Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 23:59:57 (UTC)
Original – The Westminster Bridge with the Westminster Palace in the background.
Reason
Found this while reading up on the most recent incident overseas (well overseas for me anyway); this image struck me so I thought I ought to list it here to see if it had a chance at an FPC star. Presently this image adores the article Westminster Bridge, where it holds the distinguished place of honor as the lead image in the article's infobox.
Oppose – Poor lighting, shadowy. It's not bad as a mood shot and would be fine as an additional photo at Westminster Bridge, but a lighter, more conventional photo would be better in the infobox there. Sca (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 01:07:18 (UTC)
Original – The Castle of Zafra is a 12th-century castle located in the municipality of Campillo de Dueñas, in Guadalajara, Spain. Built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop in the Sierra de Caldereros, it stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory.
Reason
High quality. Gives a stunning view of the castle and its surroundings.
Since the subject is facing and, so to speak, pointing right, it makes sense in terms of composition to have more space on the right. Sca (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this red-legged seriema pic. is more interesting than the one of Ms. Spears in her infobox – her massive (15,400-word) article notwithstanding. Sca (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only interesting thing about this bird is its head. We could also have FP of the whole bird, but since it runs along the ground, it's tricky to get a very special shot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The only way to get more in focus is to use a smaller aperture (f/14, for example), which would mean less detail on the scales, or focus stacking, which wouldn't work well with a live subject (File:Mealybugs of flower stem, Yogyakarta, 2014-10-31.jpg was the only decent result I got out of 50+ shots). This is great. I would prefer the image saved with less compression, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris. After reading your comment, I checked a DoF chart and did a test. I reckon I took the picture 25cm away from this 18mm butterfly. With my 100mm macro lens at F11 I have 1.6mm DoF which is OK if you can get the insect absolutely square on to the camera. 1/400 sec was needed for hand held crouching near the ground. I then cropped to 60% of the original 5472 x 3648 pixels. At F14, the DoF only goes up to 2.0mm. F14 is two stops and also, my camera (like most) produces better images at F11 than F14. ISO 800 is the highest speed I can sensibly use, so it would not have been possible to use F14, even in the excellent lighting conditions I had. I'm not sure what you mean by 'less compression'. This image is not downsized, it is just cropped, then saved as maximum quality JPG. If I could get closer to the subject to use full frame (therefore no cropping), I reckon I would have been 13cm away. Unfortunately that would cut DoF to 0.3mm which doesn't work at all. Also, the butterfly would have flown away! And if it didn't for some reason, me and my camera would block out too much light and usually throw a shadow. Obviously there is no chance for proper focus-stacking in the field though one can sometimes manually stitch a couple of images together. It's all a carefully calculated compromise! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. My comment "less detail on the scales" was meant to refer to the diffraction issues which leads to the camera (lens?) producing better images at F11 than F14, but in a way that non-photographers can understand. I didn't go into ISO etc. for the same reason.
I just opened the image in PS. It showed that you saved at a quality level of 10 (out of 12). That shouldn't lead to any noticeable JPG artifacts. Hmm... I'll PM you on your talk page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 05:45:47 (UTC)
Original – Letter from Theresa May invoking Article 50
Reason
In lieu of the referendum last year in the United Kingdom which confirmed the exit of the Britain from the European Union, it was announced that the Prime Minister would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union sometime in 2017. As it happens, yesterday was that day, so I am presenting the copy of the formal invocation of Article 50, giving formal notice to the Council of the European Union of a member state's intention to withdraw from the EU in order to allow withdrawal negotiations to begin as required by the Treaty on European Union. Since this is the first time that such paperwork has ever been formally invoked, I am listing it here for FPC consideration.
@Janke: My apologies; I was unaware that the criteria had shifted again. Well that leaves us with two options: prematurely closing this nomination or moving this to the suspended nominations section and waiting it out for 7 days. I leave that choice to you and yours. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria have been like that for ages. We'll make exceptions for new articles, sometimes, but I really can't see any consensus to support such an exception here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Agree with previous comment. Significant event but the letter itself is basically a bureaucratic document. Sca (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have nothing against FPs of documents, including historical letters (Bixby letter, for example). However, this does not meet quality standards by any stretch of the imagination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp i do focus stacking. Because of that, my f is merely uninteresting stuff. And dont worry, i know what i am doing. Nothing is missing on this flower. By the way, made of 32 shots. That is a lot lot more than some...how much, f !? And in better quality than all single shots of flower. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand the F7.1, but shouldn't the image say that it is a composite of many images? You are right that a focus stack should produce very sharp images, but in this one the definition doesn't seem to be quite there, though I'm not opposing the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My issues with the composition: odd angle and cropped table mat. Technical issues: generally over-exposed, particularly right side of white plate is blown out, as is some of the cabbage. Food itself is not very sharp (taken at 1/60) with odd choice of F4, so little depth of field. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quite a high quality photo of the food, I just find the composition to be jarring. Specifically how the placemat is cut off at strange angles. Mattximus (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A high-resolution image of a Mesa, a common geological occurrence on Earth, as it appears on Mars. Useful in the understanding of common geological processes on both Earth and Mars.
Comment Hmmmm - sure it's eye-catching, but it looks more like a carbuncle than a mesa. Additionally, there are some unexplained dark blue spots that I think might be imaging artifacts - maybe they should be removed? --Janke | Talk07:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Eye-catching, sure, but to most people a mystery photo, thus lacking readily accessible visual information. Sca (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates California State Route 108 and its surroundings as it passes through Sonora Pass. It is high-resolution and aesthetically pleasing, and shows the meadows along the highway.
Support – Detail looks quite good to me. (Perhaps it could benefit from a little more contrast?) Interesting history. Sca (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2017 at 17:16:48 (UTC)
Original – A passenger/freight train on the Bernina line near the top of the Bernina Pass at an elevation of over 2,100 metres (7,000 ft); pulled by two ABe 4/4 multiple units
Reason
Good composition illustrating the scenic route of the Bernina line with the Piz Alv, Piz Minor and Vadrets Minor peaks in the background; FP on Commons.
A moderate crop might be OK, but I think the photographer's intent probably is an environmental shot showing the train in very wintry mountainous country, so we wouldn't want to take too much of that away. Sca (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say it's about the train and the landscape, showing the conditions under which the plucky Swiss run trains. Train without landscape or landscape without train wouldn't be nearly as interesting. Sca (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course, the train is important, that's what makes the picture interesting. But it's the landscape (with the train) that gives the picture its EV, and a crop would kill that. —Bruce1eetalk17:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the composition is fine just the way it is. Showing the subject in the context of its environment is precisely what creates the EV. A closeup of the train itself would be much less valuable I think. – Juliancolton | Talk15:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For caption use: Bernina Pass article lists elevation at 2,328 m./7,638 ft., while Bernina railway says 2,253 m./7,392 ft., and calls it "the highest railway crossing in Europe." At any rate, this photo evidently shows the train at over 7,000 ft. (2,300 m.). Sca (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've added the elevation to the caption – feel free to reword if necessary. Obviously the railway doesn't quite get to the top of the pass. BTW 7,000 ft. is 2,134 m. not 2,300 m. :-) —Bruce1eetalk17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with precision in conversions - numbers should be converted with a similar precision (see MOS:CONVERSIONS). "Over 7,000 feet" is clearly an approximate measurement, so it should be converted to something like 2,100m. Converting from 7,000ft to 2,134m implies more precision than actually exists. TSP (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 09:37:05 (UTC)
Original – Male komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) on Komodo Island, Indonesia. A reptile's forked tongue allows it to sense from which direction a smell is coming.
Reason
Through to second round of Commons Picture of the Year 2017
Support – Impressive with good EV; I'm not too fond of the black shadow (a little too harsh), but it doesn't detract from the picture quality. —Bruce1eetalk12:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry to vote against this one, but the combination of harsh shadows, and the fact that most of the animal has been cut off (the image looks like the animal is very wide, but in reality is quite long) means low EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Very striking and aesthetically pleasing picture of a komodo dragon. I'm not keen on the shadows for EV purposes, however. They seem almost black — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally the harsh shadows are intentional to show menace with the extended tongue. I took other photos of the whole animal and of males fighting, but I chose this one to feature. The animal is so large, if you show it all you don't get the menace, nor the detail of head, tongue and front leg. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I get the menace. My issue is that this choice, though very appropriate for a more aesthetics-oriented site like Commons (not to mention hard to avoid this close to the equator), limits the image's EV in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The dramatic, constrasty sidelighting makes for a striking image and doesn't detract at all from the EV. Genuinely not sure what the problem is. – Juliancolton | Talk17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can clarify. The main function of a photo on wikipedia should be encyclopedic: does it accurately portray the animal? In this case, having more than half the animal out of frame, and the half that is in frame obscured by shadow does not fit this description. It certainly is articistic, and "menacing", however it's not encyclopedic. For example, would you know that it is shaped like this based on this image? Mattximus (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it shows its forked tongue very clearly, the role of which is discussed in the article; and it's the only picture in the article showing its tongue. So there's EV. —Bruce1eetalk06:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken both photos, I can explain further. The full length picture is good for the header photo as it illustrates the whole animal. But it cannot do justice to this most fearsome of reptiles. For that you need the nominated image. Think about human portraits. Do we reject all of them? Think about education. Which image would you use to talk to children about this creature? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took the liberty to replace the old version with a gamma-corrected one, please see if this might fare better... If you don't like it, feel free to revert it on the file page! --Janke | Talk14:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of depth of field limitations in wildlife macro photography does you no credit. It is laughable to even mention focus-stacking. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree, f/6.3 was too open. Working with angles and a bit higher f-number (f/8 or f/9 would still have relatively minimal diffraction) you could get a bit more of the animal in focus. There's a reason why most of our dragonfly pictures have the animals on a flat plane (either as dorsals or side views). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point about 'a flat plane' @Crisco 1492:. The body of this damselfly is at 90 deg to the camera and perfectly in focus from its eyes to end of abdomen. F8 would have made some difference here, but not much Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the orientation of the dragonfly to what's already been featured and you'll see what I mean by "a flat plane". Directly from the side, or directly from above. This is closer to a 45 degree angle. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this image is that the dragonfly's wings are severely out of focus, which is not so with the images you quoted. (Except for the wasp, but that's a different kind of image). --Janke | Talk12:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Janke said, and I need to emphasize, the issue was with the DOF. The flat plane was a recommendation for reducing DOF issues, as was the higher F-number. You could also take a step back and then crop. The grasshopper image you cite (the only one of these I took myself) was not at 1:1. I think it may have been 0.5. Been a few years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a nice shot of the damselfly because it is very detailed and clear. The focus could have been adjusted better to capture the wings, but overall a nice photo. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
_head.JPG)
_P.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_3.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male_3.jpg)
