Support Really nice work! Don't suppose you also got a shot of that intriguing bright red insect ( or is that just a leaf/flower?) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.10:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2024 at 12:17:32 (UTC)
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons. This is the photo’s 3rd nomination (the second by me). It got four support votes on both its first nomination and second nomination.
Support Beautiful background, and a good shot of the snake in its natural environment. While one might like more details, long ropey lads are hard to get fully into a shot, so that's more of a reason to have a second FP focusing on the snake's scale patterns than an objection to this one. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2024 at 17:25:59 (UTC)
Reason
Full disclosure: I'm not sure the skintones are perfect, but that's typical of photographs of the time. In photographs of him in crowds he doesn't appear to be so dark-skinned that I'd consider this entirely misleading, and this article describes him as a "light-skinned mulatto" - I presume that last term is much more acceptable in Brazil. Still, at least to modern eyes, it's probably lightening his skin at least a little bit. They tended to put a lot of light on the faces of dark skinned individuals to try and pull more detail since the film of the time lacked good differentiation of darker colours (and probably for racist reasons as well).
That disclosure and the problems noted therein aside, for the time, this is quite a good photo. I did tweak levels to make it as unmisleading as possible. But I do believe that one should be honest about any flaws in the image when nominating.
Comment — I see what I think is macroblocking in the mid-tones of the face. Apart from that I would be inclined to vote support; the other flaws I see are minor and derive from the photo's historical nature. Moonreach (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2024 at 08:17:16 (UTC)
Reason
Passes criteria 1 (if it passes it slightly, it can be excepted for unique images, since it pictures a rare-and-historical landmark). It passes 2, 3, and 4. It also passes 5 (see criteria 1 reason), slightly passes 6 (I can try to get a picture of the plaque, which states this), 7, and 8.
I have another good picture of this school (in my old phone which I sometimes take), I feel like I should upload it, how about you? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗02:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical notes because this one was a doozy: The pillarboxing here is intentional, in the last 20 minutes there's a famous sequence where it becomes a widescreen Polyvision arrangement. The extreme length means we're approaching Wikipedia's technical limits, and only low-quality transcodes succeed so you have to select "Source" in the video player. I kept it as a single video since it wasn't released in parts and 2Mbps is still equivalent to a video2commons output. The alternative is a 4-video set of each act (higher bitrate, HD transcodes would complete, and no letterboxing on the first 3), would be great if reviewers indicated the format they'd prefer.
Support - Not that I'm going to watch the 5-hour mammoth movie, but the last 30 minutes are interesting - at least as a predecessor of Cinerama. --Janke | Talk07:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the American Film Institute provided English intertitles for the restoration. The film's U.S. (and UK) release came in 1928, so the English-language sources for the translated intertitle text would also be public domain now. hinnk (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might explain it then. Brownlow describes having collected prior footage with some of the English intertitles and then AFI stepping in to provide the rest, with the BFI National Film Archive later reshooting them to standardize their appearance. It sounds like intertitles from the different English-language versions got combined. hinnk (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The quality is good, despite the age of the film. The vintage look has somehow been retained without compromising on the quality. I've never voted in featured picture nominations, so I might not be qualified enough to speak on the technical aspects important here at FPCs, but I still think the nom deserves a support. Matarisvan (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2024 at 19:11:07 (UTC)
Reason
Per last nomination, a restored version. I'm using the title from the Library of Congress; The word negro was a lot more acceptable and polite in 1939, but it feels wrong to change the title at our end before the holding library does.
The original two copies show film edges there. It's possible Lee intended to crop it: can't really change aspect ratio on a film camera - but my rule is to let our reusers do any desired crops unless there's a very good reason (severe damage, very minor crops of blank areas to centre subject or lose vignetting, crop mark on image (though I tend to play crop marks by ear; hard to tell publisher ones from artist ones, and publishers of the time may be cropping for crappy halftone newspaper reproduction) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.16:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed photo with strong EV. It illustrates its topic well, including by highlighting just how stupid this all was. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2024 at 00:05:02 (UTC)
Reason
When I first read the B-roll article, the process was described in text but was difficult to understand. I researched the process and created this diagram to illustrate the complex procedure
Comment This is a really nicely made diagram. I think it relies on familiarity with some concepts that the lay reader won't have, especially if they're more used to digital production. Here are some thoughts on how this might be communicated more clearly:
"Head" and "tail" have technical meanings that aren't explained in the article and aren't obvious from the diagram.
The dotted lines aren't explainable from the diagram alone, so if the reader doesn't know what the splices looks like, they see a Shot 2 that's exactly 5 frames long but a label that says it goes past that.
The difference between A-roll and B-roll isn't clear from the diagram. It maybe would work better if the durations of the shots were different, or if the frames used images that would be understood as primary footage and a cutaway.
How these strips relate to each other or the final print isn't explained. This maybe connects to the other point, where showing the exposure of the primary shots, with a few frames in between, and then a separate exposure that fills those in with a simple-looking insert to create the full version would work better.
Oppose As a retired filmmaker, I consider the correct term for this image not "B-roll", but "A-B negative cutting/editing". B-roll by itself means extra footage, and the illustration is not about that. Thus, the explanation text and the image are in the wrong article. Would support the image if it were in an A-B cutting article. --Janke | Talk11:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to withdraw this. Thank you all for your comments, and especially to hinnk for providing some excellent feedback on how this could be improved. RoySmith(talk)15:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a useful photo that shows what this notable person looks like, but doesn't provide any indication of why they're notable. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are black pixels (0, in the join at right) and totally white pixels (255, white brush strokes) so it appears the exposure is spot on. However, the tone curve may be off, making the overall look very murky... Haven't seen it "live", so I can't say for sure. --Janke | Talk10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It has a reliable source. The color tones (contrast, etc.) match the sample crop on the National Gallery of Norway's source page [1]. (and shot with a pro camera) Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, but there's no copy of it available at sufficient quality. (Also, it looked like this before I researched that copy of the image, so, y'know, only has EV because of the research that included this one.) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2024 at 03:12:57 (UTC)
Reason
Extremely high EV for one of the strongest tornadoes ever recorded, and the third highest wind speed ever measured on earth (Tornado records#Highest winds observed in a tornado). Tornado was also academically studied (Research on tornadoes in 2024#Greenfield tornado) by several organizations. High EV public domain photograph no less as well. NOTE: The image barely fails the second FP criteria, as it is 2,048 × 1,366 pixels. However, per the criteria, "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images", so this is being nominated under the grounds of an exception to FPC #2.
Question - The source credits Isaac Polanski via Twitter. His post corroborates this. However, I'm not seeing if he is working for the US Government; rather, he is a "stringer" for a storm media licensing company (Their Twitter). Are we sure that the NWS had the right to release the image into the public domain? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492:Yes. Per Template:PD-NWS on the Commons. The NWS actually has this clause stated for users submitting images to them: "By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others". One of the other tornadic Featured Pictures (File:Lincoln, NE EF3 tornado.jpg) is under the same license on the Commons as well. Tons of discussions on the Commons have determined it is valid. To not clog this FPC up, I won't link them all here, but if you want me to, I can link you several discussions on the Commons surrounding the PD-NWS guidelines. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that works for me. Support. This is an image we'd never be able to take again, and the quality is excellent. When the creator even says that it's one of the few times he's been intimidated by a tornado, we have something special. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2024 at 11:13:51 (UTC)
Reason
The image has a high technical standard, with no "graininess" or anything like that, I don't know about criteria 2, considering the picture has a resolution of 1,126 × 2,000 pixels. The picture also passes criteria 3, considering the picture is good-looking (according to me). The image has a free license, the description is verified by a source, and the description is also useful in describing the church. The image also does not have digital manipulation considering.
To give TheNuggeteer credit, they clearly went through the checklist and tried to satisfy the requirements. I also think a professional photograph taken inside this building could easy drum up enough support to pass; the choice of subject was good. That said, I see a number of flaws that prevent me from supporting this one: Streaking in highlights, low resolution, muddiness in mid-tones, and less-than-ideal framing. There's also no good target article for the church, just one for the town it's in. For these reasons, I also oppose. Moonreach (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@TheNuggeteer: There's a great tool on Commons called CropTool. If you have a picture like this but want to adjust the size to remove the umbrella at the bottom, it can be very useful. hinnk (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2024 at 16:33:38 (UTC)
Reason
Lively demonstration of the Kinemacolor two-color film process, an important milestone in the history of color photography. Apart from imperfections in the original, this is a very good transfer. The frame rate is at or near real-time (often a problem with showing films from the hand-cranked era) and in HD. The source at the Internet Archive (1) says these are the original colors plus a white-balance pass. Kinemacolor was also a sequential color system, which is why some movement has anaglyph-like effects to it.
Support Interesting example of pre-Technicolor movies, amazingly little color strobing in the fast-fluttering flags! (Partly because the red and blue registered only on respective frames...) --Janke | Talk17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to have the frames blended, inasmuch as pausing it in any given place still shows both colors. I checked our copy against the one on the Internet Archive and found that it's the same there; both are 25 fps. While I would have liked to see a version that preserved the sequential color, I'm not sure that would have been possible. I also don't think it would have made a difference as far as the strobing goes. Since a small period of time elapses between the color changes, there's no version of this where the colors would have lined up perfectly. That's an unsolvable problem akin to reconstructing a single frame out of interlaced video - you can get close, but never exact. Although the bitrate of the Internet Archive copy is higher, and maybe we should upload that one just to have it, this is otherwise about as good as it gets. Moonreach (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excited to see this getting nominated, I was just looking through this article last week after going through some predecessor films by William Norman Lascelles Davidson. We only have one other HD example of Kinemacolor, and this video does a much better job of showing how it captures different kinds of motion. hinnk (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the sweet peas appear to be shot from a theater screen, hand-held, with a spectator blocking the lowest part of the frame - so that one is definitely not FP material... --Janke | Talk06:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, I didn't even catch that part. I was wondering why they were shifting the image down in the middle of the video. hinnk (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, yeah. I realized about 10 seconds in that I was looking at the back of someone's head and wondered if I should say something. Moonreach (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more Kinemacolor than just this film, for example on archive.org (a quick sidenote: almost all of these films weren't digitized in HD, including this one - I can't remember why I uploaded it at such a high resolution) Cesias7 (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IA version is at the same resolution, were you also the uploader there? Considering the alternative examples all seem to be watermarked or super compressed, I'd be fine featuring this even if it was upscaled. hinnk (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I uploaded them to IA. This film, the shortest of them all (7 seconds of footage repeated 3x), is the only one which was digitized in HD. The others are all 720x576, except for a few scenes in the Delhi Durbar, which are even lower quality. Cesias7 (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shame it's watermarked, that's a fun piece of footage. I like seeing candid moments from long ago. They make the past feel more real. Moonreach (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2024 at 19:50:29 (UTC)
Reason
Battleship Potemkin is a WP:FILM/CORE article on our List of films voted the best. This video is from a 2005 restoration of the original Soviet version, which reinstated the intertitles and shots that had been censored in later international releases.
The Russian intertitles are from archived prints (derived from the original Soviet release), and the translated English subtitles I grabbed from this version. If there are any issues, the alternative would be to use Mosfilm's translation (on Commons and YouTube). It's only ~150 titles, so it wouldn't take long to do. hinnk (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2024 at 18:50:59 (UTC)
Reason
A really nice portrait - just out of (American) copyright this year - and a huge upgrade on the old lead image. Biggest flaw is the 1920s retouching, which I've done what I could with.
Weak oppose — It has good composition, but up close pretty much everything is slightly blurry (except the underside of the chin, oddly) and the face seems to be nothing but airbrushing. Moonreach (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the business is pretty normal for this era at this scale. As for the nderside of the chin... That's down to the 1928 image retouching. I don't think it really affected the chin shape much, and the face as a whole - other than some scratches on the cheek - didn't seem abnormal for the era. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.13:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so it should be considered a kind of era-specific limitation, akin to scratch marks? I can see that. I'm not enthusiastic enough to support this, but I'll strike my oppose. Moonreach (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: I just copied and pasted the image’s original caption in the nomination’s caption. This image is used in the “aftermath” section of the tornado. I may be looking at this through the lens of something who understands weather, but the tornado was very narrow (discussed in the article) and it seems clear where the worst damage path is in the photo. Could you maybe explain what exactly is “not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers”? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)14:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am neutral on voting. The source link says "This painting is an old copy of the original kept in Naples at the Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte". I assume the original painting is the infobox image in This version of the article. I think the fact that the nom image (which is currently the infobox image) is a "copy of the original" should be stated in the article (and on the file page). Bammesk (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The wording "old copy" is confusing. Often, an artist made several versions of a painting (e.g. Munch's Scream). If this "copy" can be credited to Bruegel, I'll support. --Janke | Talk06:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Legacy section of the article has a paragraph on copies, and no mention that "Bruegel the Elder" did a copy. It says his son "Brueghel the Younger" did a copy around 1616 (the father died in 1569). This source says the nom version was done by the son (I am not sure about the reliability of the source though). BTW, the original [2] and the copy [3] have differences, for instance see the lower left corner. Bammesk (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Glad to see this get nominated. It's one that I wanted to nominate myself back when the event was current, but the guidelines were to let the article stabilize, and at some point I forgot about it. Moonreach (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2024 at 05:07:11 (UTC)
Reason
Nosferatu is on our WP:FILM/CORE list and remains one of the best-known silent films. For many years it was officially pulled from circulation (as an unauthorized Dracula adaptation), but it's since been restored by the Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Foundation.
Support. I have some of the same technical quibbles with this as I did with the portrait of Lucie Delarue-Mardrus, from a few days ago, but the fact that you can see the film grain convinces me that the soft areas are authentic to the source photograph rather than a reproduction shortcoming. I have one suggestion: remove a bit of hair that got on the negative around the dress's waist area if you think you can do so cleanly. It's the only thing I see that you missed on your otherwise very thorough restoration. Moonreach (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's a hair? I was torn between that and some sort of buckle. Kind of leaning, like, a metal loop holding the flowers on, but... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.19:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may be looking at different things. I'm looking at a very thin, irregular white line that curves through a sort of flower design at the waist. If you still think it's part of the costume then leave it; it's not a deal-breaker either way. Moonreach (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2024 at 17:22:07 (UTC)
Reason
Meets the FPC critia. High encyclopedic value since it is our best image of 12P/Pons–Brooks and its going to be difficult to get a replacement since its not due back until 2095. Green colour is due to diatomic carbon and is common in comets despite the media getting rather excited about it at the time.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2024 at 00:13:21 (UTC)
Reason
This is the first time I've nominated at FPC so I am not very familiar with the criteria. I've reviewed them and the only one I'm uncertain about is the resolution, but since this is a historical picture and there's no way to get a better resolution image, I think this qualifies. It's currently only used in one article, in the Bahasu Malaya Wikipedia, but I don't think that's a criterion.
Oppose - Unfortunately, the main subject is quite blurry; the focus is on the foreground water. I think this photo's chances are non-existent here, especially since it is not used in any EnWiki article at all... --Janke | Talk08:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to fill in a caption when creating the nomination, so you'll notice there's some placeholder text beneath the image. hinnk (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2024 at 14:15:18 (UTC)
Reason
Ivan was a major hurricane and news story in 2004. This is a good shot of a cyclonic eye from above; I believe the parts of the ISS you can see make for an interesting juxtaposition. While the file has some imperfections at full magnification, remember that it's a 20-year-old digital photo. I tracked down and uploaded NASA's original version (minus the white bar at the bottom with the number string) so we could have the best quality copy. If it passes, this would be a good candidate for featured picture this September 11th, since that will be the image's 20th anniversary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2024 at 04:21:09 (UTC)
Reason
The picture is of good quality and depicts the centipede well. Although one of its sides appears to be shaking/in motion. I also went for this because I originally wanted to do Chandelure, but its picture is owned by Nintendo, of course, so I couldn't, so I decided to do something else, and I thought of doing the Scolopendra gigantea!
Striking vote: User does not meet the voting criteria (7/100 edits)
Strong oppose Image is of low resolution, low size, and low quality. Head suffers from motion blur, subject is partially cropped off, parts of the subject is too dark to see, parts of the animals are out of focus, and the detail is too low. (fails criteria #1, #2, and #3). There are better photos of this insect on the web. – ZZZ'S04:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closely I did notice that it was a little blurry. You are right about the motion blur at the head and the heavy shadows. I think I agree with you. Sometimes I don't understand things well and when I think I do, the picture ends up being out of focus.
Oppose This is a generic studio type portrait and gives no indication at all of why the subject is notable. As such, while it's a useful photo it's not of FP standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sometimes like there's a double-standard on photos of famous people. Old photos, especially those in black and white, never seem to face this particular challenge, even though their compositions are otherwise often similar. Moonreach (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's largely due to the relative rarity of photos before the modern era. Spielberg must have been photographed on film sets and at movie-related events on many thousands of occasions. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't doubt they exist, is it a fair comparison to make if none of them are free use? I went through all the photos in the Commons category "Steven Spielberg by year," and the only high-resolution one I found that sort of shows what he does for work is this. The fact that Spielberg is still alive and a better photo could be taken of him is technically true, but it's also hypothetical. Moonreach (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is low 1,471 × 2,205 pixels for a 2023 photo, it borderline fails FP criterion #2. The camera has much higher resolution. Otherwise a nice portrait. I don't agree with the "indication of notability" argument. It would be a plus but it's not a requirement. Bammesk (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: The line of footsteps from the lower left diagonally towards the lake is fairly clear, and texture is visible in the foreground snow. The road and peaks in the distance are sharp. Shot at f/16, I think the DoF is adequate given the scene. --Tagooty (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - About what I'd expect from f 16 at full resolution (and that is some resolution, especially compared to my old EOS 60D). Snow is handled very well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2024 at 21:36:06 (UTC)
Reason
Man with a Movie Camera is a WP:FILM/CORE article listed in the documentary and Soviet sections of our List of films voted the best. This version of it has less physical wear than other copies and never got cropped to fit a soundtrack on the film strip.
You mean File:Man With A Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929).ogv? I noticed that there is a dearth of text, but the explanation of the film's conceit at 1:00 is long enough that new copyright could have been attracted for the translation. The Internet Archive does not give a source for their digitization (the source of the .ogv), and so I can't see where the closed captions come from.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2024 at 20:26:17 (UTC)
Reason
Iconic, unique photo of Pluto taken by the New Horizons probe in 2015. It's just under 1500px on the short axis, but I tracked down NASA's official version and that does seem to be the resolution it was imaged at. Already a featured picture on the Indonesian language Wikipedia.
Support - Excellent quality and EV, size is reasonable given the distance it took to reach here. I was pleased to see that the article details the layers of haze - that's enough for a blurb on its own. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]