Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Apr-Jun 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:PPRA Please cut and paste nominations to be archived from the Picture peer review mainpage to the top of the appropriate archive page, creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary. 2008: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2007: January - June | July - December 2006: January - December

Contents 1 Red roses 2 Le grand foyer 3 Waterfall cascade 4 Pelargonium 5 Collection of Flowers 6 Sunset near Lelystad 7 Gothenburg's Turtle Shell Roll 8 Black Moshannon Bog Panorama 9 Top of Princetop University building 10 Trinity explosion, 1945 11 Ansel Adams, San Ildefonso dancers, 1942 12 Princeton Walkway 13 Purple Flower 14 McCain with blue background 15 Pink Tulip 16 Red tulip. 17 Underground in Colorado, circa 1900 18 North Luzon Expressway 19 Wedge-tailed Eagle feeding on roadkill Kangaroo 20 View of Greenwich Park 21 Steadicam and operator in front of crowd 22 Scarlett Johansson 23 Dutch Master Daffodil 24 City Hall of San Fernando, Pampanga 25 1906 San Francisco Earthquake 26 Shore Temple 27 Upernavik evening panorama 28 Row of angels in front of Caesar's Palace 29 Winston Churchill in Coventry Cathedral 30 Douglas Bay Panorama 31 Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish 32 Coastline of the Big Island of Hawaii 33 Eruption of Halema`uma`u 34 Quartermaster Dick Libby, USN (1834) 35 The Richland Carrousel Park II 36 Olympic fireworks 37 Tjörnin Panorama 38 Lenticular Cloud over Wyoming 39 Wheeling Bridge 40 Bicoloured Antbird

[edit] Red roses

a beautiful image of Roses in spring. First time nominating need Comments also I want to know if it has featured picture quality.

Nominated by

Sasukekun22 (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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.--mikaul^talk 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Roses by Sasukekun22. --jjron (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le grand foyer

Following on from this successful nomination I noticed this image. It's featured on the German and Spanish Wikipedia's as well as on Commons. An image that showed more of the rather impressive looking ceiling (such as the one found here) might be better but this seems to fulfil all the criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

Guest9999 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Now nominated see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Le grand foyer

Seconder

• Encyclopedic, well composed, well exposed (especially for difficult indoor lighting), good technical condition (excellent really, for ISO 1600)... Definitely go for a nomination! Thegreenj 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterfall cascade

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)

Nominated by

Seraphim♥Whipp 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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)

I honestly have no idea. Partly why I brought it for review :). Seraphim♥Whipp 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Pelargonium

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 cents} 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. --mikaul^talk 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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 cents} 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Collection of Flowers

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!

Nominated by

Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. Thegreenj 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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 cents} 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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. --mikaul^talk 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Sunset near Lelystad

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!

Nominated by

-- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• As a start, I'd reread guideline #2... Thegreenj 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Bugger. There's no way I can fix that, is there? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • 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. Thegreenj 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • 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? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • 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. Thegreenj 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your help, Thegreenj. I shall remember your advice when I go search for pictures to upload next time! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Gothenburg's Turtle Shell Roll

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.

Nominated by

Spy007au (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Thanks for your submission. It's an interesting historical artifact, but not much of a photo, I'm afraid. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Seconder

[edit] Black Moshannon Bog Panorama

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)

Nominated by

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The right third is very dark compared to the rest, so I think it'd be best to give it a crop. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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. Thegreenj 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

Seconder

[edit] Top of Princetop University building

As with the other picture I added, it shows, in detail, the architecture and style of the buildings at Princeton. Would love some criticism.

Nominated by

Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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-C 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Trinity explosion, 1945

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)

Nominated by

Pete Tillman (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)
• 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)

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.

"Don't fly south." Indeed. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

Thanks for your efforts, which I'll look at in more detail this PM. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

How about this? Image:Trinity explosion2-edit2a.jpg -- all I did was touch up the tint a bit. IPhoto didn't mangle it! And the BG looks OK, though I didn't mess with that. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)

• "Your edit2a has a bit of sepia tinge" -- I was trying to match the tone in Image:Trinity.025sec.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.

I guess I'll go back and fiddle some more tomorrow, but to my eye, Image:Trinity explosion2-edit2b.jpg is the best yet. Thanks again for your help with this -- hopefully you can add another "assist" to your stellar FP record! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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? This is all new to me. Thanks again, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Trinity nuclear test, 1945 by Pete Tillman. --jjron (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ansel Adams, San Ildefonso dancers, 1942

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.

Nominated by

Pete Tillman (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)
• 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. --mikaul^talk 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Princeton Walkway

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 Love} 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. Thegreenj 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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. Thegreenj 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Third edit, got the tree on the other side of the archway to show through. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 00:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • ...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. Thegreenj 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I actually did straighten it before I stuck it in here... and when I open the utility again, it seems to line up fine. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
        • 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. Thegreenj 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Ahh, I didnt even notice that the cropping was off! This is why I love extra eyes! Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Purple Flower

I need someone to tell me what article to put this under, and if it would look good as a FP. I could use some constructive criticism.

Nominated by

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

Seconder

[edit] McCain with blue background

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.

Nominated by

Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. Thegreenj 22:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Thegreenj 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thx.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Thegreenj 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Seconder

[edit] Pink Tulip

I would like some constructive criticism.

Nominated by

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. Thegreenj 22:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

Seconder

[edit] Red tulip.

I would like some constructive criticism.

Nominated by

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It isn't red. Rmhermen (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• The whole picture seems kind of blurry. Elephantissimo (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Underground in Colorado, circa 1900

A nice change from the usual po-faces in historic photos of miners.

Nominated by

Pete Tillman (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

Thanks for your comments. I cropped this one a bit -- the original is in an archive in Colorado, so WYSIWYG. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] North Luzon Expressway

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?

Nominated by

Threestar traveller2008 (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

Seconder

[edit] Wedge-tailed Eagle feeding on roadkill Kangaroo

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.

Nominated by

Djambalawa (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I's a bit small (a crop?) and oversharpened (halo around the beak). Any chance this could be reprocessed? --Dschwen 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• That is a pretty cool picture, I think it's detailed enough and the size doesn't bother me. I can see this being used on a lot of pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elephantissimo (talk • contribs) 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Bold text

[edit] View of Greenwich Park

A large high quality picture that is in my opinion a worthy FP but needed a second opinion to check.

Nominated by

Seddon69 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I know there's a bit of an obsession with these twilight sort of shots at FPC, but I'm not a huge fan of them. At thumb and image page size, this one just looks all shadows - there's not even any attractive artificial lighting that we usually get to 'compensate' for the lack of real detail. I won't say much more because at these dimensions even the image page version is very small, and I'm not downloading a near on 8MB file to comment further (refer to previous comments on stupidly large filesizes) - someone else can deal with that. My other problem would be the licensing - under licensing it says it's CCA-SA but under author it says "© Bill Bertram (Pixel8) 2007-08". I think that needs to be clarified. Look, it appears to be a good job in general, but for mine the time of day it was taken isn't ideal. Further comments please. --jjron (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  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-C 06:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Steadicam and operator in front of crowd

I think it is a perfect representation of a steadicam and it fits right in with the article.

Nominated by

Pkenans (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

• 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).

Seconder

• .

[edit] Scarlett Johansson

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.

Nominated by

Guest9999 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

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).

[edit] Dutch Master Daffodil

I like the image and it's of good size, and I want to see if it's of featured picture quality.

Nominated by

AutoGyro (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The main issue here would be the grain. Some noise reduction might help. MER-C 06:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cropping the empty space below the flowers would also help. Lipton sale (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• It's a cool picture; I think it's fine quality-wise, but cropping it is a good idea. Elephantissimo (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• I edited the image, but maybe someone can do a better job? :) --AutoGyro (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

Seconder

[edit] City Hall of San Fernando, Pampanga

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.

Nominated by

Barrera marquez (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

Seconder

[edit] 1906 San Francisco Earthquake

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.

Nominated by

Guest9999 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• And another SF Earthquake FP for people to compare: Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg. --jjron (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• And yet another one that was promoted as illustrating SFE, but is not actually used anywhere: Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg. --jjron (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Shore Temple

I don't think it can b a FP. I'm starting Photography as a hobby and just want some comments on this picture

Nominated by

Σαι ( Talk) 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

• Thanks for the comments. I'll try for lesser sky next time. That was taken with a mobile phone camera. 2MP. I'd like to ask you a question. Image:Cricket_picture.jpg was edited from Image:Pollock_to_Hussey.jpg. I was wondering how it is possible to just take people off the picture. Σαι ( Talk) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

Seconder

[edit] Upernavik evening panorama

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.

Would any of the images have a chance at FPC?

Some background information on the history of the two photos.

Nominated by

Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

  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?

  Again, thank you for taking your time to consider this. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

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.

• BTW, do you realise that you nominated version 1 at FPC, but it's version 2 that's in the article? --jjron (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC by Slaunger. --jjron (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Row of angels in front of Caesar's Palace

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)

Nominated by

Aernyes (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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.

It might also be a copyright violation. Can someone check this? MER-C 13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Winston Churchill in Coventry Cathedral

Obvious historical content as well as high quality considering age.

Nominated by

St.daniel ^Talk 00:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

Seconder

[edit] Douglas Bay Panorama

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.

Nominated by

Ganeshrg (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)
• 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.

Thanks.--194.72.110.12 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • OK, I'll take a look and tell you what I think. --jjron (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)

Seconder

[edit] Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish

A rare action shot, which illustrates both Behavior and Diet of Double-crested Cormorant

Nominated by

Mbz1 (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Seconder

[edit] Coastline of the Big Island of Hawaii

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.

Nominated by

Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

I wanted to ask you myself to do it for me. It is very nice of you to offer your help.Please do.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• jjron's edit is by far my favorite -- a very dramatic photo! Good luck with it. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC), volcano fan.

• Thank you very much, Pete.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

I withdraw my nomination. Thanks.--14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eruption of Halema`uma`u

It is an interesting image, which shows two absolutely different nature wanders as rainbow and volcano eruption together

Nominated by

Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Very cool photo -- I like it a lot. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Pete.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Seconder

[edit] Quartermaster Dick Libby, USN (1834)

I love this painting. Dick Libby would have made a fine Rembrandt common man model. The worn face, the rumpled uniform -- this artist knew his stuff. Compare to Image:Der Mann mit dem Goldhelm.jpg.

Image is from the Naval Historical Center. [1] links to full picture data, including the quote in the caption. WP Image links to Uniforms of the United States Navy and Old salt.

Nominated by

Pete Tillman (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

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)

Image now linked to Uniforms of the United States Navy, which has some historical info. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Thegreenj 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

-- and that's an insoluble problem, without rephotographing the painting. Oh, well. Something to do on my next trip to Annapolis (or yours??).

Too bad, as it's an exceptionally fine painting. Better reproduction than the Rembrandt (above) too <GG>.Thanks for your comment, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Thegreenj 00:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] The Richland Carrousel Park II

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?

Nominated by

OHWiki (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. Thegreenj 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Olympic fireworks

I think it's a very nice quality picture, with vibrant colours and nice reflections on the water.

Nominated by

Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. --Hetar 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cropped some of the black out and reduced the noise. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Seconder

[edit] Tjörnin Panorama

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.

Nominated by

Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. Thegreenj 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Lenticular Cloud over Wyoming

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.

Nominated by

HaarFager (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's very noisy at full size. I doubt it would pass at FPC. Tomdobb (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

Seconder

HaarFager (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wheeling Bridge

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.

Nominated by

Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The image suffers from horrible JPEG artifacting and as such won't succeed. Do you still have the full-quality original? MER-C 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Bicoloured Antbird

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.

Nominated by

Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)
• Flash is a little harsh, esp apparent on the tree. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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 Sunbird talk 00:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• This has a great chance - don't agree with the comment re the flash - you should submit and let it take it's chances --Kunchan (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominated at FPC by jjron. --jjron (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)