Support Good photo with strong EV. I'd note though that a cropped version is currently in the bio article - I don't think that the crop is actually better in that context. I also don't love the barbies at the front of the photo being out of focus, but suspect that this was unavoidable given camera technology at the time. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably fair to say as well that for most uses of the time, which would have been newspaper halftone, the focus wouldn't have mattered that much. I think we're lucky that photos of the period tend to be as good as they are. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs.18:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – but one of the two club-shaped fingers (adjacent to the mid-section gills) seem to be missing, compare to this. Or maybe it's withdrawn?! The article says the fingers have a defensive function. . . . . . Looking at it carefully, the second finger is pointing straight toward the lens, it's not missing. Bammesk (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The article has enough for the image to pass FP criterion #5, EV. I usually go by one to two paragraphs minimum (although we don't have a hard rule on that). Not every FP must be POTD. FPs can become POTD when/if there is enough prose to pass the Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines. Bammesk (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
High quality photo of physicist and former astronaut Ed Lu. The infobox image is nice but not as good technically (it's unsharp and noisy). I cropped this image using Template:CSS image crop. If the nom passes, I will create a cropped file.
I don't think an astronaut who flew on three space missions is 'obscure'. My concern with this image is that it provides no indication of why Mr Lu is notable - it depicts a middle aged man in smart casual attire, which is about as generic as you can get. The infobox photo is much better. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Portrait of a subject in a biography article is a well-established precedent, lots of examples in past FPs. He isn't just an astronaut, but a working physicist too. Infobox image doesn't have the quality. Nom image is high quality. Obscurity isn't relevant, we are an encyclopedia, not a magazine. Things like indicating his notability, being in infobox are pluses, but not requirements. See Oppenheimer nom below [1], there is no indication of his notability. Lots of similar examples in past FPs. Bammesk (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2023 at 12:33:43 (UTC)
Reason
Quality panoramic view of Damascus urban core, important Middle Eastern city of the Levant and the Arab world, one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world and the oldest capital in the world.
Support – May be better to move the image to the Domestic policies section of the article where the minting of silver coins is mentioned. File description page here should say Date: 1741–1742 per source link, not 2019. Bammesk (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The artifact is out of focus. Also, noisy shadows on the background, and stitching mistake at bottom left corner. Bammesk (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2023 at 23:36:03 (UTC)
Reason
An accompaniment to the earlier J. Robert nomination; high quality photo, just restored. While it may not be her best hair day, it's the best photo we have of her!
Oppose This is a useful image as it shows what she looks like, but the EV beyond that seems week as it's a mug shot style ID photo. It also makes her look like a criminal, which she was not. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2023 at 06:51:19 (UTC)
Reason
Rather high quality, high resolution photograph that I have restored with way more care than I probably needed to get away with it. The extreme left side was particularly damaged, and it would, of course be insane to not just crop it. It would take days of work, probably well over ten, fifteen hours on a less than 500px wide strip of an over 9000px wide image.
So here's a comparison of the extreme left hand side before and after, with a scrollbar so you can go up and down1
Before
After
This is an example of bragging, and could potentially be added to that article.
Comment - This could be downsampled to half size without loss of detail. Looks almost upsampled at the moment... --Janke | Talk13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you could downscale the restoration, but you could also just use the thumbnail generator to downscale it for download (at least, when they're working properly), so I'm not sure there's any substantial point to it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs.18:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for searching and for the technical explanation you gave, Adam. Moreover, I am really sorry about passing away your father indeed. I sincerely wish you patience and peace. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral due to artifacting in background - haven't seen this before. It's visible on the file description page. MER-C16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I suspect the bokeh on the camera didn't play nice with the branches in the background, but I haven't seen that issue often with Canon. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp:Very curious bokeh, something I wouldn't expect from a $2500 RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens... A second-rate or damaged filter, perchance? (Edit: some samples here: [2]) --Janke | Talk15:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Excellent digitization of probably one of the most reproduced images of Khan. Unfortunately, the source given is not the source of the image currently used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without an up-to-date source, we cannot tell whether this was tweaked between download and upload. As with anything else, we still have to ensure verifiability (used to be I wouldn't push too much, but reading this made me realize just how someone could vandalize an image between downloading it and uploading it to Commons) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Mugabe's face appears to have some motion blur on it, as if he was turning his head as the photo was snapped. His shirt is in much better focus, which is a shame. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made several images because at the beginning there was too much cognac, so I adjusted the level in the glass each time, while drinking it. After this last image the others were blurry…--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cute! Dear Didier, as a continuation of the previous note and the subject of banning all alcoholic drinks in my fatherland, if you are going to drink these days, please take a moment to remember this poor guy! Omar Khayyam (1048–1131), in a Persian quatrain, says: [Please] pour a sip of that on the soil for us! – Hamid Hassani (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know if I can vote. I recommend doing this type of photography, it's always a pleasure, because at the end you can drink the cognac. Be careful at the end: not at the beginning...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote, cher Didier. Your ironic advice was as sweet as your photos. I love it indeed; but, unfortunately, all alcoholic drinks are forbidden in my country since 1979! ;) – Best, Hamid Hassani (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2023 at 03:53:59 (UTC)
Reason
Very good resolution and transparency. Note: The painting belongs to 1756 and, for this reason, maybe some white dots plus a ghostly horizontal line on nearly top need correction and technical editing.
Comment This gives me the opportunity to raise a question I had, which is whether the picture really needs correction? Those may be paint loss and defects in the painting as it currently is, rather than defects in the photograph of the painting. Especially given that the painting is used in art articles, shouldn't we reproduce the painting, rather than trying to "correct" it as we might do with some illustrations for articles? It seems that a reproduction of a painting should represent the painting and be clearly labeled in the article caption if it's been "improved".--Jahaza (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We usually don't restore paintings, particularly when the digital reproduction is high quality and the source is reliable (for example the museum that houses the painting). There are instances when we have touched up noncontroversial, and usually minor, abnormalities (for example, borders of a painting), i.e. when doing so is common sense. That's my experience at FPC. Bammesk (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated the source on the file page. I'm seeing quite a few paintings of her; the van Loo looks like it might have the most EV, as a portrait. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2023 at 19:15:41 (UTC)
Reason
I think this is probably the best of the photos we have of her, in a pretty iconic look. Did reshuffle the images on her page - didn't remove any, just changed the order - because, while I don't think there's anything wrong with leading with a 2014 photo in theory, the old lead image looks really snapshotty.
Crop is, I think, justified by the marks on the original, which indicate fairly strongly a crop was planned. I also uploaded one that edited out the X's.
Comment - I don't think this is a peacock dancer. It looks like, the image is taken during some fashion show not during any peacock dance. May be I am unaware but I don't think peacock dancers do body art apart from using the feathers, especially in India. Mayilattam is the dance form is the only one I know. It will be misleading the EV I feel. Please check this [3] too. DreamSparrowChat16:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the contributions of TAPAS KUMAR HALDER, such a wonderful number of contributions. However, I found the descriptions of most of the images are for the purpose of naming the image and not related EV if am not wrong. Have a look Josh Milburn. For example, this image [4], evidently this image not taken during the performance, its a studio shot I believe. DreamSparrowChat10:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No delineation of the foreground flowers from the background. I am sure that we can find a better composition for these flowers in the days to come. Kalyan (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Image feels a bit warm. Are we sure of the accuracy of the digitization? Resolution and level of detail is good, and article looks acceptable for who she was. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a distinguished example among the various stained glass items, and I tried to chose this one obsessively. I'm happy and cheerful that you guys liked and confirmed it. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original and support ALT - This is hands down miles and miles better than the existing Commons FP, and I've been able to confirm the source. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support + Comment - Amazing composition. I see a few star line traces. Can you at least remove the ones next to the light as it is distracting. Kalyan (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Weak support. I think the clouds are distracting. The image needs balancing. However, support because of the earlier 4-0. Kalyan (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth doing a D&R? Ivar's image is definitely higher resolution - you can see the individual scales easily - but there appears to be some blur on the wing (movement?). The face is beautifully in focus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are ID'd in the image description (Myroslav Lenko, Ivan Lenko). The article isn't about them, so ID doesn't add much to the value of the image as used. @Tomer T:, FP candidates need a file description in 'English', per FP criterion #7. Bammesk (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since we added Myroslav Lenko and Ivan Lenko to the caption info, I think this would make a neat action capture – a sort of visual vignette – which I Support. -- Sca (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2023 at 20:35:05 (UTC)
Reason
Quality close-up view of Mount Pumori South Face, important peak in the Everest Zone of Nepal, Himalayas, in good light and favorable weather conditions.
Support - Though I'm curious why it goes from sepia to blue-ish to grayscale at points... was this spliced from several copies of varying states of preservation? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back then, before the advent of 3-color Technicolor, night scenes were often tinted blue, as in this case. (Shooting at night was virtually impossible due to slow film speeds...) I also saw some frame-by-frame coloring of flames in aerial fighting images. --Janke | Talk18:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And not just night scenes. Tinted prints were used for all sorts of reasons. I watched the new restoration of Hitchcock's Downhill with Ivor Novello a couple of weeks ago. The default tint for most of the film is a ruddy red color, but when Novello is feverish and delirious the scenes that represent his hallucinations are colored a sickly, bilious green. It's not a great film overall, but there are some good things in it, and the delirium scenes alone are worth the price of admission. Choliamb (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I first saw Wings in San Francisco in the early 1980s, with live organ accompaniment by the late lamented Bob Vaughan. On a big screen with live music it was really fantastic. (Bob Vaughan was a fixture at Bay Area silent film festivals for decades. He was later shamefully slandered by David Fincher in Zodiac, who portrayed him as a creepy and cadaverous psycho. The real Bob Vaughan was nothing like what you see in that movie: he was cheerful, outgoing, unfailingly friendly, and probably the least serial-killery guy you could ever hope to meet.) – Choliamb (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GamerPro64: It's an excellent question! The answer is that the Wikipedia article is mistaken when it states that the film was considered lost until a print was found in the Cinemathèque française in 1992. Neither of the sources cited for that statement gives a date for the discovery, and I can't find any other pre-Wikipedia source that says it was as late as 1992. On the other hand, some notes from the SF silent film festival say it was found in the 1950s, while a blog post based on an interview with the person responsible for the later Paramount restoration suggests that the rumored Cinemathèque française print doesn't even exist. Neither of those are reliable sources and I have no idea what the truth is regarding the French print. But what I do know is that the Library of Congress owns a print and that they restored it in 1987: see, e.g., the catalogue of the American Film Archive and in this article in the New York Times from October 31, 1987. That's the one I saw. (I misremembered and wrote "early 1980s" above when I should have said "late 1980s" -- but it was certainly before 1992, when I was no longer living in San Francisco.) Not to mention that the film was already available on home video by 1989. I don't know how the "lost until 1992" statement got into the Wikipedia article, but it's demonstrably untrue. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Weak EV. The article says little about this sculpture. As for portraying the subject of the article (i.e. the man), these two [10][11] do a better job. Bammesk (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image has a black border that should be cropped. Otherwise, this is excellent. I am ecstatic that the MET is working with Wikimedia to get images of 3D works released under a free license. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As for the compression, I know that vast swatches of uniform color tend to save smaller even at minimal compression. For example, File:Plastic comb, 2015-06-07.jpg was saved in Photoshop using setting 11 (of 12, with 12 being uncompressed). Given the uniformity of the background, 800 kb seems feasible for a relatively low level of compression. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for restoring it, Crawdad Blues! I've played around a bit to try and minimize the visibility of the dust specks in the hard to restore areas and remove the scratch on the plate. Please have a look. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Chris. Looks good to me. Apart from cropping the frame and cleaning up the most obvious blemishes, I didn't tinker with it much, partly because I don't have a lot of spare time for Wikipedia-related tasks, and partly because it was already in relatively good shape for a historical photo. But I have no ownership issues and it's fine with me if others want to put more work into it. The real credit goes to Nadar for the photograph itself, to Boston music critic Philip Hale for preserving it, and to the Boston Public Library for making it widely available. Cheers, Crawdad Blues (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nadar is a great historical person of his profession. Among his innumerable photos, I like this & this FPs of him, both nominated by Adam Cuerden in Oct. 2019. The first one is much famous among Iranian elites. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unbalanced image. Not sure if this creates an interest. Maybe a long exposure with ND filter to show the reflections in the water might be a better composition. Kalyan (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Car tops detract from comp & EV, as does the Neva River embankment. A difficult bldg. to photograph, for sure. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture. Because of focusing on its head, esp. on the front part of it, the other parts of the body are slightly faded or semi-blurred. Anyway, the head is more important indeed. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2023 at 01:06:42 (UTC)
Reason
It does a really good job at showing the exaggerated, "æsthetic" poses used in the original show. I did have to fill in some cut-off corners, but there's no encyclopedic content in them, just the photographer's backdrop. I kind of like the attempt to disguise the back brace that let him hold the pose long enough to get the shot with straw. (look between his feet). Original run of the opera. A little grainy, but not excessively given it was a relatively small photo.
Support - Great image with a contrasting background. Wish that the white feather / object in the top right didn't exist but it is not too distracting. Kalyan (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically excellent... but he seems covered in dew. For identification, something without the water droplets will likely be more useful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]