peripitus. The harsh lighting has led to some fairly blown out areas of the snake, that shadow in the top corner is a bit unfortunate, DOF does seem a bit shallow, and I'm not really a fan of that background, it looks like a road or path, but it takes away from the 'natural' look that most animal FPs have. On the plus side I do like the composition/pose of the snake, so kudos for that. Could I also suggest that you add more detail to your image page descriptions though, e.g., where it was taken, common name as well as species name, etc, and also put the date in a more 'accepted' format. --jjron (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit includes darkening, selective darkening of blown out areas and lightening of the background. The was a layer of light sharpening applied followed by a slight downsize to sharpen the picture. The WB was also adjusted very slighty. --victorrocha (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is of good quality, the object as at the centre. It is in the public domain. It is an intriguing picture with a caption that provides interesting information (has a "wow I didn't know that") quality. There are not major obstructions to the subject, it's all in good focus aside from the snow background. One thought may be to lighten it slightly, I noticed it looks better slightly lighter in the lower resolution. It's full resolution is over 1,000 in both directions. New to the FPC thing but wanted to give it a crack. SGGHspeak!15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The focus on the front is pretty good, but the tail seems to be out of focus. What you should try to do is darken the background a little, because for me, it's a little distracting. Elephantissimo (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give this one a go at FPC without any adjustments; dark snow is just, well, strange. But change the caption—it should describe the picture rather than be trivia about the subject. It's much better as on the image describtion page because the trivia is tied into the photo itself. Thegreenj02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for people to see the wonder and amasment in these cool creatures that are never the star to a show or a main character in some kids show but are used for some cruel game shows........
people who think spiny leaf insects are dumb are dumbst
Comments
Tells a story, this picture, and tells it nice. Better than many that captures the subject sitting pretty, merely capturing its likeness. Aditya(talk • contribs)03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet the technical standard, high resolution, free license, accurate, adds value to an article (urban exploration) and clearly illustrates the subject. There is a little color fringing (visible at 100%) on the top left hand side, I am wondering if the image should be resized such to eliminate this (but maintain resolution requirements), or if the extra detail in the rest of the frame would be more important. There many also be some image manipulation possible to reduce the distortion. Any other input would be good too
I really like this. In my mind it would have a good chance at FPC, but you can't predict what will appeal to voters (some may for example say that this is an easily reproducible shot and complain about minor technical details like the slightly blown highlights at the top or the shadows at top right and off to the left). I can't comment on all the technical details because the 5MB filesize discourages me from looking at it fullsize, but at image page size I can't spot many other obvious flaws.
OK, what do I like about it? I think it's a very good capture for this topic showing the explorer in slightly 'scary' garb suitable to his cause about to disappear into the tunnel (now some voters may complain that he doesn't look animated enough). He is framed by the copious yet interesting graffiti and the running water at his feet, even including some detritus on the tunnel floor. Re the shadows and lighting I mentioned above, as I said some voters may complain, but I find the lighting very atmospheric for the photo, with the daylight pushing in from the top and the picture disappearing off into inky blackness in other places, showing what the explorer is heading into. OK, so to me, very good work and worth a try at FPC.
Some suggested improvements first though. I think it could do with more detail in the description on the image page (e.g., where 'under' Hobart is this...). I think it could it go to a more prominent place in its article, as it is superior to the other pictures. It could also probably be a slightly bigger size at thumbnail in the article as we rather lose the explorer at that size. I wonder if it may also be useful in any other articles, for example is there any relation to this explorer and the Cave Clan?
I could only provide approximate location underground; It is hard to give the location when you have been walking without known landmarks in sight for a kilometer or two. I'll have a look at some satellite photos later and see if i can pin point the location. There is no direct relationship with this explorer and the Cave Clan, however there is plenty of cave clan tagging where this picture was taken. Animated explorer was not really too practical for this shot, as the longer exposure was required to get a good balance of natural light. I could have pushed the ISO considerably but this would have increased the noise etc. If you look at the full print the explorer is holding a flashlight. The highlights at the top left are not blown due to over exposure (take a look at a histogram) I think its actually some lens distortion (common on my 17-85 IS USM). Either way, I have done some editing to remove the Chromatic aberration on the top left hand side, now it looks good at 100%. The edited picture is attached on the right, let me know if you think its an improvement. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, with the opening to the street above I thought it may have been possible to pinpoint where this was, having said which I have been to Hobart and realise that there are lots of these openings to the rivulet from the streets. Yeah, I figured it was probably a long shutter speed, I was just identifying the fairly casual explorer as something some may complain about. This camera could have handled ISO400 quite successfully (I have the same camera), having said which there appears to be some noise already, more than I would have expected. Looking at the fullsize, you're right, there are some weird things going on up at the top where the light is coming in, even in the edit. There are some blown areas at the top, I don't think it's anything to kill the nomination, but they are definitely there. With those problems I don't know how easy they would be to fix as they're a little unusual, but it does come up a lot better in downsized form; a 50% downsize really covers those problems, and still comes in well above requirements at 1944 x 1296px. Will leave it with you. --jjron (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think this image is just captivating... if it weren't interesting enough it's got a mini-waterfall thrown in for good measure! The overexposure in the top left seems like the main issue. And from this angle the smaller side tunnel's circumference is clipped. I don't have a problem with the explorer's appearance... he looks weird, as any underground explorer should look. His flashlight is not easily discernible until viewed at the high resolution. I don't have enough experience here to say whether it's a viable FP, but hey, I like it. It looks cool in B&W, too. Fletcher (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very accurate and detailed animation on the proper way to fold the U.S. flag. Although the image is not of very high resolution, the image should be able to be easily recreated in a larger format if necessary, which would be suitable as a featured picture.
I agree with Elephantissimo; it goes by too fast to really make sense of what's happening. Have the line come up right away if you wish, but increase the time between it appearing and the fold, by at least 100%. Matt Deres (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like the image (although I agree it should be slowed down) but I'm not a massive fan of the grey colour that dominates the for most of the animation. What would people think about replacing it with just an outline to represent the initial size of the flag? Guest9999 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I created this version of the animation; thanks for providing that warm fuzzy feeling of knowledge that it is appreciated. At the time of creation I wasn't really aware that Wikipedia could resize animations or that there would be any use for a high-res one. However, I did construct it at 800px wide; unfortunately I no longer have the software to read the source. If someone does have Fireworks, I have uploaded the source to http://willhirsch.co.uk/stuff/usflag_fold_source.png . I recommend changing the grey background to a transparent channel in light of other conventions that I have since become aware of. In light of yet another, I'm very tempted to rewrite the image as a procedural animation in SVG, so might have an even higher-res, and much more versatile, version for you some time soon. By the way, the Commons has an image with the same name which is an old revision of this one. The newer one should probably be uploaded there and this one speedied. BigBlueFish (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a transparent background should be used because MediaWiki doesn't render transparent GIFs very well. I found this out when I came across Image:727db.gif, which had very hard edges with a transparent background. Once it was changed to an opaque white background, it appeared much smoother. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scaled model of flattend Hiroshima city after atomic bomb explosion. The red ball represents the point of explosion. Picture taken at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
This picture dipicts the scale of the damage the city sustained from the atomic bomb explosion in Hiroshima.
I like the information conveyed by this image, but as far as FPC is concerned it would not stand a chance. For starters it is only 800 x 600px, but requirements are a minimum of 1000px. For an image like this that is presumably quite reproducible (a photo of a museum display) more would be expected, and it would not be granted any favours. I expect there would be other concerns too, including the shadowy lighting, but the size would finish it before it ever had a chance. It's a worthwhile contribution though. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a created a number of maps/diagrams that depict transit service through the downtown Portland, Oregon area, including on the Portland Mall. They are all in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon. This is my most recent one and, I believe, the most useful. It shows current service (while buses are removed from the Portland Mall for construction) and is closest to reality in that, unlike Image:TriMet CityCenter.svg or some of the older diagrams, routes are separated into two different lines when they actually travel on two different streets in a couplet (one in each direction).
Lastly, I would upload this at Wikimedia Commons, however I do not have an account there. If someone else wants to move them there, I would be OK with that as long as they can still be visible in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon.
First of all let me congratulate you on the great job you appear to have done. I think my main areas of concern would focus on two areas. One would be what you've mentioned above Re Criteria 5. I'm not entirely sure of its value - personally I don't find it particularly interesting or useful for me, however if I was going to Portland or happened to live there, then I may have quite a different opinion. My other main issue would be verifying its accuracy; since you have linked to a reference presumably it can be verified, but for me (and I'd suspect a lot of voters at FPC) I'm not interested enough to go and check it out, in which case I wouldn't vote on it. Finally can I just make a few suggestions.
I realise that size isn't an issue for SVG, but at this size I find the text hard to read - if you uploaded at a slightly bigger size (say 1000 to 1200px wide) would it display big enough to read without downloading it and opening it in an external editor? If so, that would make it more useful.
I'm not entirely sure about the transparent background - personally I prefer a fill colour, I believe there is some sort of recommendation for bg colours on Wikipedia but I don't have enough to do with them to know for sure.
Can you check the alignment of the text. Most of it looks quite good, but other parts look to be a bit random, for example down the bottom with the "Mill, Montgomery, etc" stuff.
Another point is that I have no idea what all those terms refer to - Davis, Couch, etc, etc. Are they streets, suburbs, what? And why do some have < and > in front of them? --jjron (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting photo. Pretty cool, really. Now for the "buts". The article James H. Clark Center is barely even a stub -- if you want the photo to have a chance as a FPC, I'd suggest fleshing it out, with such info as who Mr. Clark is/was, who the architect was, and what's going on inside the building.
Second -- was this an off night at the labs? The right side is much brighter, giving the photo an unbalanced feel. Reprocess to brighten left up? Definitely dim the right, which has some blown highlights, especially on the first floor. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The labs on the left side have shades on the windows, while the labs on the right don't--you can see it best on the third floor, where the shades are pulled down only two-thirds of the way. (The top floor on the right side of the building also has its shades pulled down, incidentally.) I'm not sure I'm Photoshop ninja enough to make it look more symmetrical, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the comments! --Starwiz (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Military Sealift Command (MSC) Hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19), anchored off of the coast of Jolo City. Since its arrival, Mercy's staff has assisted thousands of local citizens with medical and dental care. During its stay, this care was provided by a portion of Mercy's staff working side by side with their Filipino counterparts at several medical centers in the city, as well as patients being given care on the ship itself. Mercy is on a five-month humanitarian deployment to South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Islands. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer's Mate Edward G. Martens (RELEASED)
I have enjoyed seeing this photo every time I look at this article. I had a little free time and found out I could nominate photos to be featured. This is the one I always think of as the best on Wikipedia (that I have seen mind you), and I thought I would nominate it for at least peer review to get input.
Cool photo -- could probably be improved with some judicious cropping, especially of the blank water in foreground. Maybe try centering the rainbow? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I compensated for the lens distortion, darkened the sky slightly (to compensate for the slight overexposure there), applied some light sharpening and contrast increasing, and selectively blurred the sky to reduce the noise. The forground was cropped out as it didn't really add anything.Noodle snacks (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tree like structure of a Sea Cucumber (Gen. Holothuroidea)
Aesthetically appealing, the subject is hard to photograph itself and the photography result is a perfect example of scattered/soft light. It portraits marine diversity, natural morphology that evolved in a curious, interesting form. High res image, low noise, unintervented by editing software, well compressed, can work as wallpaper image.
Can I ask straight away how sure you are that this is a sea cucumber? It doesn't look like any sea cucumber I've ever seen. I'm not convinced it's even an echinoderm, and I'd want a pretty conclusive identification to convince me it was a holothuroidean - it looks more like some type of coral. Which then raises the next issue with this picture in that it really needs a species ID (at least a genus) for encyclopaedic value. At the moment I'm wondering whether this should be removed from the article until a positive ID can be made. Re the picture itself I would doubt it would succeed at FPC due largely to ordinary composition, including being cutoff at top, bottom and side, and uncertain focus. I also can't understand why this is over 3MB when it's only 1600 x 1072px - that's not "well compressed", this wouldn't need to be any more than 1MB tops. OK, will leave it there. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good comparative image, but at a quick glance there appears to be a Depth of Field issue. It appears that a narrow DOF has been used, probably due to the lighting, and the focus is approximately at the top of the chicken egg. This leaves the bulk of the ostrich egg and also the quail eggs a little out of focus. I would personally doubt it's chances at FPC for those reasons. --jjron (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty picture, but I would think it would be unlikely to succeed at FPC. It seems to have a very narrow depth of field, probably too narrow, especially for a top down shot. There is a clear region in focus, but with DOF so narrow there is probably not enough. The bottom edges of the lower petals in particular are uncomfortably out of focus. Please note the filename Image:Smithsoniangardens5.jpg is also very undescriptive - the filename should suggest what the image is, such as an identification of the flower. It is also not used in any articles, which is a requirement for FP. --jjron (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the resolution is good, the noise is low and little, the focus is tight, and the picture is balanced. I am not good at computer editing of images, so feel free to tinker if you can improve the image.
Kayleigh Pearson, at ExCeL London, September 2005.
This is my first time nominating a picture, so I thought I'd get some advice from an experienced head here first. I read the criteria for the featured picture review and it seemed to tick every box. I didn't want nominate it straight away in case it didn't meet the criteria set. Thanks!
It's not a stand-out FP candidate. You could improve image quality greatly, without reducing encyclopedic value, by downsampling to something like 2500x1700 pixels, but I doubt this would improve its FP chances. It's a little blurry and noisy, the girl is very centrally composed and it's generally not striking enough to prompt FPC reviewers to want to see it on the main page. Facial expression is great, having said that, and I personally prefer this kind of spontaneous, flash-lit shot to the clichéd, pseudo-glamourous shots that normally end up on these bio pages.--mikaultalk18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A criticism you see quite often on FP is "background is distracting" - for example, see this. Admittedly, shots of celebrities on good backgrounds are hard to get, but you might receive that criticism anyway. 137.205.179.218 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One big thing working against this would be that there is already a FP of the Angel of the North - . While this doesn't disqualify a second version being featured, personally I can't see that this photo provides any further information about the sculpture. Another option would be to go for a Delist and Replace nomination. While this one has some advantages (e.g., size) over the existing version, I find the lighting for example better on the existing version. Thanks for the contribution. --jjron (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the trees to simply distract from the main topic, and I don't see why seeing it through trees would be a more informative, featured-picture-esque viewpoint. It doesn't give any more information on the topic either. The size is an improvement, however, but doesn't do anything for me personally. SGGHspeak!15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This began as an effort to display various computer peripherals and ended up as the mother of all computer diagrams. I used a current FP (which would be delisted in favor of this one) as a base, and expanded it greatly. However, since I am not the original author, the perspective is only approximately whatever the original creator used, and is "cluttered," removing focus from the main monitor/CPU area. Also, while the numbers are more international English labels may be more appropriate here. Any ideas?--HereToHelp(talk to me)21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole picture is extremely helpful. I'm not so sure about the English labels, because you have a pretty good description, in multiple languages, no less. It's also very good-looking; the colors are easy to look at. I would go for it, but wait for some other opinions. Elephantissimo (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The international documentation was already present for the parts included in the current FP, but adding it for the new items is tedious. Is there a place on the Commons where I can ask for help localizing? Also: does it need a webcam?--HereToHelp(talk to me)01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, considering I got it from a free-to-use image. (The link is on the image page.) Does it need to be black or grey so it's more neutral? No other item here is associated with a specific company, but the iPod is so generic... (Also: speakers are on the way!)--HereToHelp(talk to me)21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm normally big on the "iPod is an mp3 player but not all mp3 players are iPods" I' have to agree that the iPod is the best way of characterising an mp3 player. Webcam would be nice but I could only find this (png) on Commons and this (svg) on OpenClipArt. Although the first is probably more typical of a webcam the second has the benifit of already being svg. /Lokal_Profil23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going for a unified, generic, stylized look of the hardware. (That's why I'm worried about the distinctly non-generic iPod and its color.) I'd (more likely: I'll) have to create the webcam from what already exists in the image, much like how I created everything else new. Speaking of which, how are the speakers? They're based off of this image.--HereToHelp(talk to me)03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a webcam and it looked flat. (It's built out of curves, which is harder than the semi-axonometric boxes.) So unless you want me to put the lens inside the monitor, I don't think a webcam is happening. It should be good enough already.--HereToHelp(talk to me)11:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The speakers are nice. Possibly the image on the side could be usd as a webcam but otherwise just skip it. ANyhow the image turned out very nice. /Lokal_Profil20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I personally would run this as a "delist and replace" nom for the current FP. However, if the consensus is that it has changed significantly, it can go through the normal procedure.--HereToHelp(talk to me)03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, it has some very strong elements. Pictorially, the lighting is good and descriptive, water droplets are wonderful and where it's sharp, it's easily sharp and detailed enough for FP. It's high resolution, there's no unpleasant noise and the bokeh is quite attractive. A smaller aperture would have ruined visual depth and wouldn't have rendered the foreground rosebud appreciably sharper. However, intrusive, distracting elements like that bud and the over-exposed white flowers bottom right would most likely be enough to attract more opposes than supports at FPC. A couple of pointers: a 10% crop in from both sides would frame the subject much better; there's a dead (white) pixel to clone out bottom left; for encyclopedic value, and for any chance at all at FPC, you'd have to accurately identify the species on the image description page and in the caption. It's a quality photo, despite all that.--mikaultalk18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic, well composed, well exposed (especially for difficult indoor lighting), good technical condition (excellent really, for ISO 1600)... Definitely go for a nomination! Thegreenj23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cascading waterfall in Lyon, Rhone-Alpes, facing Saint Jean
It meets a lot of the criteria for a featured picture. I've never used this process before, so if this doesn't stand a chance, close/delete it :). 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the showstopper here is the lack of encyclopedic value - is this particular water feature identifiable with Lyons (in a similar manner as, say, the Eiffel Tower)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MER-C (talk • contribs)
Shows leaves and petals of the pelargonium flower. Credit to the fine folks over at WP:Plants for identifying the flower. Love the comments, feel free to give them. Thanks. Qb | your 2 cents13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. It's big and detailed, verging on oversharpened but not so that noise is either missing or too obvious. If you can find out what the species is, I'd be prepared to have a closer look & maybe second it for FPC. "Pretty pink flowers" is pretty meaningless to an encyclopedia reader. You basically have a good, descriptive image without an equally descriptive caption, which is crucial for this kind of shot. Er, weird... I could have sworn this had no caption... sorry! Give me a chance to run it through the tweaking machine and I'll get back. --mikaultalk18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me while I squeal with excitement! I have alot more I took today, I'll throw some up in my gallery and maybe you can take a looksie and perhaps some comments. Thanks! Qb | your 2 cents23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A collection of flowers in springtimeA good cropping is a good thing
Its a beautiful image, and, in my view, pretty encyclopedic since it shows the full flower. Only snag... I have no clue what kinda flower it is. Comments and criticim please!
They're pansies. The photo itself is pretty, but not too strong technically; detail isn't great, and there are some sharpening halos. The composition is OK, but I find the unfocused flowers on the right and left distracting. Check out the featured flowers for an idea of what is expected technically and compositionally. Thegreenj02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mm... I see what you mean. I think it could benefit from some serious cropping to get out the right unfocused flowers. I'll see what I can shake up. Qb | your 2 cents13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't they violas? I don't rate this one anywhere near as highly as the other one you posted above. It's too noisy, over-sharpened, posterised and harshly-lit to cut it next to existing flower FPs. <edit> It seems pansies are violas, althought I'd say these were very unlike what people would normally call pansies. --mikaultalk18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first attempt at anything like this, and because I don't know a lot about the featured picture process, I would like to see what some more experienced people think about it before submitting this photograph for FP. I've had a quick read-through of WP:FP?, and nothing strikes me as being "wrong" with this picture according to those guidelines. I took it myself, so there is no problem with licensing, etc. If there are any problems let me know what and how they can be addressed; cheers!
Well, your camera is 7.2 megapixels (3072 x 2304), so unless you had set the resolution at VGA, there should be a larger file somewhere. There are still encyclopedic hurdles that I think this may struggle at. It doesn't really illustrate Lelystad or Ijsselmeer particularly well; there are no identifiable landmarks, so this could be a sunset about anywhere. Thegreenj22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I dunno how to check that, and I think it may have on VGA cause I don't think I have anything else. Agree with you on the encyclopedic point, though. I'm willing to withdraw this review; do I take this template off, or just wait it out for a given time period? -- THEDARK LORDTROMBONATOR09:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be archived once the page fills up; you don't have to do anything. Just BTW, if your camera is on VGA, I'd switch to a higher resolution. While 7.2 MP really is larger than most practical use, VGA is too small for anything but computer display. Unless you're really memory-starved, somewhere in the middle may be better. Whatever suits you, of course. Thegreenj20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black & white photo held by the South Australian Museum records. The turtle shell was engraved by the 18 survivors of the SS Gothenburg who managed to reached Holbourne Island on two lifeboats in February 1875. Because rescue was uncertain, the survivors engraved ship details and their names on the concave side of a large turtle shell, in the hope that it would be found in the future.
It is believed, although not certain, that the photograph was taken by the Adelaide School of Photography in July 1875. Free of copyright restriction. The actual turtle shell was presented to the South Australian Museum in 1932 by Mr W.D. Cleland, brother of John Cleland, one of the survivors.
I appreciate your feedback, but the photo is 130+ years old and the only known copy. In my opinion, it appears to meet all the criteria. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Panoramic view of the lake and bog at Black Moshannon State Park in Pennsylvania, taken from the viewing paltform on the bog trail boardwalk
This panorama is in the featured article on Black Moshannon State Park and during the peer review and FAC processes for that article, several users commented quite favorably about it, so I thought I would nominate it here and get some expert advice. The right third has some exposure issues and there is a slight stitching flaw at the lake horizon there too. I know that some FP candidates are edited, adjusted, etc. and I would be glad to upload the original eleven photos that went into the panorama if that would be helpful. I also would be OK with a cropped version if the right side is too bad. Ruhrfisch><>°°19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stitching problem is a major concern. Can you re-stitch the originals? Other than that, I find the main issue to be composition—I feel like the picture lacks a subject. Can you go back at about the same time of day and extend the panorama to the left, so that the water is framed by the shore? A little less sky and more land wouldn't hurt either. Thegreenj20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I stitched it with Autostitch and do not have another program (which is why I offered to upload the original 11 images used to make the panorama if someone else wants to adjust them and/or try stitching it again). I can try to go back there, but the bog will be very different in appearance (this was taken on a warm January day, now all the brown plants will be green). I guess my argument is the subject is the bog - it gives you a pretty good idea what it looks like to stand on the observation platform and look around. Ruhrfisch><>°°20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest standing farther away from the subject and using a telephoto lens/zoom in, as you get perspective distortion, which is evident here. You'd also increase the enc value because you get more of the building in. MER-C07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Trinity nuclear test, 0.016 seconds after ignitionDRAFT--COMPOSITION ONLYEdit2 by jjronEdit2-demo by jjron to highlight issues with backgroundEdit Image:Trinity explosion2-edit2.jpg for tint"Final" edit before nomination??Edit3 by jjron: selective levels adjustment to lower left, levels to whole image, touched-up some flaws
An icon of the Atomic Age. I recently uploaded a larger version, which is probably why this photo hasn't been nominated before. The New Mexico Museum of Fine Arts in Santa Fe has a print of this photo on permanent display, and I've spent a long time studying it there (and here). The WWI German helmet shape, the One-Eye Monster, Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... An amazing photograph. Berlyn Brixner was the photographer, and some details are there. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great photo - well once I realised it wasn't an old army helmet, and saw what it really was! My only concern would be quality. At this image size, a filesize of 72 KB is pretty tiny. That is probably mainly because the blacks have been largely compressed into almost nothing but pure black. But, geez, I want to say nominate anyway. --jjron (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)*Note: make sure you replace the original with this in at least some articles if you do nominate. Can I also add that I rather like the scale and time measure that are included on the original that are sadly lacking here. --jjron (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at it, the more I think it would probably look a bit more balanced with a bit of the black cropped off the bottom. In the original that works to hold the writing, in this one it's just a big patch of nothing. --jjron (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments. Yeah, I'll stick it in some of those articles -- meant to earlier, but...
Cropping the bottom would be appropriate -- I think that's how the museum's print was presented. Which, incidentally, was unsigned, ims. And we could reference the alternate shot with the time & scale bar on the nomination.
First cut at a crop:
Needs redo on a real image-processor, but hows the composition? Trim the top too? Feel free to take a whack <GG>
Have a look at The Trinity Test: Eyewitnesses. If that stuff don't raise up the hair on the back of your neck, I'll eat my socks.
Have had a try at an edit. Slight straighten, crop, took out some marks, and gave a small sharpen and noise reduction. The quality isn't great, and there's some funny things in the black part, it could be artifacting. Also this version doesn't seem to have the same detail on the explosion itself as the small version looks to have. Where did you actually get this version? I wonder if there's one of better quality around at this sort of size. --jjron (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put up another small version that really highlights the problems in the background. Obviously this is not there as a suggested edit, it's just showing up some issues that are present. Sure there's considerations to do with age, rarity, difficulty of capture, etc, but I think a lot of these problems are to do with this particular digital conversion. For example there's things that are significant enough to be visible on the small version if they were part of the photo, but they're not there. Hmmm... --jjron (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From http://www.lanl.gov/news/photos/historical.shtml Ah -- these are two different times. The bigger photo is at +0.016 sec. the smaller at 0.025 sec. I'm guessing the background flaws are on the original film -- see the photogs comments, ref'd above.
I've uploaded a bit larger version of the 0.025 sec. photo:
and a +/- matching version (captioned, scale bar) of the 0.016 sec. photo:
I looked pretty hard, and wasn't able to find any files bigger than the first version (above), now recaptioned correctly as 0.016 sec. So that's the one we have to work with, to meet the 1000x1000px standard.
I notice that your edit2, above, seems to be bit grayer tone than the slightly-sepia original. Do you see that? And do you think the blotchy background could be cleaned out, perhaps painted over with pure black, which is what the camera would have really seen at 10-20x solar brilliance in the fireball? Brixner did a remarkable job with the tools he had available -- these are 16mm movie stills. Anyway, I agree that the 0.025 sec photo is the more dramatic and better-exposed, but it looks like 540x410px is the largest file online. Thoughts? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, now it makes a bit more sense if they're different images. What a shame a bigger version of the 0.025s one isn't available. Yes, I noticed somewhere (I think after I uploaded) that mine had a slightly different tone (though I wouldn't say the original had sepia toning). Not sure why, it could have come in when I did the noise reduction perhaps. I still have my original edit (straighten and crop only) saved as a TIFF, so that should be identical tonings to the original. I also thought of just cloning the background to remove those flaws, possibly just slightly off pure black; just not sure how much editing should be done :-). When I brought them out in that Edit 2 it looked pretty clear that it wasn't just stuff off the original photo; there looked to be some characteristic jpeg artifacting and possibly posterisation, which is a bit in line with my earlier comment about the filesize being very small for that resolution. There also appeared to some smudges and things like that. However I was also wondering whether some of it was perhaps smoke, and that was one reason I hesitated before removing it. What do you think - should we try removing it all? --jjron (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not give it a shot? That sort of thing is way beyond my skill (& software). Pure black or something close could be counted as restoration (kind sorta...) FWIW, I don't see the background weirdness in Image:Trinity.016sec.jpg, at right. As to tone, I noticed that changing the view angle on my LCD screen, even just a little, significantly changes the tone... Perhaps fiddling with brightness and/or contrast would bring out the fireball details better. I'll fool with it a bit tonight in iPhoto, but so far that program seems to mangle archival files pretty badly when you crop. Which also may reflect my level of skill in using it.... <rueful grin>
As to what happened -- filming a nuclear blast, then sitting around for 60 years -- not too surprising it looks a bit ragged. I wonder if Mr. Brixner is still with us? Still, I doubt that Los Alamos encouraged its photographers to take their work home.... And who knows who digitized the thing, and with what skill? I'll have to ask, next time I'm at the museum in Santa Fe, where they got their file. I'm guessing they borrowed the original, or a 1st-gen copy neg. It would also be interesting to see which of these two they printed. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining big problem I see is the overexposed lower left corner, most obviously in the leftmost dust-cloud "skirt". IPhoto doesn't seem to have a "dodge" option to tone this down. Does your software? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"FWIW, I don't see the background weirdness in Image:Trinity.016sec.jpg"; yes, that's probably right, as with the 0,025sec version. That's why I've been saying that I think it's an issue with the digital conversion on the 'big' version, rather than necessarily being a problem with the photo itself. In fact I rather wonder whether the big one hasn't just been upsampled from a small version, which would explain why it seems to lack the quality of the smaller ones. Re working on the background, I had a bit of a play with it, but given the level of the problems it almost seems beyond repair, at least to me; it would need a lot of careful work. Re the overexposed lower left corner, I think you want to burn it rather than dodge it. I tried a bit of burning there in Photoshop; it did look a little better, but there's not a lot of information to burn in and it was just a quick try. Your edit2a has a bit of sepia tinge to it now; not really sure what you were trying to achieve with it? Do you think there's a version worth nominating? --jjron (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Your edit2a has a bit of sepia tinge" -- I was trying to match the tone in Image:Trinity Test Fireball 25ms.jpg, perhaps not very successfully. Anyway, here's another version, with various fiddles: see what you think...
Uh-oh, think I overdid it on the lower-right corner, trying to cut the lower-left bloom.
"I rather wonder whether the big one hasn't just been upsampled from a small version..." FWIW, I played with Image:Trinity.016sec.jpg a bit -- it definitely has less detail when you blow it up. So who knows.
OK, I don't think it's the tone in 0.025s that makes it look better, I don't really think the sepia helps this one. Re 0.016s having less detail when you 'blow it up', that's the point I'm making about upsampling, it can't add detail that's not there, it can only estimate what should be there.
Anyway, I went back to my original 'cropped only' version and did some different fixes; no sharpening or noise reduction this time, so tone should be more faithful to the original. I selectively adjusted the levels on that troublesome lower left corner, and then another levels adjustment slightly darkened the whole image for a bit more contrast. I then fixed a number of what looked to be flaws on the photo and did a bit of work to improve the background. I think that's about as much time as I want to spend on it. Have a look, see how you think it compares to your latest edit, and I'll leave it up to you. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your last edit is probably about as good as we're likely to get -- I like it better than any of mine, including the work files I tossed.
What next? If you want to try it out at FPC head over there and create a nomination. If you have any questions about how to do it, just ask, or I'll do it for you if you'd rather. Despite the work done on it I suspect quality may be an issue - but you don't know if you don't try. If it does no good there, it could be a good candidate for Valued Pictures instead (if and when that gets up and running). --jjron (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A rare example of an Ansel Adams ethnic portrait, and a very nice one. The little girl on the steps is a nice touch. An unjustifiably neglected image, in my view, and one that improves with repeated viewing.
I'm not sure about this one. It is an interesting photo to look at, but strikes me more than anything else as basically an old snapshot taken by a famous photographer. I'm also not sure on how much encyclopaedic value it has, at least as currently used - it's sole use is in an article on the place it was apparently taken. To my eye it also appears a bit overexposed - it is certainly very bright to look at. I'd like to hear what others think though, as I often seem to be harsher on these old photos than other voters. --jjron (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Halftoning has replaced most of the interesting detail, I think. It also tends to fill in blacks and bleach out whites, which is why it looks over-exposed. I'm not sure it has enough enc value to mitigate this, and I'd say its authorship was way down the list of redeeming features from an enc point of view; Adams was notable for stunning landscapes, not his snapshots. --mikaultalk19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A walkway at Princeton University.Rmved Edit #2 since it didnt do anything... this is #4, with some straightening and some cropping.Edit #3 after using new software
The image is of a walkay at Princeton. I believe it shows the architecture well, as well as providing an artistic feel. I am looking for feedback, good or bad. As this is my first submission, I do not have illusions of grandeur. Simply honest comments regarding how I can better improve my style as well as my contributions.
Edited Its as best as I can do with Picasa. I dont have the funds for the better editing software. If someone can recommend a great budget one that would be beautiful. Feel free to edit at will, however, if you believe that can work. Thanks! Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the composition, and, but for technical quality, this would be a really good photo, perhaps even enough for FP. However, in its current state, it is soft, overexposed, tilted, and noisy. For sharpness and noise, there is nothing you can do except to use a better camera. However, overexposure can be fixed by metering for the bright area outdoors. If you have the option, manual exposure is the optimal choice. If you can, try a reshoot with a better camera and exposure and post the results back up here—I'm interested in how it would look. Thegreenj03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, budget software recommendation: the GIMP. I don't use it, but it's basically a free version of Photoshop. That said, you can't fix everything with editing; there's no way to add detail or recover areas overexposed to the point that they have no detail. Thegreenj00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...at the expense of a flat, green sky. This method works OK once in a while with blown skies when the blended layer is a gradient, but I'd just leave this alone. Right now, it's a good picture to illustrate the architecture of Princeton, but I don't think the technical quality will be salvageable for FP no matter the editing. The one simple thing to correct that would improve the photo immensely, though, is tilt—try using the lamps or the arch walls as a reference point. Thegreenj01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... here's about where I'd put it. I think the camera was pointed up a little, so parallel lines (like the sides of the arches) actually begin to converge, so trying to straighten based on just one of them is going to be inaccurate. Thegreenj20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your #3 edit, but would note that it's a bit off-center, based on the basal butresses of the arches. but nice tone, nice composition -- quite an effective photo. You might try cropping the left a bit for balance. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me like a blue periwinkle - see Vinca or more specifically Vinca major. Re it's chances as an FP, personally I doubt it. This is a common plant, so the picture would need to be very good. Yours is quite nice, but the composition is nothing special - we can't make out a single full flower for instance. The closest is the central one, and that's overlapped by two leaves as well as shadows. Similarly there's no particularly well composed leaf. Also I don't really think the water helps its cause - sometimes flowers/plants look nice with a nice misting of water or a fine dew, but the great big globules in this picture simply detract from the detail we can see. It may be suitable to add to the article, but I wouldn't like its chances at FPC. Thanks for nominating at PPR. --jjron (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is high-res, and the subject is a very famous person. Wikipedia received a high-res official photo of McCain from his Senate office a long time ago, and the present image has been obtained by cropping the official photo, and changing the background from black to blue. I assume that this is an acceptable type of modification, right? The image of McCain himself has not been touched up or altered in any way.
The original failed FPC in February. To be honest, I find the new background somewhat distracting, and the cut-out isn't particularly smooth either, so I think this is unlikely to pass FPC. Thegreenj22:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I'd forgotten that the previous version was put through FPC. Do you think a different color would work better? Are we allowed to change the background color with/without approval from the image donor? Maybe I could ask the Graphics Lab to do a better cut-out.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're on Wikipedia! You can do whatever you want with the free pictures you find here. If you're editing a picture that another Wikipedian created, it's nice to drop a note, but by no means required. For the picture itself, I think the original black is fine. It keeps the focus on the face. But if you have any ideas to make it better, the graphics lab is definitely a good place to start. Thegreenj00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I went to the Graphics Lab, and they came up with this. What do you think? I like it much better than the black suit on black background.Ferrylodge (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to get rid of the black background, this does a good job, especially in the thumbnail. At full size it still has some problems—and I know cut-outs, especially black-on-black, are incredibly hard to do—like the uneasy fuzziness of the suit-background transition, which doesn't at all match up with the back of McCain's head, which remains in focus. In the end, I think I might prefer this one for use in the article, but I doubt it would pass FP. In the original nom, the main opposition was that this was not a particularly outstanding portrait, and I think this still holds. It doesn't really capture any character; it's just some guy in a formal portrait. This hasn't really changed, and combined with some minor technical faults in this one, it would struggle at FPC. But definitely a solid, encyclopedic photo. Thegreenj01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the comments, Greenj. I think we're on track now to probably use this latest image as the lead encylopedia article photo, with no plans to pursue a featured picture nomination.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you should loose the overlaid blur/blur cutout effect. It doesn't look realistic nor particularly attractive. I find it works on well in portraits used very sparingly and in very small amounts. The composition is also not ideal; the vertical format gives a lot of dead space above and below the flower, while the flower itself is squeezed to the left and right. Consider using a landscape format with the flower in the left part of the image. That way, you'll actually have some room for the stem to go somewhere; right now, it's distractingly cut off. The composition comment applies to your other tulip picture: take a step back, move the flower into a balanced position, and give the stem somewhere to go. Thegreenj22:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could I add that you also need to consider your backgrounds, especially if you are considering putting the images up at FPC. The brick wall here does nothing to add to the picture - it looks ugly and distracting. This appears to be a flower in a vase, so there should be no problem with moving it somewhere with a nice natural looking background instead. --jjron (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to comments on the pink tulip above. Many of the same concerns apply here. I would also add that the crop isn't ideal. It is too tight to the top of the frame; this too-tight cropping has been an issue with a few of the images you have put through here and FPC (e.g., the Fig Leaf currently at FPC). The Rule of thirds may be a useful article to read to get a bit of an overview on composition; Composition (visual arts) may also be worth looking at. These articles aren't the be-all and end-all, but they do cover some basic concepts which are worth thinking about. --jjron (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nominating this image. I agree with your reasons for this being a good image, but it would not have a chance in gaining Featured Picture status on a few grounds. The first is to do with size. This is way below requirements - please see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria - which specify it must be at least 1000px on one side. This image would not be regarded as being so unusual to be granted an exception, and in fact very few, if any, images at this size (only around half the minimum) would be accepted. I wonder if there's not a bigger version around - the version here in fact looks to have been either cut or cropped from a larger image (note the white border down the left that is not present on any other side). The picture quality itself seems quite poor, though that could be probably be improved with a good cleanup by a skilled editor. My other concern would be its encyclopaedic value. I don't think it adds a lot to its current article; that being said I think it's interesting and with a little thought could be put to good use in other articles. --jjron (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The North Luzon Expressway approaching Bocaue Toll Barrier in Balagtas, Bulacan.
This is the picture of the North Luzon Expressway in the Philippines. I nominated this image because the lighting is good but there are still other criteria to be checked. Can this image pass as a Featured Image?
Thank you for you nomination. Yes, the lighting here is quite good, although the position of the sun has created issues for you with the distracting shadows across the road just in front of the camera. I'm afraid however that this wouldn't pass as a Featured Picture. It really looks much like any of a million other parts of roadways in the world, with few special features calling this picture to be anything outstanding. Even the size only barely makes the limits (minimum 1000px), and that alone would lead a number of voters to oppose for an easily reproducible image of a road. Composition wise, to be honest I think it looks a little bare - I actually feel that heavier traffic would help to improve this image, as it would add some interest. In fact I prefer another image in the article, also I believe taken by you, at the toll barrier, Image:Balintawak Toll Barrier.jpg. That image has more happening in it and is therefore more interesting, but it has its own issues that would prevent it being an FP. Keep up the good contributions. --jjron (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wild Wedge-tails are quite difficult to photograph and think this is a quality image showing good detail. It also portrays the bird performing a common behaviour (feeding on carrion) and I think its quite valuable to the articles I've posted it to (Wedge-tailed Eagles, Carrion and Kangaroos). Please put it up for nomination for a featured pic if you believe it deserves such - as i don't know how to. Also I realise that the title of the image isn't right but I don't know how to change it.
I's a bit small (a crop?) and oversharpened (halo around the beak). Any chance this could be reprocessed? --Dschwen14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a crop just a resize - I'm not willing to put up the 12Mp version - if this discounts it I understand. I could reprocess but I don't think the halo is excessive - agreed its slightly too noticable but I don't think it detracts too much (just my humble opinion). --Djambalawa —Preceding comment was added at 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your concerns on uploading the big one. But you wouldn't be willing to put up say a 1600 x 1067px version would you (which is as big as some of us are willing to go, but is generally deemed acceptable, at least for this sort of subject, at FPC). --jjron (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your typical copyleft notice requires a copyright notice to be effective (the GFDL is a case in point). The uploader's username is Pixel8, so this shouldn't be an issue. MER-C06:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your nomination here. While this is a useful shot of a steadicam with it's operator, unfortunately this wouldn't stand much chance at FPC due to the lighting. The operator and camera itself are all shadows, but voters would be wanting to see good detail here to have high encyclopaedic value. This shadowy subject of the picture against a bright background, including a completely blown out sky, are a little uncomfortable to look at overall. It appears that the sun was at about 30° to the photographer and this is what has led to the awkward lighting. Better lighting would have needed the sun behind the photographer shining onto the steadicam operator, giving him good illumination and producing a better scene overall. As taken, the photographer could have used a fill flash to at least provide better light on the steadicam operator. There would be no way of improving this photo sufficiently for FPC, but if there's a chance to reshoot a good shot would be possible. BTW, you did not insert this nomination correctly on the page. I have fixed it for you. Please check the page history (here for example) to see what I have done. --jjron (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, use caption standard "quotation marks" instead of: "This steadicam's 'sled' includes a battery pack and LCD monitor." use "This steadicam's "sled" includes a battery pack and LCD monitor. I have to agree that the contrasty and backlit subject would render this image as passable but just so. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Scarlett Johansson in Kuwait in January 2008 during her five-day United Service Organizations (USO) tour to the Gulf region.
I realise there are some technical issues (focus) with the image but the composition's ok, it's pretty big and is probably among the best of the images we have of famous living actresses.
It's probably not a perfect photo, as you say, but it looks OK. Could be worth a try at least. However to me it looks a little 'cold' ATM. I wonder if it should be warmed a bit before trying it at FPC? Also that dude in the background with the red lanyard is pretty distracting - not sure if anything could be done about him (I wonder if it would be worth trying to clone out the lanyard?). --jjron (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder
I think the focus is acceptable and although not quite 3/4 front, it is a pleasing image in all other ways: nice colour, good composition and has a high resolution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The Dutch Master Daffodil is one of the several types of trumpet daffodils, which are characterized by a single large blossom per stem and an exceptionally long trumpet, which is equal in length to the petals, or sometimes longer.edit 1edit 2
I like the image and it's of good size, and I want to see if it's of featured picture quality.
Sorry, don't have time to comment at length, however to be brief I don't find this ideal compositionally. The new crop is just too tight all around (the original was actually too tight on top and left to start with; incidentally, if you are going to crop as tight as you have at the bottom, you really should crop the right of image as well to the edge of the foreground flowers, so at least the crop is balanced on the two main flowers). I wonder if you have a version not so tight to the edges? The other area I think this may suffer in is that the two main flowers are overlapping, and the flowers in the background also 'overlap' onto the main flowers. People tend to be pretty harsh on flowers at FPC and my personal feeling is that they would jump on those things. I could be wrong - plenty of others seem to like this, but just thought you should be alert to these possible concerns. The detail etc on these particular flowers is very good though. --jjron (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The city hall of San Fernando in the province of Pampanga, on the left is the plaque of the city seal. The first casa municipal was built in the present site in 1755 out of stone and thatch but was burned by the Philippine Revolutionary Army on orders of Gen. Antonio Luna, on May 4, 1899. The present building was built after the war using the original adobe stonework.
I believe that I should nominate it because the picture shows the history of its city, the province and its country itself. Moreover, the image is also showing the city seal and the city hall at the same image with a good angle. This is my first nomination and I am not sure if this will pass.
Thanks for your nomination here. While there's a lot of appealing elements in this picture, it would not pass at FPC for a number of reasons. Probably the biggest issue is to do with composition. In a lot of ways I think this image is trying to show too much, and that reduces its encyclopaedic value for any specific thing. Also by trying to show so much there's things cutoff all over the place, e.g., the left and bottom of the seal 'holder', the city hall looks cut off to the right, even the lamp-post that's not vital looks sloppy being cutoff at the top. Additionally a few things could have been done just to improve the composition here - for example, 20secs earlier and the horse and cart may have been an attractive addition, 20secs later and they wouldn't be there, but right now it's there cut in half. Similarly the man in the pink shirt is a distracting element - he's a clear element in the picture taking a prominent position, but he is distracting from the subject of the picture which is the buildings/city. Overall the composition comes out as pretty messy and really looks quite snapshotty, with no clear subject of the picture. Other things that would be of concern at FPC include the size (yes it meets requirements, but only just, and this is usually frowned upon, especially in repeatable 'scenery' type shots like this), and general lighting (it's OK, but not special, for example the seal is pretty shadowy and the sky is a pretty nothing overcast look). This is clearly a useful image, but could be improved in a number of areas. Thanks again for your submission. --jjron (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: Ruins in vicinity of Post and Grant Avenue. Looking northeast.
Used in 1906 San Francisco earthquake and Ruins the picture seems to be a good depiction of the destruction caused by the earthquake showing greater detail of specific damage than a current featured picture on the same topic - Image:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg. I think the fact that people can be seen in the image gives some idea of the scale of the disaster.
I'd say you're off to a good start. Someone more knowledgeable than me can probably help you with some of the technical issues; to my inexperienced eye it looks like you need a higher MP camera (or a better lens), but I'm not one in the know. From an aesthetic/encyclopedic point of view, I think the picture was taken with the wrong orientation: we don't need to see that much blue sky or green grass, but we may want to see more of the temple, especially to the right. While tourists can sometimes be a hindrance to a good shot, I think they help here by providing a sense of scale; when I scrolled down the full-size picture, it struck me that the temple is actually much smaller than I thought at first. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of ways to do it; the most expedient is to just ask them to leave :-). I'm on a poor monitor right now so I can't examine the cricket pictures closely, but the editor most likely used a clone tool to essentially copy empty bits of grass over the person they wanted removed. For some reason, they then blurred or smudged the area afterwards, leaving those smeary clouds in his place. Careful use of the clone tool alone could give much cleaner results. Such images would not qualify as a featured picture on Wikipedia because it would constitute excessive digital manipulation. I wouldn't remove the people from your picture anyway since they provide a sense of scale for the building. Matt Deres (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re the cricket pictures, it's not that they smudged the cloned area afterwards, it's just a really poor cloning job. The other thing they've done is to crop to the left which removed most of the umpire - any remaining umpire would have been cloned out, but I haven't looked closely enough to see if this would have been necessary. The other problem is that in doing this work they've not just messed up the picture, but actually reduced its encyclopaedic value. By removing the umpire and the runner - both common and indeed expected elements in that shot - the shot now contains less information and actually looks a bit weird. In fact I'm going to replace the modified version with the original in all its articles. --jjron (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evening panorama of the North-western part of Upernavik, Greenland. Hugin was used for the stitching of 21 photos taken with a compact camera.Panorama of the North-Western part of Upernavik in midnight sun (11.30 pm). Hugin was used for the stitching of 26 photos taken with a compact camera. One of then are out of focus. Is that a show-stopper?Edit of original by jjron
The photos illustrates very well the appearance of a minor, remote Greenlandic town at summer time. The first one is technically OK, I think. The second image is taken in midnight sun and shows a larger portion of the town, thus the EV is better, but it has an unrecoverable technical error, one of the images used in the stitch had a soft focus and this is visible on close inspection of the second pano in full size.
I like both of these in different ways, but my feeling is neither would have particularly high chances at FPC. Admittedly I have only viewed at image page size (due to large filesizes) but will give my impressions from there since no one else has commented. I prefer the composition on the first, mainly because the second one seems to end too abruptly with those tanks and seemingly a small bit of the coast cutoff at the right - not a real big issue re EV, but it just looks too tight visually; it also affects the look of background, with that hill that looks far better in the first version where it runs down to the sea. On the flipside, the lighting is bit more appealing in the second version (the first is a little dull) and as you say it shows more of the town; on the other hand I think we see enough of the town in the first to get a feel for it and the construction of the houses, etc, which is surely the main point, i.e., the second one is just sort of more of the same. I will take your point about the soft focus image in the second one as read and say that would definitely affect its chances at FPC. I note that the first one, a Commons FP, also raised grumbles over there about sharpness, and I feel that people here tend to be harsher on things like that. So my overall feeling would be that if you were to nominate either, I'd go for the first one, but I wouldn't say it had really good chances. I wonder if anything could be done just to pick up the brightness a bit, particularly in that really shadowy area towards the tanks? (I'd have a try myself but don't have the full res, and you'd probably do a better job of it yourself). If you could just pick that up a bit, or do something to get a bit more width on the second one (and fix the soft focus), then it may be worth trying at FPC as long as you're prepared for some negative opinions. --jjron (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi jjron, thank you for taking your time to quite thoroughly consider my two photos (except looking at them in full res, he, he). I can basically agree in what you say. Concerning the second image I have used very many hours trying to it better, especially the area with the soft focus, and this is truly unrecoverable. Based on your reasoning I agree that image one is the best candidate.
Considering the light I also agree with you that its darker patches are one of its less optimal sides. I remember that I have already tried to improve that in post-processing, but that is quite some months ago and I think I have improved a little in my post-processing skills, so I think I will give that another go. One last thing, which I would like to get some advise on (and where I really goofed up on my cliff/gull/lichen FPC): Is the current cation optimal, or can you suggest any improvements?
I tried to build number one again with the newest bells and whistles (newer version of hugin) and I also tried to bring out some more details in the shadows. However, what I came up with is very, very similar to the image I have uploaded, so there is apparently not much to gain there. If i tweak the color curve more to bring more light in it it will begin to look unrealistic. So, I think i will have a go with this one. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already nominated at FPC, but will reply anyway. Re the caption, to be honest captions don't usually swing many votes at FPC (I think the problem with your caption on the previous nom was that it seemed to be trying to justify the image's EV but wasn't convincing; if the image has sufficient EV it will usually be apparent and the caption won't need to plead its case). Really the stuff about the stitching shouldn't be there though (if anywhere, it can go in the 'reason'). If anything, looking at your FPC nom, some of the caption should be in the reason, and some of the reason should be in the caption. In my opinion all it needs is the first sentence as is, then perhaps a second sentence adding a little interesting detail (e.g., something about this time of year vs other times of year, why the houses are built the way they are, etc - you know, just some interesting fact about the place that the picture is illustrating). People generally don't want to be reading enormous captions, but a well worded, to-the-point, one or two sentence caption can help draw them in. I'm sure there must be more detail in the shadows than we're getting, though understand your concerns about making it look unrealistic. Have you tried to select the shadowy regions and selectively lighten them, or even just dodge out those areas of the photo? There's people better at this stuff than me, but I'll download the full version and give it a try. If it comes up any good I'll upload for you. --jjron (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice concerning the caption. Is it Ok to change it now, that I have nominated it. I have not tried selective lifting the shadowy parts, and I am reluctant to do so as I think it will not be true to how it really looks.
Darn, no I did not until now. Actually i am the person who inserted version two in the article, but that is quite a while ago. At that time I reckoned it was the version with the highest EV as it showed a larger part of the town. However based on your review above I regret that I did not insert version 1 at that time. Hmmm.. I will post a note about this on the FPC. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't post it on FPC, just swap 'em over in the article. No harm, no foul. All it indicates is that anyone that's reviewed hasn't even bothered to check for EV :-). OK, quick edit. I brought up the shadows, but that brought out a bit of noise. I didn't want to try a noise reduction as I think it would have wiped out detail in this shot. I also noted the lack of sharpness mentioned at Commons. So did a downsize, still 1000px on the 'short' side so well above requirements (though I'm some size-nazis at FPC would whine about it). This has helped to take out some excess noise and pick up the apparent sharpness. I somewhat prefer it, but will leave it up to you to offer it as an edit at FPC. --jjron (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, re the caption. Yep, just update it if you want to, that's fine (again if someone had commented on that, you might comment on it in the nom, but since they haven't just leave a comment in the edit summary). --jjron (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am impressed by the edit. It has turned out better than I would have imaged. Concerning further downsampling, i have mixed feelings about that. the pixel-by-pixel quality gets better, but if you do a printout at the same final scale you will not gain anything from downsampling. But I will certainly add it as edit to consider. Thank you for taking your time to do this. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on size - don't give away more than necessary. We should be worried about how it looks on screen, and possibly for a smallish print. In reality that's how most (>>99%) WP photos are used, and frankly that's also how images are judged at FPC. If someone really wants/needs a bigger version for big printing they can contact you and arrange something. (As I said originally I didn't download the full versions due to filesizes - slow internet connection at home, fast but metered to the user at work; I actually hate these really big filesized images for those reasons). --jjron (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I visited Las Vegas last week for a short holiday. I came across these angels quite suddenly. The angle of the arch, the receding size of the snow-white angels with their trumpets and the amazingly beautiful sky had to be captured. To me, this image has an ethereal quality. I had a good camera with me, a Panasonic Lumix model and decided to take the picture. When I saw it on my laptop screen, I had a great desire to share it with people and hope that when they see the beauty there, they will have the "wow" reaction too. I have already added this picture below the others in Wikipedia's Caesar's Palace page. --Aernyes (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the image adds to the article the image isn't of featured quality because (1) the subject is cut off, not just at the bottom but also one of the angel's trumpets, (2) the image suffers from distortion, (3) there's a lens flare in the upper right, (4) the sky is noisy/artifacted and (5) doubtful encyclopedic value - if you hadn't told me it was at Caesar's Palace then I can't figure out where the image was taken as the leftmost column obscures the logo. (1), (2) and (5) can be corrected by reshooting further away from the subject while (4) can be corrected with noise reduction and/or downsampling.
Please check the FP criteria. It's an interesting photo, but is way below the minimum size (at least 1000px on a side), and even at image page size, (which is fullsize) the quality is poor (come on, it's not high quality for its age, it's from the 1940s, not the 1840s). Looks to be a low res scan of the original, which you would expect to be far higher quality. Also filename is appalling - how does Image:Wc0106-3a18421r.jpg help anyone find it? (Not that you named it, just making the point.) Thanks for putting it up here though. --jjron (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A panoramic image of the Douglas bayRestitched edit with low-res originals by jjron
This is a photograph of the Douglas bay on a nice bright day. It is a very large photograph and clearly shows a number of buildings on the Harris Promenade and The Tower of Refuge.
Zoomed out, it looks amazing. When I look at it full size, it could be me, but it seems a tad grainy. I like the bird off to the left side of the picture, though. Preceding unsigned comment by Elephantissimo 00:34, 10 April 2008
Thanks for your nomination. This is a good photo and useful for Wikipedia, but even at image page size I can see some problems that would prevent it succeeding at FPC (I haven't opened it fullsize, so correct me if I'm wrong). Clear stitching joins are evident between images, mainly visible as the brightness changes from section to section across the image - this happens continually and is possibly due to using auto settings on the camera while you took the originals. I also think I see stitching errors in the clouds, particularly about 1/6 way in from the left. The horizon has a funny uneven look to it, and looks to tilt downwards to the right - again this could be due to stitching errors. I wonder if it would be worth trying to adjust the originals so brightness was more consistent and trying a restitch. --jjron (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have all the original images. They are all large 5MP images. I used a fairly basic photo stitching software to stitch the panorama. If any of you experts here can use a better stitching process to come up with a better panorama, I would be glad to provide them with the source images. I would be grateful is somebody could take this up or refer me to someone who who could.
There's better at it than me, but if the originals have been done well I can usually get good results. And I have tried doing it when the originals have that inconsistent lighting by adjusting them first, but honestly haven't had a lot of success in doing so. I would have a try if the originals weren't too big (unfortunately I'm on a limited internet connection so can't handle, what, say 12, really big files - 1/2 a megabyte each I might be able to deal with), but I honestly don't know that the results will come out much better. Can I be so impertinent as to ask what equipment and settings you used to take the photos, and the conditions on the day (e.g., sun going in and out behind the clouds)? --jjron (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put up the originals now. They are all 1280x960 resolution so should be small enough to download while being large enough to preserve detail. I would be grateful with anything that you can come up with. I used a Panasonic Lumix FZ20 and the EXIF info on the source photos has been retained so you can see the settings that I have used for each photo on the image description page under the "Metadata" section. The day was quite cloudy yet bright. I hope this helps. If you need any more info, feel free to ask away. Thanks.--Ganeshrg (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a go at the restitch. The originals were pretty low res, so the restitch is considerably smaller and lacks some detail, but it is a bit better. I checked the original pano fullsize, and it was full of stitching errors, some pretty bad, and it was pretty noisy. The restitch is better (I noticed one stitching error which I didn't fix), and it still tilts a bit, mainly where the water goes across the horizon, but the really bad stitching faults are basically gone. I also did a noise reduction to take out some of the grain, but as I said one negative is it is a bit lower in detail than your pano. I'd suggest trying again with the full res originals if I thought it was worthwhile, but if you're mainly thinking FPC I'm quite confident it wouldn't make it anyway, working off these originals, I'm afraid. There are some problems in how they've been taken which kind of limits what you can do. Can I just make some suggestions for next time you shoot a pano, or if you have a chance to reshoot this one. I'll assume some of the problems in the originals, such as jpeg artifacting, were more a result of the downsize you did than the camera itself. This camera should be able to take decent images, despite it being a few years old now. Having said which these Panasonics are notoriously noisy, though at ISO 80, which these were taken at, that shouldn't usually be an issue. Where possible set controls manually (some of these settings may have been manually done?); however the exif suggested it was auto exposure and some of the settings altered slightly in different images. This really all seems a bit dull and if you were setting it manually you could have upped the shutter speed to probably half of what it was (or changed the ISO, but with this camera probably better to keep that as low as possible). Also one of the big problems here is that a number of the images are badly tilted. It is best if you can use a tripod and just rotate that across the scene, instead of taking the shots handheld where you get inconsistencies. The different tilts from image to image is probably the biggest reason your stitching software has struggled so much, and why we get the horizon tilting even in my edit. I actually straightened the originals before stitching, but it still wasn't enough to avoid the bit of a tilt, and has probably cost a bit of height. You could also try shooting in portrait orientation rather than landscape to get more height. I'll leave it there. It can be tricky getting things right for these panos but it can be fun to keep trying. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a real lot for your effort. I am really pleased and pleasantly surprised that there really are such dedicated and well-meaning people out in the world and on Wikipedia. I am sure good work never goes unpaid.
I understand most of your concerns and you are right on most of them too. The JPEG artifacting is mostly due to the compression. I put up smaller source files to make it easier for you/anyone else to download them and work on them. I could re-upload the large sized originals if anyone wants to do anyhing with them. A tripod is a necessity, I know. I was at this place and happened to notice a brilliant panorama in my mind so I did the best I could hand-held. I keep trying to challenge myself on doing better panos and longer shutter speeds hand-held and will definitely keep trying. I will though get a tripod everytime I want to shoot a pano for something useful or for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganeshrg (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like all cormorants, the double-crested cormorant dives to find its prey. It mainly eats fish. Fish are caught by diving under water. Smaller fish may be eaten while the bird is still beneath the surface but bigger prey is often brough to the surface before it is eaten like shown at the image. Of course in such a situation a bird that got a fish could be attacked by a fishing neighbor. If such an attack takes place, the one, who wins is usually the fish. After my shot was taken the lucky fish was able to escape.
Three Waikupanaha and one Ki lava ocean entries as well as surface lava flow are seen at the image. You could see red lava entering the ocean at the first Waikupanaha ocean entry and a glow at Ki ocean entry. The meeting of lava and the ocean is so violent that one could often see Steam explosions, which spray fragments of hot lava into the air.The image was taken at The Big Island of Hawaii.Any better?Edit 2 by jjron
The dramatic scenery, which shows a violent meeting of lava and the ocean. IMO the image is a very educational and has high encyclopedic value. The image has also a good quality and a great caption.
I haven't really had time to look at this closely, but I rather liked it with my brief look. In the thumb it is heavily dark for 2/3 of the picture and doesn't look so impressive, but it looks far better at image page size. One issue is that it is clearly significantly tilted - it looks to have been either taken with coastline horizontal, or straightened for that, but look at the horizon in the background. I'd think that would want to be straightened up if you are considering putting it up at FPC. The other thing is that I seem to remember you getting a similar picture featured last year - it was something to do with lava in Hawaii, I'm not sure how similar it was to this, and I don't have time to search it out, so perhaps you could remind us of the details on that one? --jjron (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jiron, thank you for taking your time to write the comment at the image! The last year image was very different . It was taken from a helicopter and did not show lava entering the ocean with all its plume and steam. You are right it is tilted. I used flex tripod hanging out on a shaky rope to take the image. The thing is it was quite a walk over lava flow to get to the place and it was hard to carry my normal tripod (I know it cannot be an excuse). I would like to put it to FPC, but I am afraid. It is easier for me to cross an active lava flow, to go in the cage with great white sharks, to land at an iceberg in a helicopter than to nominate my images at FPC. :-) Thank you for being so kind with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I understand your FPC tension. The straightness looks good now. I wonder if you edited from the original here or went back to your fullsize original though? The only reason I ask is that the bits of red lava look brighter (and more dynamic) in the first one. The other unfortunate consequence is that the big dramatic smoke plume at the right has now been cutoff at the top. Would you mind if I had a try at straightening from the original over the next day or two, just to see what I can do? Oh, and re the other FP, so I wasn't mistaken but you are right they are really quite different images. Can't see any issue there. FWIW I like this one better. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have had a go. Straightened, and I also brought up the dark regions a bit and did some noise reduction. I've managed to keep in the top of that biggest plume. You may think it looks better in the original lighting, and if so I have another version with no alteration to the lighting which I could do a noise reduction on and upload instead. Re FPC I'm not sure how this would fare as there's a lot of pointless posturing going on there ATM over image sizes, pixel picking, etc. I also think it would be good if you could get it into an article to do with volcanoes rather than just Hawaii based articles (not that EV is of any real concern to the poseurs). Personally I like it, but am feeling less and less that I can speak for 'FPC' opinion. --jjron (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another unusual, interesting photo capturing multiple phenomena in one image. An Mbz1 speciality! My gut feeling though is that this would not do so well on FPC, as some other images along these lines have struggled there. I find the darkness on the ground loses just a bit too much detail, and overall quality doesn't seem exceptional. Personally I think it's an excellent photo, and I wouldn't tell you not to nominate it, but I just feel it may get some bad responses. I'll leave it up to you to decide. --jjron (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, John. I will not nominate the image because it is a very special image for me, it is the image I care about and bad responces would hurt.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I kind of thought that may be the case. In that case I would agree with you and say refrain from putting it through the FPC wringer, and just appreciate it as is. --jjron (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Size doesn't meet FP criteria and I suspect some people will have problems with the text on painting, although that's easily fixed. My other concern would be encyclopedic value. I don't know how well it really illustrates Old salt. I think with a bigger scan and better article placement this could gather some support though. Tomdobb (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment -- I didn't realize there was a 1000px minimum, but "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired." Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. The only real way to get a better photo would be to rephotograph the original painting(which is, or was, at the United States Naval Academy), not very practical since I live in Arizona.
Perhaps this image could also illustrate a historical naval uniform article, but no such article seems to exist. Hmm.... Thanks again, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The historical policy is more for if the original itself is historical on its own right but fails the technical requirements. Here is a painting 2.5 feet tall; the problem is not in the historical origninal but in the modern digital reprodiction. Thegreenj00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- and that's an insoluble problem, without rephotographing the painting. Oh, well. Something to do on my next trip to Annapolis (or yours??).
Oh, by the way, do you know about Wikimedia Commons? If you upload free media there, rather than to Wikipedia, it can then be accessed from foreign language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects. Thegreenj00:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very nice quality view of the Richland Carrousel Park with the nice carrousel horse and the bright colors. I'm not sure if this picture is good enought for FP yet?
It's definitely a nice picture, but I think it would likely have trouble at FPC for composition and encyclopedic issues. The picture is a bit tilted, and the composition doesn't have a clear subject—the park itself is cut off, while the statue is relatively small. However, the real problem is in its encyclopdic value. Its value in illustrating Carousel is questionable, since it doesn't actually show a carousel. And at Mansfield, Ohio, does it actually show something that would help a viewer know more about the city? The exterior of the facility doesn't seem unique, and the interior which the city is apparently known for isn't seen. Again, nothing bad about it, but it would likely struggle at FPC. To see the standard accepted for FP, check out our other featured architecture pictures. Thegreenj00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cool picture, but I don't think it warrants a FPC for two reasons. It's fairly grainy, and also, what exactly is the encyclopedic value of the photograph? Also, the composition might be a problem as well. --Hetar00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty photo but there's a few things that can't be corrected that may be issues at FPC. All the red going off to the left of the image (I'm not even sure what it is, probably smoke, but why's it red? That's not that important really). Anyway, to me it helps make the image look unbalanced - I want to see more of it but it just cuts off. I see you've cropped to include the Opera House, but that comes up very dark, and adds to the unbalanced feel, as the lit up bridge is so much more visually dominant. If the image was cropped just to the bridge without worrying about the dark opera house sails at the left, it may feel better balanced - just a suggestion, not sure how well it would work. It also appears that the fireworks and smoke (?) are pretty badly motion blurred - this is not easy to avoid when taking fireworks at night as the shutter speed will tend to adjust for the darkness and be quite slow, thus the fast moving fireworks will blur, and if you manually set for the fireworks, everything else tends to come out really dark. It's a pretty hard balance. I waffled a lot here I think, but some just some ideas to consider. Thanks, --jjron (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shot this panorama and i guess i just wanted some feedback before i shoot some more. It's made up of 7 pictures all shot on the same place near Tjörnin in Reykjavík. The stitching was done by another user.
The two most prominent issues that I see are vignetting, making seams visible, and apparant tilt, which looks like it is coming from your choice of projection. I don't know anything about fixing the vignetting, but I believe there is a Commons user who does. Drop him a note and see if you can do anything about it. Thegreenj00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to the "Clouds" article because there wasn't any of this particular type of cloud formation so pictured. It seems fairly good at depicting a rare type of cloud, so that's why I am submitting it here. I also would like to nominate it for FPC, but since I've never done this before, am not sure how.
Yes, the noise will be a bit of a downer, particularly because it obscures the outline of the cloud enough to make it difficult to discern the characteristic shape. Our other "altocumulus standing lenticularises" at lenticular cloud are also less than spectacular, but they do allow the viewer to see the outline clearly. Matt Deres (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Covered bridges are an important development in the history of architecture and engineering. This is an example of a well-preserved quintessential covered bridge over a significant local route.
The legs and feet of ant-following antbirds are strong and adapted to gripping vertical stems and branches. The leg muscle of the Bicoloured Antbird comprises 13% of its body weight.
This is a beautiful image of a difficult to see bird. The species, like most of its family, tends to skulk in the undergrowth in the forests of South and Central America and we have few images of the family. More importantly it illustrates an important aspect of the biology of some species in the antbird family.
It's a great picture, my only concern is the bird's legs and feet (which are the primary focus of the photo caption) are somewhat out of focus at full size and might meet with some opposition at FPC. Tomdobb (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DOF issues with the legs/feet are a shame because the head and body of the bird are quite crisp. I agree with Kunchan that this has a chance at FPC, but I'd change the caption to something more generic about the bird - no need to specifically draw attention to the one bad area. Matt Deres (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to change the caption - I'd rather that the image had a caption that was informative of an interesting aspect of antbird biology than have a bland, less informative caption and a star above it. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk00:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An anti-homophobia protester at a demonstration in Paris, in 2005
I think this picture is great for many reasons. First, its a great contrast to the article itself, homophobia. Second, its amazing liberalism at work. Also, I think it's very representative of the 21st century. Thoughts before I nominate?
Two problems I would have with this re FPC chances are that it looks rather snapshot-ish (for example consider the busy, uninspiring background, and that cutoff person in the red coat beside the main subject), and secondly that it is all in French (good for French wiki, not so good for English wiki). An interesting image nonetheless. --jjron (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be suffering a bit from the same 'washed out' effect that your Nymph Lake image below had. Also, without opening it fullsize, I get the feeling that the focus is towards the front of the image on that area of dirt probably this side of the road, but it seems the focus should be back on the pillars. You haven't given much details, so it's hard to know what you were really going for though. --jjron (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't suffer from a 'washed out' effect as the other picture does. That one definetly is 'washed out' as you said. The focus is one the foreground in this picture and the background is deliberately a little bit brighter to make more of a silouette out of the buttes. I also wanted to depict the color of the desert in Monument Valley.Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no context for this picture; what mountains those are in the distance, where this picture was taken, etc. The image quality is also somewhat poor; there's some visible blurriness throughout the picture and some chromatic aberration in the snow on the mountains. It doesn't quite match up to the technical standards and compelling interest that other featured pictures usually have. Palladmial (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This gives the horrible feeling of being badly tilted, though looking at the distant horizon and the clouds I don't really think it is. Perhaps you'd need to explain this phenomenon (e.g., is it a result of some geological faulting?). Now, I don't really know what is possible re taking this shot, but it looks that you could have got further to the left and taken a better photo, i.e., the arch that is apparently what this photo is mainly about blends into that rock formation behind it. If you could have got further to the left you could have got the arch with just sky behind it, and that would have made a far more powerful shot of the arch itself. My take on this would be that it's a good photo, but probably not up to featured standards. --jjron (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it is absolutely not tilted. That is just how mother nature designed it. I have now idea if there is a geological term for that phenomenon. I do have a close-up of the arch, where it is freestanding much like the current FP of Delicate Arch, but I uploaded this one, because Wikipedia didn't had a good picture depicting the surroundings and position of the arch.Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)74.211.62.181 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling would be that some of the comments I made re that flower gallery below would probably also apply here. I just find that flowers that blend into other flowers in the background like this one does tend to get a hard run at FPC. Now it may be possible that this is just the way these flowers grow, but I don't really get that impression, although looking at the other images in the article it appears this may be the case - so it would be a matter of convincing voters of this. The other concern (and admittedly I have only viewed at image page size) is that the lower petals on the main flower look a little 'blown' - possibly harsh flash reflection? --jjron (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doppler effect, yellow ball appears greenish (blueshift) approaching observer, turns orange (redshift) as it passes, and returns to yellow when motion stops.
I think this image has great encyclopedic value. It is a very good depiction of the doppler redshift and fits in well with its article. I thought it could be considered for nomination if others think it's good enough.
I like the idea that it illustrates redshift and blueshift, but it's just not eye-catching enough to be a featured picture. It's good enough to go on a high school science website, but it lacks the intrigue of a typical FP. If there were included elements off to the side, detailing the speed of the object, its relative position to the observer, and the change in the wavelength of the light, then I might reconsider my position. Palladmial (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
View over the cirque of Pougnadoire and Saint-Chély-du-Tarn village, in the Tarn Gorges, from the cirque of Saint-Chély. This picture features the road D 907bis which goes alongside the Tarn river all along the gorges.
Large size and apparent technical quality. Illustrates the village and its surrounds well. In one article, and would easily fit others. FP on commons.
One thing that I find slightly offputting is that to me there's not enough sky; it just looks a little cramped or awkward up top. I don't guess there's a version with a bit more headspace? --jjron (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it over at FPC. The amount of sky was something to think about, but since other pictures have passed recently with similar amounts of sky, I think it shouldn't hurt its chances. Not much more and a crop might be suggested. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love the composition; it's so good, I feel like I've seen other photographs of the same scene. This must be a popular spot; or, I'm crazy. As far as image quality goes, it looks slightly washed out; I would like to see better contrast, particularly in the green of the trees, and a bluer sky which can sometimes be obtained using a CPL. I think the water lillies are somewhat distracting, although, unless you carry a kayak in your camera bag, there's not much you can do about it. Fletcher (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree it looks washed out; I downloaded it last night to try to pick that up a bit. I did an edit to try to improve contrast, saturation, and sharpness. A downsized version is here. I'm still not that happy with the sky, but there's not much there to work with; going beyond this may be considered 'inappropriate' digital manipulation as it would almost be heading into a faked sky. I'd prefer to get the sky about the same as the colour of the reflected sky in water though. BTW I don't mind the lilies, but I don't find the composition totally captivating. --jjron (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think the image here shows the potential of the reflected forest and mountains in the lake, which is what I meant by saying the lilies are distracting. Not a huge deal though. Fletcher (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the capture of the reflections is better in the linked image. Funnily enough the sky is a nicer blue in the reflection in that one as well. Any thoughts on the edit? I am considering bumping up the blues in the sky a bit further. --jjron (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, gee, I'm not sure. I got the same impression, but while I was editing it I tried to straighten it, and it didn't look right. Going on the trees, they actually seem to be pretty vertical. I think what might be happening is that the shoreline across the water actually bends away from the viewer at image-right, but the eye sees this as a horizon and thinks it should be level, so therefore thinks the image is tilted. The extra white on the shore at the right simply amplifies this effect. But I could be wrong. --jjron (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2 uploaded. Diffs from Edit 1: I ended up I did straighten it (I think it was 0.6° clockwise); I think it looks better, but hope I didn't go too far. I think the sky looks a lot better now with the stronger blue; sky was also a bit messy, noticeable when you got rid of the 'washed out' appearance, so I did a minor denoise to clean that up. Downsized a little bit, but relatively minor, considerably less than for Edit1. --jjron (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder
Weak support to jjron's edit (or future edits -- they'll be good). I like the image a lot, but it bugs me I can imagine how cool it would be if there weren't lilies marring the reflection and if the water were perfectly still. Those things are beyond the photographer's control, of course. I'm supposed to be on vacation so can't comment further. Fletcher (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we could edit out the lilies, but I suspect that may definitely be 'too much' manipulation :-). BTW, if anyone's thinking of nominating, please wait till I put up Edit 2 to look at, with a bit more sky work done on it (I'll put it up fullsize as well if I think it's my final edit). --jjron (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if someone wants to nominate this, go ahead now. I wouldn't give it a huge chance (it's possibly a little generic, and still has some minor technical issues), but would be interesting to see what response it got. --jjron (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't think this is in any articles. Make sure that is fixed before nominating. If I have missed something and the original is in an article, I'd suggest replacing it with Edit2. --jjron (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at it fullsize? I agree it's quite eyecatching small, but quality is pretty bad. It's full of artifacting, and image detail is poor, initially surprisingly so for an image of this resolution and filesize. Not to mention the bad tilt. Quality is so low it almost looks to be upsampled, but I guess if the exif data is right this is from a c2002 Kodak digicam, so the ordinary quality may be understandable (but not acceptable). --jjron (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently went to the United States Botanic Garden and took pictures of various flowers. I was hoping one (or several) of the pictures I took might be good enough for FP status. Rather than get input on each on separately, I thought it would be best to just put them up together on this page to see if anyone thought any of them had a chance. Any feedback you can give would also be helpful. Remember (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In (7) the subject plant is out of focus in places. That is ok with you? What do you think of (6)? It stands out to me the most aesthetically, but I can't seem to decide. Fletcher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to brief since there's so many and I'm in a rush. Let me say first they're all nice and are certainly useful images. But as far as FPC goes, I'd say 1-5 are out for a variety of reasons (depending on the image - slightly cutoff, clashes with background, minor DOF issues). A real issue with 6 would be size - it only just scrapes into the minimum requirements, personally I think that would sink it for a flower. 7 is good, probably the biggest issue would be DOF as mentioned above, personally I don't think it's too bad though. 8 is quite OK, but even at image page size it seems quite noisy and the highlights on the flower look blown; I'm also not sure the background has come out quite as nice as you would hope. Anyway, good luck. --jjron (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful and high technical quality. I'm posting this here hoping to get some input as to which one is the best of the four. Personal preference for no. 2 --Fir000208:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm rather at odds with you on this. I'd rank No2 last; I prefer the 'natural' look of the others rather than the web on the wire fence. But, to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of any of them. Not that they're not good, but it's on EV grounds I think they fall down. I think the dew looks artistic, but it seems to largely obscure the web itself, thereby reducing EV. Also, as best as I can tell, none of these has a spider on them; for mine, if I was going to support an FPC of a spider's web, I'd want it to show a spider. If I was to rank from favourite down, I'd go 3, 4, 1, 2. --jjron (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yeah that's a good point you raise re: lack of spider. The only thing is that I'm not sure you could get a spider in a dewy web - and the dew definitely makes the web easier to see. But not sure if i'll nominate after all because as you say that is a problem with the content of the image. --Fir000210:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, can't say I can remember seeing a spider in a dewy web - but where do they go? And the dew does help make the web easier to see, that's true, you need a pretty good coincidence of web position and sunlight to make just a normal web this visible. Just thinking a bit more also - I can imagine if you did nominate a web with a spider in it as I suggested, I could just see the complaints coming that there wasn't enough detail on the spider, not up to our usual macro standards, etc. Could the spider actually be a deterrent to a nomination of a web? --jjron (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]Spider and Web
The picture itself looks OK, but the background leaves a lot to be desired, especially if you were thinking FPC. In particular that big white roof unfortunately washes out about a third of the web. The web itself also seems a bit messy at the top. I'd suggest trying to get a more consistently dark background (which could be hard, as to a degree you are limited by how the light is hitting the web) and going for a lower DOF so you blur the background as Fir has done (yours is shot at f/7.1 which puts the background too much in focus). (BTW, I notice you've got the 400D :-). Done much work with it yet?) --jjron (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep my eyes open for any more spiders and try doing what you suggested. Yes I got the 400D and its great. I have uploaded some of my recent pictures to commons. Would you please give me your opinion about them if and when you get the time? No hurries. Muhammad(talk)12:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just had a look. Umm, I'm having a little trouble knowing which ones are yours and which aren't. Following that link loads up a gallery, but I know at least some of those images aren't yours (perhaps you've done edits). Can you link to somewhere with just some of your recent shots? --jjron (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Astronaut Ron Garan, STS-124 mission specialist, participates in the mission's second scheduled session of extravehicular activity (EVA) as construction and maintenance continue on the International Space Station. During the seven-hour, 11-minute spacewalk, Garan and astronaut Mike Fossum (out of frame), mission specialist, installed television cameras on the front and rear of the Kibo Japanese Pressurized Module (JPM) to assist Kibo robotic arm operations, removed thermal covers from the Kibo robotic arm, prepared an upper JPM docking port for flight day seven's attachment of the Kibo logistics module, readied a spare nitrogen tank assembly for its installation during the third spacewalk, retrieved a failed television camera from the Port 1 truss, and inspected the port Solar Alpha Rotary Joint (SARJ).
I believe this is just an incredibly detailed picture of an astrounaut working on the ISS.
There is a higher resolution image available at the nasa-site [2]
While an interesting photo, the current version here is too small for FPC (<1000px on the shortest side). Quality is also poor. If you can upload the big version we could have another look. Note however that we have a considerable number of NASA images as FPs and they can come under harsh scrutiny. One of the concerns with this would be the very tight crop. Additionally, while I don't doubt that this was taken in space as suggested, there is actually nothing in the photo that 'proves' this; in other words, how is this picture any better than a similar photo that could be taken on Earth? Finally, the image is only used in a gallery in one article. This gives it insufficient encyclopaedic value and would need to be remedied prior to an FPC nom. --jjron (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this former FPC candidate. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
_GOES.JPG)
_GOES_2.PNG)
.jpg)
. While this doesn't disqualify a second version being featured, personally I can't see that this photo provides any further information about the sculpture. Another option would be to go for a Delist and Replace nomination. While this one has some advantages (e.g., size) over the existing version, I find the lighting for example better on the existing version. Thanks for the contribution. --jjron (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
. It was taken from a helicopter and did not show lava entering the ocean with all its plume and steam. You are right it is tilted. I used flex tripod hanging out on a shaky rope to take the image. The thing is it was quite a walk over lava flow to get to the place and it was hard to carry my normal tripod (I know it cannot be an excuse). I would like to put it to FPC, but I am afraid. It is easier for me to cross an active lava flow, to go in the cage with great white sharks, to land at an iceberg in a helicopter than to nominate my images at FPC. :-) Thank you for being so kind with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
_GOES.JPG){kind=link}
_GOES.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[2]](https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/240406main_garan_full.jpg){kind=link}