Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/December-2005

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Fakarava inner lagoon

Fakarava inner lagoon taken from a pontoon near the village of Rotoava (Tuamotus, French Polynesia)
Picture credit: Frédéric Jacquot, 2005.

  • Nominate and Support. I'm not Frédéric Jacquot, by the way. --Hottentot 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is now included in Tuamotus. Support. Physchim62 (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The image is extremely noisy at full size. I resampled it and tried to smooth out the noise in the sky as much as possible. I also adjusted the tone of the sky very slightly. I will support either version, however. I think it's just that beautiful.PiccoloNamek 05:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I concur. I think the picture is good enough that the noise doesn't really matter. Besides, the photo won't be at full resolution. --vaeiou 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the 2nd version. Both are beautiful, but the edit just has a little more sharpness, especially on the wooden pier. Raven4x4x 00:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Orignal. Strong Oppose changed version. The updated version is way oversharpened and exibits halos at the size given by the image page. --Gmaxwell 04:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - He's right, I think I really overdid it there. I'll try to fix that later.PiccoloNamek 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I'm revealing my total inexperience and lack of knowledge here, but I am unable to find anything wrong with Piccolo's edit. Not that it really matters, I like both versions a lot, but I'd just like to know what is so wrong with this image that I can't see. Raven4x4x 13:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the thumbnails they look pretty much alike, however if you look at the two images at full screen size you'll see some artifacts from image processing. The process of 'shapening' in an image editor does not actually add resolution to an image: what it does is increase accutance. I started to write a lot about accutance because I think you need to understand sharpening to understand the cause of the artifacts... I wrote so much that I turned into a lame (but illustrated) stub articl, so go there. In any case, if you look at the trunk on the left it has light and dark halos (light are usually more annoying), the noise in the sky is greatly increased (look around the darker cloud to the upper left of the shelter), and the water looks outright abrasive rather than smooth (perhaps that one is a matter of taste, but its less accurate!). Again, this is mostly visable on the image at a large size, at thumbnail size there is less of an impact because the downsampling smoothes out the effect of the sharpening. However, there is still some quality reduction in the thumbnails: if you look carefully in the Y of the trunk in PiccoloNamek's image you'll see there is some grittyness there. This is not due to the sharpening directly, but due to the sharpened image being more difficult for jpeg to compress when the thumbnail is created. The positive effects you see from the processing exist because even though the thumbnailing mostly destroys the sharpening, the image was so vastly oversharpened that some remains. I have created an additional feature for mediawiki which allows you to request some post-thumbnailing sharpening as an image tag setting, but we already have problems handling the number of thumbnails created already (we have about 10 copies of every image, sharp settings would probably make that 20) and the process would add an additional performance burden, so I probably won't request this feature become part of the official code any time soon. --Gmaxwell 18:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original verion ok. "Improved" version: WTF was this guy thinking? Keep him away from image editors! Kim Bruning 00:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kim, take a look through the archives and you'll see dozens of photos that Piccolo has improved wonderfully, and this is certainly the first time I've heard any real complaints about his work. I'll take your word for it that this one isn't that great (thanks for the big explanation Gmaxwell) even though I don't share your dislike for it, and I'll be interested to see if Piccolo can come up with a better version. Raven4x4x 03:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually went through the archives with Gmaxwell, and a third party who shall remain anonymous at this point in time. I do think Piccolo is a great photographer, and let's leave it at that. :-) Kim Bruning 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch, that's like getting complimented but then kicked in the crotch right afterwards. Oh well, I suppose all I can hope to do is to keep improving. I know I'm a lot better now than I was a year ago. Perhaps one year from now I will be what you consider to be acceptable.PiccoloNamek 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Version 3, see comment below
  • Since the original 2nd version has been removed, may I suggest a new 3rd version: I only removed the noise from the most objectionable parts of the sky with some soft masking, but did not use any sharpening at all. Some downsampling (to 1600 px) took care of that. If 1600 px is wide enough, I think my experiment may have impoved the image. BTW, re. acutance, there's a great digiphoto tutorial here, see the "understanding sharpness" chapter. --Janke | Talk 13:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At my screen resolution I honestly cannot tell the difference between these two images, although I am only at 1024×768 (that's probably why I thought the 2nd version was alright). So I'll be happy with whichever one. Raven4x4x 05:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. --Lysy (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fakarava-ponton-rotoava.jpg. All this discussion about image editing and it turns out that everyone was happy with the original... Raven4x4x 05:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Golden Age of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

"The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the Zenith of Its Power. The Polish Golden Age. Golden Liberty. The Election of 1573." This is a 19th-century painting by Jan Matejko. It appears in several articles, including "Free election," "History of Poland (1569–1795)," and "Szlachta." It's one of my favorite Matejkos — beautiful colors. I only wish we had better resolution, but I think this will do for our purposes.


A Live Steam locomotive, built in 14,000 hobby hours

Self-nominated, appears in Live steam article.

The photo shows the awesome power of a 1:8 scale hobby-built locomotive.

(Note: I've adjusted contrast & brightness on a Mac, which has a different gamma from most PC displays. This can be adjusted if necessary. Also, it could be cropped closer for a more dramatic effect. Suggestions, please!)

Comment: Ah, but without the passenger it would be just an ordinary locomotive, right? These miniatures are works of art - I do have a close-up of just the engine, but that's almost indistinguishable from the "real thing", so such a picture wouldn't be "special"... --Janke | Talk 18:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can you link the 'without the passenger' version to satisfy my curiosity?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you'll find it, and quite a few more Live Steam locomotive pictures, on my Live Steam website. The closeup I'm talking about is on this sub-page. It is shot from a little too high position to be entirely realistic, though. For a "slightly retouched" photo, putting a 1:8 scale medel loco into a full-size environment, look at this. - too small for a FPC. I think, even though it was fun making it;-) --Janke | Talk 11:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, I had only a 2 megapixel camera at my disposal on the occasion (several years ago) - this explains the low quality. It does look sharper in sizes below 800px or so, but I assume that is too small for a FPC? --Janke | Talk 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


File:Heliospheric-current-sheet.jpg
Heliospheric current sheet, the largest structure in the Solar System, resulting from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind). The wavy spiral shape has been likened to a ballerina's skirt.
Edit

The beautiful ballerina's skirt of the Heliospheric current sheet, is the largest structure in the Solar System. Not many people know that!

I like your edit better! --Iantresman 14:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sign at the Edge of Town in Peterborough, New Hampshire on Route 101.

Not sure if it's good enough for featured article, but I thought i'd give it a shot. I shot it and it is the anchoring point for Peterborough, New Hampshire at the current time. Karmafist 20:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston Hot peppers in varying stages of maturity.
USDA original 300dpi image of above.
Edited version

The photo is used in article pepper, and illustrates it excellently. What I personally like about the image are the colors, unusual composition and informativeness. Photo is taken by Scott Bauer of the US Agricultural Research Service.

  • I see that this is not going to be featured, but to answer anyway: if I would illustrate various stages of maturity, I would do it by placing peppers one below or aside the other. Author of the image used the circle, which is way better, and one of the reasons I recommended the image. Nikola 22:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Modern sculpture "Ladders to Heaven"

"Ladders to Heaven" by Józef Szajna in the Centre of Polish Sculpture in Orońsko, Poland. Photo by SylwiaS. Quite stunning, I think.


Salt fields on the Aral Seabed
File:Aralship2 copy.jpg
The Slayer Version

Subject similar to the recently narrowly rejected Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Aral_ship, but without the cited issues (yes this is the last one- I'll quit if you don't like it). This one is in the Desertification and Soil salination articles- shows the amazing amount of salt deposited on the ground. (Looks like snow.) Taken by me.

*Oppose. Not enough contrast between ship and ground.--Ewok Slayer 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the slayer version. Now I can see the ship.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cropped version of image taken by Luc Viatour, from Plasma (physics)
File:Plasma Lamp.jpg
Edited and improved version

I searched for Plasma, and this was at the top of the article. Immediately striking, and well taken. Very slightly unfocused, but if I get the time to do a slightly lower resolution version that could be fixed. The colour is amazing. I already nominated M4 Carbine Casing which was a success, so I thought this might be recognized as well. Let it be known that I did not take or upload this. I am just nominating it because I saw it on the article and thought it was worthy. There are also two other Featured Pictures currently in the article, the Voyager Heliosheath diagram and the Energy Arc.

I think you accidentally removed my vote when you copied my support template for your vote Piccolo. Never mind, fixed now. --Fir0002 10:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Plasma-lamp_2.jpg Raven4x4x 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acetic Acid crystals

The icelike crystals of glacial acetic acid were created and photographed by Prof. David Gingrich of the University of Potsdam. The picture was taken purposely to accompany the acetic acid article, illustrating the beauty of an otherwise normal chemical compound. The picture was released into the public domain by the author. Technical picture details are available on image:AceticAcid010.jpg (jpg instead of png). The picture here (png instead of jpg) as candidate for featured picture is a selected detail.

No, I didn't even think of it, since it is such a common occurence. --Janke | Talk 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Leaving Vienna' by Józef Brandt
Slightly Brighter

Painting by Józef Brandt. 'Leaving Vienna' or 'Return from Vienna'. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth army returning with loot after defeating the Ottoman Empire forces sieging Vienna, during the battle of Vienna (1683). One of the best Brandt's - double exotic - PLC and the Ottomans on one picture.

Linked at Józef Brandt’s Gallery and battle of Vienna.

  • Nominate and support. - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the source ([4], linked at [5]) should be given on the image description page. It would be nice if that page also gave more information on the painting itself (72×110cm, oil on canvas, painted when?; in a private collection). Despite the interesting subject (at least, interesting to those who can grasp and appreciate the subtle point of both Ottomans and Polish warriors being shown), I fail to see what makes this image so outstanding that it should be a featured picture. On a side note, Józef Brandt’s Gallery contains several times the Polish text "Olej na płótnie" (oil on canvas). That should be fixed. Furthermore, I wonder whether having such a gallery here on Wikipedia is appropriate at all. Why not just link to this gallery? It's more comprehensive anyway... Lupo 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wailua Falls, Hawaii
Version 2: Removed some sky flare and darkened right side slightly.
  • Nominate and support. - Ewok Slayer 03:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to hike down to the bottom of the falls to get this Image. Most are taken up above, from the road. This is from the Wailua Falls article, of course. I took this image in 2005. Feel free to enhance it, but don't overwrite the version I have up right now. 03:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


Comment: I feel that there is a bit too much flare from the sky in the upper part of the image. I fixed that, and darkened the right side slighly, see version 2. What do you think? --Janke | Talk 15:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dettifoss in Iceland (1972)
Version 3 - only diff is the sky.
Dettifoss 4

Used by Dettifoss, picture taken by myself in 1972

Promoted Image:Iceland Dettifoss 1972-4.jpg Raven4x4x 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic view of a beach on the Saona island

This scene is just fantastic. Somehow you can't believe that such paradise really exists. The photo shows a beach on the Saona Island in the Dominican Republic. The waving makes it difficult to take good, synchronized photos but it still looks good. Taken by Tamas Iklodi


Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angel statue at Metairie Cemetery

A statue of an angel at Metairie Cemetery. High-resolution, nice contrast. Clearly illustrates both Metairie Cemetery and angels. Public domain, courtsey of PDphoto.org. Neutralitytalk 06:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


File:Golden Spike ceremony, Promontory, Utah, May 10, 1869.JPG
Version 1: The completion of the US Transcontinental Railroad
File:Golden Spike ceremony, 10 May 1869.jpg
Version 2:The completion of the US Transcontinental Railroad
Version 3, gamma corrected from # 1.

This is one of those historical photos that I absolutly love, the completion of the US Transcontinental Railroad. I uploaded two large, seperate versions of the photo.

Comment: This is indeed a classic. The second version is way too dark, though, losing much detail. The first one could be improved somewhat by some gamma adjustment. --Janke | Talk 11:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to gamma adjust a picture, so if some kind soul could do that I would be thrilled. TomStar81 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did it, see version 3. When the time comes to vote, I'll support even though the quality isn't the best possible, but because of the historical significance of this picture. If someone can find a higher resolution version, that would be great. --Janke | Talk 12:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, I’m thrilled! Thanks! TomStar81 06:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At you request, I went looking for information on the author. Acoording to this site, the man who snapped this photo was Andrew J. Russell.

Promoted Image:GoldenSpikev3.JPG Raven4x4x 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Spiral Cleft" done with MandelZot and down-sampled with Photoshop
"Spiral Cleft" Simpler colors.

Clear and striking Mandelbrot set image. This appears in Mandelbrot set. It was created by David R. Ingham. It looks like a science fiction cover because it is purely mathematical in origin and has no direct connection with reality. Fine detail was averaged out by down-sampling.

I noticed that some others are shown in more that one version so I am adding my other version. From a data visualization point of view, this shows less, but some may prefer it artisticly.David R. Ingham 21:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted , but it's featured in my book. Although I do see where the opposers are coming from: I put it as my wallpaper and the rest of the family told me to get rid of it. :) Raven4x4x 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niagra Falls at Night
File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg
The Slayer Version
Version 3, natural

I happened across this photo when I hit the "Random Article" button. Its a new and interesting look for a familar landmark.

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exposed die of an Intel 80486DX2 microprocessor.
Exposed die of an Intel 80486DX2 microprocessor.

After a very unsuccessful search for a good (Free) shot of a microprocessor die for the CPU article, I decided to make one myself. After preparing the die, I gave it to a friend who took this photograph. The brightness and contrast are modified slightly for better detail, and I did some touchup in GIMP to remove a few specs of dust that made their way into the picture. I'm very pleased with the outcome and think it fits really nicely into the article where it is used. Thanks to User:Zocky for removing some strands of cotton that appeared around the image border.

  • Well, the colours in the first picture are definitely more correct (the die itself doesn't reflect a whole lot of light), but I'll leave it up to the voters as to which version they like. -- uberpenguin 13:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and cleaned up the original version a bit more, mostly improving the sharpness and contrast. I think this one looks very good, and the colours are much more real and less washed out looking than on the very high contrast version -- uberpenguin 21:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I debated over this a bit personally... Similarly to the PDP-8/I image I'm using in the CPU article, you need to view the image at full resolution to actually be able to read any useful annotation. Thumbnails of a high-res annotated images look poor and aren't as visually arresting to the reader, which is why I've opted to keep images in this form for the article. That being said, I'm totally for annotating versions of these images and linking them from the article and the untouched image pages, so people can get more meaning out of the image than simply "oh, that's neat looking." I'll dig around Intel's site a bit tomorrow to see if I can find some die layout diagrams. Unfortunately those aren't typically the sorts of things that Intel likes to release and it can be difficult to accurately guess which portions of the die do what (other than the very obvious things like cache and general area of functional units, control units, data busses, etc)... -- uberpenguin 19:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:80486dx2-large.jpg (first version)


The District Line platforms at Earl's Court tube station viewed from the main concourse.

The picture is a good illustration of the hub of the District Line during an off-peak time, giving an overview of the station - showing the trains, platfoms and architecture of the station.

It is used in the following articles on the English Wikipedia

and on the German Wikipedia articles

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua tree at sunset

I found this on Wikimedia commons, and it is now on the article Joshua tree. I think the contrast between the silhouette of the joshua tree and the spectacular sunset make this a great pic. It says it is public domain.

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset over Flora kommune

Self-nomination. I think this show some of the beauty in the landscape. Vidarlo 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hashish shop in Kathmandu (1973)
  • Support Comment. Wow. What an amazing photo. It truly conveys the gritty urbanism and I like the people on the right. The only thing that bothers me is the white rope(?) that spans the picture, but I'll support when the two-day commenting period is over. One question though, what were you doing outside a Hashish shop???:/ LordViD 20:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After more then 32 years I don't remember what the ropes were for - probabely to give additional stability to an adjacent building that was in danger of collapsing. By the way, a few months later hashis became illegal in Nepal, so this photo has some documentary value. I took the picture, because the end of legality was already imminent then. --Roger McLassus 20:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was there before, but someone took it out. It is not my habit to re-insert pictures or texts deleted, but in this case I made an exception. But you are right, the information should be given in the discussion and not under the picture. I'll change that. --Roger McLassus 09:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Well i oppose because the place is not legal... as he claims.. i live there... so i know.... and yeah... even the building doesnt exist.. HOTEL EDEN is still there... but its just a hotel... so i recommend... u edit..the false informaton. Oh by the way, they are the ropes from the electric pole.... and they help ground the extra electric charges that might occur on the poles....to prevent danger!!! Sakar Bhusal
    • What a stupid reason to oppose an image. He clearly states that it was taken over 30 years ago before hash was made illegal there, why would the signs and buildings still appear the same today? duh. --Deglr6328 08:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, this image doesn't promote hashish use, so the illegal argument can't be used here.
  • The white lines are really bugging me, so while it may need to be documented, I'm afraid I'll oppose once voting on this one is allowed. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For an advertising picture intended to attract coustomers I'd have removed the bicyle, the people, and by some editing tricks also the ropes. But my intention was different. The picture should show a real piece of oriental life - and so everything fits in. --Roger McLassus 12:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the picture a lot, though I really wish something could be done about the distracting lines... Some clever photoshopping could take care of them, and frankly I think that would make the image much better. -- uberpenguin 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and I don't think that photoshopping something out of the original photo is morally acceptable just to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Colour saturation/balance, sharpness and luminosity are merely subjective aspects of a photo, and I think are therefore fair game, but not physically elements of a photo such as the cable. Diliff 19:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then call me immoral; I think it would be better off with the lines removed. If I'm hopelessly outnumbered in this opinion it obviously won't matter :) -- uberpenguin 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hehe, well I never said it wouldn't be better off with the lines removed. I just said I didn't think it does justice to documentary photography to remove aesthetically unpleasing elements. :). The scene should remain as it was when the photo was taken - IMHO! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of the rope/cable/whatever. A featured picture should be free of impediment, and this one is not. I have no qualms about photoshopping a picture, though, so long as the objective is not deceit. I would vote to keep if the rope was gone. Denni 02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted This was very close, but I'm afraid I'll have to call it a no consensus. Raven4x4x 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • After thinking again about this decision, and especially noticing the contribution history of Sakar Bhusal (3 edits, all related to this vote) I have decided that I should have promoted this. To rectify my mistake:

Promoted Image: Hashish-shop-Kathmandu-1973.jpg

The original version
Diliff's edit. See comments for details. Hope this satisfies the opposition. :)

I came accross this image on the Tram article and really liked it. The lighting, wood and stillness of it give it a gentle by-gone era feel about it. The young girl in the picture adds life to it, its more than a stale musuem image.

This picture was created and uploaded by user:KF.

  • Are people not looking at previously featured puctures before they nominate? Really, you should know immediately that something like this has no hope before you even think to put it here if you just look at already featured images for a little guidance. --Deglr6328 17:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate Thryduulf's efforts, but as the photographer and uploader of this image I ask you to stop discussing it. When I uploaded it more than three years ago there was no such thing as a "featured picture", and I have never intended this image to be a candidate. Back in 2002, images had to be reduced in size if they were to fit into a Wikipedia article as there was no way to magnify them by clicking on them. I could come up with a high resolution version, but I'm not going to after reading about all its other shortcomings ("cropped too much on the sides", "too bright", etc.). <KF> 15:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like this image - the lighting gives it the feeling of a Norman Rockwell painting. My only issue is that the picture is a bit unbalanced, and it looks like the left side of the picture has been cropped short. Denni 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed why...the bus has a 1-2 configuration...so that means that the aisle will not be straight down the middle. So, unless the photographer stands in the middle of seats, you aren't going to get a more centered shot. I support the third. --vaeiou 02:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image was created and uploaded by KF, who I assume is the parent/guardian of the girl, and thus able to give permission - and, by uploading it to the Internet has given persmission for it to be published on the Internet. Assuming that this is true (I will leave a message on their talk page), then I presume that by licensing the images under the GFDL, permission has been given for the images to be used in ways compatible with the GFDL. The gallery you link to is not in voilation of the GFDL nor any other laws I am aware of (unless you know otherwise).
Regarding your second point, I do not think that this image looks artifical - as I deailed when I nominated it I feel the girl adds to the image. Thryduulf 10:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if KF is the parent, he can give that permission and everything is fine, which is precisely why I asked. Second, the gallery itself does not violate any laws (and I didn't claim it did); but I wouldn't be surprised if the girl or her parents had objections to that image being asssociated in any way with the term "nymph"—very close to nymphet (which is derived from nymph). Lupo 11:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (any version, but naturally the larger version is nicer). It nicely illustrates its subject, and is attractive to boot. The little girl really adds to the picture: she gives it context, scale, and character. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the original version. The edit seems to me to make it too glossy. I agree with the above that the girl strongly adds to the image's artistic merits. Sarge Baldy 11:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, a random search on Wikipedia revealed the following results: Image:Urbeach-christina-at-waterplay.jpg and Image:Sunglass-c.jpg clearly state who the people in the pictures are. But what about Image:Shopping_for_shoes.jpg, Image:Waiter!.jpg, Image:Auto_Mechanic.jpg, Image:Child_tongue.jpg or, worst of all, Image:SmokingandAddiction.jpg? Would you want your habit advertised worldwide? Could the smoker in the picture have consented to that?
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying I want those pictures deleted. We're living in the 21st century, life has become hazardous and public, people's privacy is being intruded upon all the time. It's awful enough if you type your own name into Google, but what is worse is all those images people add to their personal web sites which show you doing silly things and you don't even know about it.
The photo I uploaded is an image of a car, not of a girl. You will find the same girl at Aspern; again, that's an image of a sculpture, not of a girl. She's there to demonstrate the size of the monument. She liked both images and agreed to have them published, but what if she changes her mind when she gets older?
Some days ago I asked you to stop discussing this image. It was one of the first pictures I uploaded for Wikipedia, adding it to a tram article which at the time had no other images. There were no tags on Wikipedia then. Next thing someone will come along and add Template:Violation of personality rights to it or remove it from the article. I am neither a U.S. nor an Austrian lawyer, and I'm certainly not going to read up on the situation in Austria, which I do not understand. Do as you please, and good luck to you all. <KF> 11:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS I agree with Lupo on User:Nymph's collection of girls' images and on the obvious connotations. I don't like it. It's a sad sign of the times that we have come to be very alert to potential dangers such as child abuse, and if I had had more time I would have tried to do something about that user name in connexion with the girls' images. <KF> 11:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tram_interior_edit1.jpg Diliff's version has the most support here. Raven4x4x 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


File:Lavafall.jpg
Lava cascade
Lava cascade

Created by US Geological Service, appears in lava. *grimace* Small, though. 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forest fire
Current fire FP

Created by US Forest Service, appears in fire. 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Zafiroblue05 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe this image is particularly striking in any way, other than the obscenely wide angle. This image hardly captures the essence of a forest fire (i.e. how big they can get, how fast they can move, how much destruction they can cause), and it has a number of image quality issues. First off, the image needs to be cropped to remove the black border on the left. Secondly, this image has very low detail; with a subject as (potentially) detailed as this one the compression and low resolution really detract from it. The flames look like an enormous yellow blob, and the trees look "poofy". The angle at which the photographer took the photo is unbalanced, and makes me feel like I'm going to tip over... surely there are better photos of forest fires than this one! --mdd4696 00:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks nice. sikander 05:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Didn't we already have another better forest fire FP? - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Tihs Picture is a Arowana (Scleropages formosus), is a nice Picture

  • Comment Could someone who speaks German please check the copyright status of this image and the others uploaded by cele4? I'm pretty sure they're fair game, but I would appreciate someone clearing this up for me since I don't understand the source website. I'm confused because on its special photos page it shows a number of images that have been featured on the German wiki, but on other photos it says that they are not to be copied. Help? ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 23:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm—Cele4 claims to be Marcel Burkhard and claims to have taken the image himself. The external web site you give has an impressum, where Marcel Burkhard is given as the person responsible for that website. That user also has signed up at the German Wikipedia (Benutzer:Cele4). I see no reason to doubt his claims, and certainly he has the right to publish his images elsewhere under whatever license he pleases, including "all rights reserved". It looks like some of the images he uploaded onto Wikipedia became featured pictures over at the German WP, and he mentions that fact on his own web site. There's nothing wrong with that. Note: by uploading something onto Wikipedia, he does not give up copyright! In fact, the copyright remains with him. But if he publishes and licenses an image under a free license on Wikipedia, anybody else can copy it, too, but that doesn't mean that that "anybody" had acquired the copyright. In summary: this looks perfectly fine to me, and User:Cele4 should be thanked for sharing his great images and making them available under a free license. Thank you, Marcel! Lupo 15:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Raven4x4x 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastern long neck turtle - chelodina longicollis.jpg
chelodina longicollis

Nice photo and adds signifcantly to the article. NOTE:TURTLES HAVE DIFFERENT FEET TO TORTOISE'S AS THEY HAVE ELEPHANT LIKE FEET SO JUST SO YOU NO TURTLES HAVE LITTLE FEET AND CANT STAY ON LAND FOR LONG AS THEY BECOME DRIED UP AND THEY CANT MOVE ON LAND LIKE A TORTOISE. TORTOISE'S WALK AROUND SLOW BUT THEY ALSO MOVE ALOT FASTER AND CAN LIVE ON LAND WITH NO WATER ONLY FOR DRINKING

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 09:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well-exposed, and I love the turtle's face (he's smiling!), but the head-on view and lack of focus make it hard to see anything else, especially his neck! I'll have to think about this.PiccoloNamek 09:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I love the photo, it is very striking, but the lack of focus makes it kind of un-encyclopaedic. Off the topic, I have taken tonnes of these off the road this year. --liquidGhoul 10:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have alternatives], but none as pretty as this one. The tortoise was in a tank (ruled out using a flash), and the lighting was pretty ordinary so a large aperture was needed. I'm glad Piccolo noticed the little smile, as that was one of the reasons I liked this photo. --Fir0002 11:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like the blurry background, especially the big green bit - a space-age tortoise almost! But I don't know how much use the photo is here when the rest of the tortoise apart from the head is out of focus. Enochlau 15:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as illustrating what an Eastern long neck tortoise looks like, I think this photo does a better job. However, in that one, the tortoise's head is slightly out of focus. I don't like this picture so much because you cannot really get an idea of what the tortoise looks like, and because only the tortoise's head is in focus. It is also pretty dark. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 16:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Very nice photo for photography's sake but not really illustrative enough for me as only the face is in focus. Agree with MDD4696 that the other image is better, but I think that none of the photos really stand out on their own as FPC material. Unfortunately I know its difficult when working with dim lighting and small depth of field but what matters is the final product I guess. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I like the shot (especially the trace of a smile), but it's a bit too blurry. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I like it, but as mentioned above, the subject is not entirely in focus. Enochlau 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Apart from the fact that it's odd for me to support half a fish, yet not support half a tortoise, I had a look at the statement of what a featured picture is again, and I think that it could work well to attract readers to the subject. It is, after all, a very tantalising photo (it's my wallpaper on my work computer!). It contains enough tortoise I think. Enochlau 22:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I like it, but it doesn't illustrate the subject very well. This photo could use an increase in depth of field, but alas, that's not something that can be fixed now. -Vontafeijos 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peron's tree frog (Litoria peronii)
New photo

Good representation of Peron's tree frog. This is a very common frog throughout the Australian state of New South Wales. Appears in Peron's tree frog, and was created by liquidGhoul 00:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The famous Felix pace as seen in "Oceantics" (1930)
Nominated 02:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (see [[7]] for why this is here) Raven4x4x 03:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See the real reason here: Kurando-san --AllyUnion (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this image is a good representation of Felix the Cat, an internationally known cartoon character whose popularity was eclipsed only by Mickey Mouse. This screen shot from "Oceantics" (1930) demonstrates the character's famous pace. It should be noted that "Oceantics" fell into the public domain in 1955. This image was created by Pietro 22:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

If it was copyrighted from 1930 to 1958, it's only 47 years ago. I thought stuff entered PD 70 years after the dead of the creator if not renewed or at least 50. This is too new to qualify IMO. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably wasn't being clear, but the image did not enter the public domain because of its age. It fell into the public domain because it was not renewed after its 25-year copyright term. Films and other copyrighted materials in the United States are supposed to be renewed 25 years after their release. I know this because I've researched in Walter E. Hurst's "Film Superlist" - a guide to every single American film copyrighted and renewed. Pretty much all the films released in 1930 that I looked up were renewed in 1955. If a film or material is failed to be renewed, then it falls into the public domain. Such was the case with "Oceantics". Therefore, it qualifies. Please don't hesitate to voice your thoughts on this image. - Pietro 12:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't remove comments even if they don't apply anymore. The best way to deal with this is to contact the person who made it (in this case me and ask them to strike the comment). - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image for Korea geo stub

I know most of the featured pictures are 100000dpi and 100 metres by 100 metres (or so), but I simply believe that the icons are also an integral part of wikipedia - and this one is one of the best I've seen recently. Simple and informative (as an icon should be), it has the power of saying all about the Korean conflict in a matter of milliseconds. Just look at it and... you know everything. A powerful image and Kudos for User:Grutness for making it. Halibutt

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koala Climbing Tree

This is a photo I took earlier this year in Cape Otway National Park, Victoria, Australia. I'm nominating it because I think its probably the best photo of a koala on wikipedia and is detailed and composed well enough to give you a very good idea of the anatomy, shape and the way it climbs. I have uploaded a newer (sharpened) version of it as I know you guys are hard on soft images :). See the image on commons for the original if you'd like here[8]. There is a previously featured photo of a koala here[9] but I feel this is a better image to represent a koala as it is a) in its natural habitat, not a zoo and; b) AWAKE! It is actually in the process of climbing from one tree to another which was a great chance to see the koala at eye-level.

Promoted Image: Koala_climbing_tree.jpg Raven4x4x 04:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

View from Mt Ainslie at night
Rotated 1.2 degrees clockwise

Quite a nice panorama of a classic view IMO. Not as sharp as I could have liked but it was pretty windy when I took the shots. Alternatives can be found here

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-contact distribution of indigenous language families north of Mexico

Promoted Image: Langs N.Amer.png Raven4x4x 06:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White's tree frog resting in a tree.

I saw this picture when I was checking out the FAC. I think it looks great and has potential of becoming an FP.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest walk at the National Botanical Gardens, Canberra

I quite like this panorama, but I've noticed a lot of people feel my photos too saturated. I'd be happy to tone it down if people want.

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, now I'm allowed to. Thryduulf 10:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I really like the fact that the path is off-centre, giving you what I assume is around a 120 degree perspective towards the left. Personally I think it would be prettier on an overcast day as sunlight is a killer in rainforest scenes, blowing out just about everything it touches. :) But this one is definitely worthy of FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I still like the panorama for what it is, but despite what gmaxwell says, I think the image does need a little work. While viewing at 100% is unrealistic, I think it shows that some heavy processing has occured and that it could be improved. And not that I'm suggesting Fir002 go back to Canberra (on what I assume was a school trip, as he is not from there) to re-shoot this panorama, but as I said above, it would be better balanced and prettier on an overcast day. There are just as meny negatives as there are positives to this photo IMHO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice! --Janke | Talk 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- TomStar81 00:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hey, I was at this park a few years ago! This is exactly how I remember it. Raven4x4x 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I DO think it is a bit too saturated but I'll support anyway.--Deglr6328 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very cool. -- user:zanimum
  • Neutral - nice pic, but a bit dark on the left. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think it is saturated to the point that detail is lost. The parts in the sun are completed washed out. Enochlau 01:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Stunning! - JustinWick 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. How did I know Fir's pic would be featured? Can we just feature any pic this guys brings. Truly great. If you haven't thanked Fir for improving Wikipedia, you should. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further consideration, oppose. Enochlau is right. It looks awful in high res. I still stand by my statement to go thank Fir for his work. Next time I'll vote correctly the first time. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is shockingly poor in high res. Hamedog 02:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was trying to tell if the image looked funny at high res just because of the color of the ferns, or if it was image quality. I decided it was image quality. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 03:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In certain browsers that re-scale the full-sized image to fit the window, the result is terrible. Look at it in some photo editing software instead. Remember, this image is over 4000 pixels wide! --Janke | Talk 14:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The image quality of very high resolution images should not be judged looking at the image at 100% because no user of this image would use it at that scale (at the resolution of my screen the image would be over 3ft wide, so what we're saying is that we are opposing a >3ft wide image because a little noise is visable). The noisyness of the shadow areas goes away if the image is viewed at half the resolution.. so what we're saying is that we'd support the image if the uploader had anticipated our foolishness and throw out half the images resolution before uploading it. I'm sorry, but thats broken. --Gmaxwell 07:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is more wrong with the image quality than noisy shadow detail though. I admit that I only looked a lot closer to the image once others noticed, but there is very obvious banding in the shadows and what looks like stitch marks in certain areas. Most stitch marks in panoramas are usually blended in better though - these are almost like sharp lines. I agree with you that viewing at 100% isn't realistic, but I still believe its rather poor quality regardless - viewing at 100% with a Canon 20D shouldn't result in detail as poor as this one has. It just appears to be very heavily processed and resampled poorly (presumably with the panorama software, I guess, since photoshop shouldn't butcher an image like that unless it was resampled with something other than bicubic). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is so much support for this picture that it will undoubtedly be featured. However, it might be a good idea to reduce the size to 50% or so, in order to get rid of most of the objections. Would Fir himself care to do it? That would be best... --Janke | Talk 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg Raven4x4x 06:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dggst.jpg - I delinked it to make the page work friendly. Broken S 02:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found this image when reading about it on ANI. It was uploaded by User:Paeris and I think it's beautiful. I like the female's light tan over her shoulders, then as we move into the more private areas, she becomes milky white; then we see her fine buttocks that hide the penetration of the penis.


  1. The liscense is ineligable at the moment,
  2. The subject matter is controversial,
  3. This is not the Porno Portal, and
  4. I personally find this offensive. TomStar81 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, so far we concluded these two things:
  1. The photo is copyrighted;
  2. We can have a better photo of that position;
So my question is: who will volunteer? --Anittas 02:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hopetoun Falls, near Otway National Park, Victoria, Australia
Version 2
Version 3

This is a photo I took which is the lead image in the waterfall article. I have nominated it as suggested by Dschwen in the Wailua Falls nomination. Clearly illustrates a waterfall and is (IMHO) a well composed and pretty temperate rainforest scene in Southern Australia.

  • Now that this image manipulation/falsification thing seems to really take off here: Support original, strongly Oppose edits. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, we should faeature real pictures if they are pretty, not doctored photoshop orgies. Aditionally the edit leaves a murky washed-out area behind. --Dschwen 15:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for the support there. I have to admit I don't really like the edit - partially because its like the corruption of my child. ;) But I still stand by my comments in other FPCs - gross manipulation and deception based on omission is not OK in my opinion. I do, however, support minor contrust/sharpness/noise/colour adjustments if they don't detract from the original intention of the photo. Besides the actual removal of the branch, I'm not sure if I prefer the contrast adjustment in the case of the third edit, as the original scene was quite misty due to the waterfall. The contrast adjustment, while making the scene 'appear' less foggy, has created deep shadows and removed detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well OK, I can certainly see your point. But I look at it this way, like noise or dust spots etc, an unwanted element should be removed. I don't know if you'd agree, but I think that I definetly improved Image:Globe and high court.jpg by the removal of the branch: Image:Globe and high court fix.jpg. I don't want to seem like I don't appreciate the beauty of your photo I do, but leaving something which can so easily be fixed doesn't appeal to me. So I respect your feelings regarding the matter and I hope you'll respect mine. --Fir0002 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, but noise and dust weren't there in the reality the picture should try to capture (any picture). It is perfectly ok to adjust contrast and color tone as long as the purpose is to reproduce the conditions when the pic was taken, cameras are not perfect and tend to falsify colortemp and contrast. So I'd call that adjusting the representation of reality, which I'm totally ok with. But when you start manipulating the subject of the image itself I have to apply the emergency brake. Such precedents must be avoided. Besides that I actually think the leaf adds a feeling of imersion into the rainforrest to the pic. Sorry if this gets annoying, but I feel pretty strong about this matter. Maybe we should continue the discussion on the Talkpage, since it applies to other nominees as well. --Dschwen 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with your sentiments there Dschwen. It concerns me that Fir0002 feels that so many photos need to be 'fixed'. Aesthetics is a very subjective and personal thing, as can be seen by the varying opinions on whether it looks 'better' with or without the branch, but as I've said previously - this is photography for an encyclopaedia, not a competition. Sure, there is an element of that since we're voting for the purpose of elevating an image above the mediocre, but ultimately, photography is about the right exposure, framing and timing - the elements that are in your control at the moment you press the shutter. I completely agree that colour balance, contrast, noise and sharpening (and when necessary, perhaps cropping and rotating) for the purpose of representing the scene as it appeared should be the extent of the editing performed here. Anything more would be a misrepresentation of reality, as you said. The question remains in my mind - should this be discussed further and perhaps policy further refined, or should it remain at the discretion of individuals on a per-image basis? A similar issue has already been up for discussion on the FPC page, but this issue is a little different - not whether the author should request an image to remain unedited, but whether particular editing should be discouraged or refrained from... Food for thought anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Image:Hopetoun_falls.jpg - The original is definately the one with consensus. Raven4x4x 05:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 17 launch
Apollo 17 launch - Diliff's edit - cleaned noise and removed jpeg artifacts/dust

I felt this photo came out very nice in terms of contrast, with the orange sky and nice lighting, and thought I'd put it up for consideration.

  • Nominate. Sarge Baldy 11:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The image has a lot of artifacts. I've spent some time editing it and smoothed out some of its wrinkles. The only thing I'm not entirely happy about is the posterization in the sky. This is not due to my editing per-se but rather the JPEG compression in photoshop - the posterization does not occur in the image I've been working on until the time of saving to JPEG format. I've saved the file as a PNG file (lossless) here [11] so you can see how it is SUPPOSED to look but obviously it is larger than it needs to be as a PNG and not the ideal format for a photo. If anyone else can take that copy and save it as a JPEG without posterization in the sky, that would be appreciated, but I think my copy is otherwise a marked improvement over the original. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I get the impression the rocket is leaning to the right - Adrian Pingstone 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you measure it then? :) Its hard to be sure since the sides slope towards the point, but if it is, it couldn't be more of a shift than 1-2 pixels from top to bottom. Often a perceived lean is an optical illusion. The only way to be sure is to be objective and measure it. I just did that and couldn't find any substantial lean. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid I can't pick any difference between your jpeg and PNG Diliff. This is about the third or fourth time people have made changes that I just cannot see at all. And I mean not at all. Why is it that other people can and I can't? Whatever the reason, I do think it's an improvement over the original, and I will support Diliff's version. Raven4x4x 05:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Raven, my guess re the reason you can't see the difference is that your monitor isn't calibrated particularly well. Try this calibration [12]. Ideally, you should be able to differentiate all the graduations from A to Z, but most typical monitors can't at either extreme, particularly in the shadows. Or there is this page too[13]. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral — it's a great picture, but I'm afraid that the spotlights on the left distract too much. Also, it may just be a figment of my imagination, but I also get the feeling that the rocket is leaning right... Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( + ) Support Original Version. It doesn't seem to suffer much from artifacts to me, and Diliff's version seems to loose a lot of detail. For instance the tip of the shuttle seems fade out. --Fir0002 23:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the sky in the original version, and the detail around the rocket. There are plenty of artifacts. I agree that the tip is faded and that must be due to me accidently running over it when I was touching it up, but aside from that, where else does it look like detail is missing? I don't think there is anything much else visible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry but I can't see any artefacts worth worrying over. Comparing the two side by side the fringes of the original look sharp and consequently less smooth, but that's about it. Your edit seems to have mad the spotlights in the bottom LH corner become more faded as well. --Fir0002 04:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I can't speak for everyone but I do certainly see them and I suspect others do too. The sky is not at all smooth - it has horizontal and vertical lines running through it, which I have for the most part removed. If you really don't see them, then try having a look at the levels in photoshop and move the white point (the far right slider) towards the left and you'll enhance the shadow detail (brighten it) and the artifacts will pop out at you. Heres one I prepared earlier ;)[14]. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah OK, but the thing is, as I can't see the artefacts without using severe level adjustment I can't see how a reomved version is better. And as mentioned above it has less detail. --Fir0002 06:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you can't see it, then perhaps you should calibrate your monitor, as per my comments with Raven above. They are very obvious to me without any levels adjustments at all, and obvious to others too, it seems, since they are favouring my edit. Also, I don't think I have removed any detail. Can you give me an example? If anything, my version appears slightly sharper to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Horizontal lines.. um you mean the wires which you blured into oblivion all but one? .. Odd that we not require being factually inaccurate to feature a picture on wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually I was referring to artifacts presumably introduced by digitising the original photo. Can you not see them either? I agree that there is a slight loss of clarity in /part/ of the wires attached to it, but I didn't delibrately blur it - that was an unfortunate byproduct of the noise removal algorithm that I ran the image through, but it isn't as though you cannot see the wires at all, and it isn't as though the edit makes the image factually inaccurate any more than extreme artifacts in the original. I wasn't trying to say my edit was perfect, - far from it - but it certainly makes it more viewable and doesn't detract significantly in my opinion. If you disagree, thats fine, but less snide comments would be appreciated if you're not going to vote. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read Diliff's words above. I also can't find any lean when I try to measure it. Raven4x4x 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Diliff's edit, although it would be good if someone can put it back into JPEG as mentioned. Enochlau 00:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Diliff's version. Glaurung 08:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Nice but spotlights and over-saturation of the rocket detract from it. - JustinWick 01:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very striking --rogerd 04:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Diliff's edit. Very illustrative and eye-catching. -- Marcika 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Image 2. The lighting is absolutely breathtaking in this image. One of the best Apollo shots I've seen. Denni 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the lighting makes it a great picture. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, fantastic David D. (Talk) 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Apollo 17 The Last Moon Shot Edit1.jpg JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Gamelan intruments

Adds significantly to the articles and I like how it came out.

Promoted Image:Traditional indonesian instrument being played at the indonesian embassy.jpg JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

front of the new building

The picture is used in the article University Library of Graz. Nominate and neutral, since I am the photographer - Dr. Marcus Gossler 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — The bright clouds in the left hand corner distracts from the photo. By the way, in the future, would you mind replacing the "Add your reasons for nominating it here; say what article it appears in, and who created the image." with a nomination statement? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The error is now corrected. --Dr. Marcus Gossler 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us who don't know the building, the picture seems quite boring. How is it amazing that this is what the picture could make of it? --vaeiou 16:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My statement pointed to the fact that it is very difficult to make a good photo of the modern front of the library, because there is only a dark and narrow gap between it and another quite high building. But in spite of this obstacle the picture looks pretty good. --Kessa Ligerro 20:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian War Memorial, Canberra

This is a pretty dramatic photo to me, and I will openly admit that it is a composite. I can understand if people have a problem with this and certainly as a general rule I prefer images as unedited as possible, but I think it was a pretty good transformation of a very dull photo. Anyway I have an alternative if you don't like so moody a pic.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a foggy day in Albuquerque, New Mexico
Straightened version. (AAfog3b.jpg)


This image is unlike many other fog photos. It has a definite artistic touch and it makes good use of shadows, light, the fog, the white grass, and the trees. Additionally, it clearly shows what fog is and what it does visually.


This photo appears in Fog. It was taken by Vontafeijos, Tate Strickland.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good photo ver. 1

I think this is a great black in white photo.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

California Poppy version 1
California Poppy version 2

Self-nomination; GFDL and CC-by-sa. Version 1 is used in the California Poppy article here and on fr:Pavot de Californie. (There are a couple of other versions at commons:Eschscholzia_californica if those are preferable.) It's hard to be objective and I'm not an expert photographer, but to me they look clear and nicely composed, with good contrast and focus on the flower, showing the different structures of petals and stamens, and the delicacy of the petals and the coloration. The unopened bud in the background, although unfocused, shows a little more about the plant as well.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful picture of the Pleiades star group

This is a stunning image I came across while reading star. It's used in quite a few articles, and is also used as the image in the star-stub template. First uploaded by Worldtraveller, the photo is from NASA.


Promoted Image: Pleiades_half.jpg Raven4x4x 04:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded Image: Pleiades_half.jpg over Image: Pleiades large.jpg so Promoted Image: Pleiades large.jpg Raven4x4x 05:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


A striking photo of the Crab Nebula

A stunning and beautiful image of the Crab Nebula. Uploaded by Arpingstone, it and a smaller resolution version (Image:Crab.nebula.arp.750pix.jpg) are used in a variety of articles.

  • Question Are images of nebula colorized (they must be, right?). Do the colors correspond to anything in particular? ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 03:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: Not necessarily "colorized". but they are not always in "natural" colors, either. Such images are taken, through a telescope, with three successive exposures, and each exposure is through a different colored filter. The exposures can be in visible light, but also ultraviolet and infrared. When these exposures are added together for the final picture, each one is given one of the primary colors, thus creating a full-color image. If the shots were not through visible light filters, the final colors are not "natural". Nowadays, this all is often done with CCD chips and computers. Also note that you cannot see much color if you look through a telescope, since the human eye is almost color-blind in very low light. --Janke | Talk 06:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midway Airport, Chicago

Midway Airport is an impressive sight from the air - an airport on a square mile in an urban area. This is a good photo of it. I thought it was worth a nomination. The photo appears in the Chicago Midway International Airport article and was created by User:Sgiard.

You find a square airport in the middle of an urban area unremarkable? - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many major airports do you know of that are one mile squared and completely surrounded by urbania? Midway is a relic of the propeller age when aircraft required shorter runways and people weren't concerned about aircraft noise or accidents. Aviation enthusiasts consider it fairly special, if not remarkable - partly because nobody would dream of building an airport like it these days. There are very few airport of its type left. ... I'm obviously just a weird propeller head. Thanks for your comments. Sorry for wasting your time. -- Adz 10:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say the subject of the picture is indeed pretty remarkable, unfortunately the pic is far too small to be featured. It has been said over and over on this page (which the casual reader might not know), a featured pic should be fit for printing and fullscreen display. --Dschwen 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll know next time. -- Adz 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plumed Basilisk
Edit by Fir0002


  • Nominate and neutral, since I am the photographer cele4 07:22, 10 December 2005

I asked cele4 here and he said that Image:Plumedbasiliskcele4.jpg is for the english Wikipedia, while Image:Stirnlappenbasilisk2.jpg is for the German (hence the German title). I've replaced the image in the article with the english one. Raven4x4x 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Plumedbasiliskcele4 edit.jpg Raven4x4x 04:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped and increased saturation.
Another version, cropped.

Women posing as geisha are a common sight, but depictions of authentic geisha are increasingly rare. Can you tell the difference? The current Wikipedia article on Geisha features a snapshot of two young girls in costume who are not geisha. In this candid photograph, a real geisha is shown in her natural work environment entertaining a businessman at a private gathering in Gion. Those who are familiar with this art form will recognize that her kimono, makeup, facial expression, and subtle body language are true to classic form and reflect an elegant style years in the making. Beyond the manufactured imagery of Hollywood, this is a rare glimpse of what a real geisha looks like when she is working in the evening -- when the simple act of lighting a cigar becomes art. For the sake of authenticity and out of respect for the original tradition, I nominate this photograph of a lovely geisha -- a true geisha -- at work in Kyoto, Japan.

This photograph appears near the bottom of the Wikipedia article entitled Geisha. Photograph by Todd Laracuenta, taken with geisha's permission, 7 February 2003, Kyoto Gion, Japan.

  • Nominate and support, because I think this is a striking picture, and we need to feature the real thing in our articles. - ToddLara 00:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at previously featured pictures. This image is far too small to ever have a chance at becoming featured in its current satate.--Deglr6328 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Larger version resubmitted that is larger than the currently featured picture in the Geisha article, so I hope this size will suffice. Please, give it another look. Thanks for the help. ToddLara 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Who's the dude? It would be better with just the geisha. I understand wanting to show her in a natural act, but he takes away from the art of the act itself. Sorry. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate the rarity of this picture (a geisha entertaining a male client), the picture still lacks clarity and sharpness. It is an interesting picture, don't get me wrong, but the quality of the picture is lacking. There are many quality things to be photographed, but they must be photographed with quality to make the cut. While the subject is of astounding quality, this photo is not, in my opinion. I am sorry. I still oppose. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with User:Lord Voldemort about the man in the photo. Also the photo itself isn't all that spectacular. Enochlau 22:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. "Who's the dude?" As the caption indicates, he's a geisha client. Very relevant. You might be surprised to know that geisha don't earn their living posing for tourists or holding umbrellas. They go out in the evening and entertain men at exclusive gatherings just like this photo shows. How do you propose telling the story of these banquets without showing a man in the photo? If you are insisting on a quaint, stereotypical picture postcard of a couple of airbrushed "geisha-girls" regardless of whether it tells the real story, that is an inappropriate measuring stick for an encyclopedia photo. Anyway, I respect your thoughts, and thanks very much for listening to mine. ToddLara 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand "who the dude is". I just think perhaps a shot of just her and the lighting of the cigar would be better. The shot would have been good if it was closer and some random guy wasn't just hunched over in the pic. I don't want a postcard shot like the main pic on the article, but would like a shot of just her and her task, not some dude. Thanks for your quick response. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose -- I agree with User:Lord Voldemort about the dude in the picture; were it not for him, I would likely support. TomStar81 02:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( − ) Oppose Washed out, not particularly sharp and slightly noisy. --Fir0002 08:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, considering how rare it is change to ( + ) Support third version --Fir0002 01:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the focus of the image is the Geisha despite the presence of the man. I would even argue that the man enhances the quality of the image, contrasting the Geisha so she stands out even more. And as ToddLara said, it shows the Geisha "in action," so to speak. -Vontafeijos 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The geisha and the gentleman pictured above have consented -- which is pretty rare, considering this was a private engagement (rarely photographed). The geisha in this picture was featured in an American television documentary on A&E and the BBC. This is one of the very few (possibly only two) American men who have been accepted within the geisha district of Gion, which is very much closed to the outside world. I want to thank those of you, on both sides, who have taken the time to analyze this picture frankly while respecting the two subjects. As it happens, one of the top geisha experts in the U.S. requested permission to use this very picture in a nationwide exhibit because it was thought to aptly illustrate "ozashiki" (geisha banquets in which men are attended by geisha). Since the other two pictures in the Geisha article in Wikipedia are (1) a lovely picture of two non-geisha posing in costume and (2) a distorted screen shot of a possible real geisha on the street while on her way to work, I figured this picture would add significantly to the article. I look forward to more thoughtful comments -- support or oppose. If I get any more shots of geisha by themselves posing for tourist cameras, I will certainly post them as well. But, frankly, a geisha with a man is like a matador with a bull -- the bull doesn't have to be pretty and the bull doesn't have to be somebody. ToddLara 04:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. From reading the article, it seems that being a geisha is certainly about the interaction between the woman and (a) client(s). I would worry more about whether there is permission from the client? Janet13 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is an extremely valid point about obtaining permission from the client. Generally, it is the client that opposes public disclosure. Geisha (and those who imitate them) are the most photographed women in Japan, but they are rarely ever pictured with a client for that reason. There is a code of silence, and the client's privacy is vigorously protected. In this case, permission was granted. It is a rare picture. Alternate versions uploaded for those who wanted more geisha and less client. If I eliminate the client altogether, the picture will make no sense.ToddLara 04:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first, oppose rest. Hamedog 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 01:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral - the shadows behind the geisha and the client bother me and distract from the photo. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support v1 or 2 because rare, striking, & a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. I prefer the composition of the original. ~ VeledanTalk 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3rd version 3rd version fixes issues that I'd have with the man being the entire scope of the photo. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The third version is awkward. Almost all of the man is cropped out except for his face and his hand. If we're going to have him in at all, he shouldn't be shoved into the far right side of the frame. As I said before, the Geisha is already much more prominent than the man in the photo (as she should be), so there is no reason to resort to such severe cropping. The second version should be sufficient for those who believe that the first shows too much of the man. -Vontafeijos 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would second that and also note the third detracts by hiding the relationship and distance between the Geisha's position and the client's. He could be leaning over much further in the 3rd version. ~ VeledanTalk 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support second. I agree that the first version is too much of the man, but the third version looks rather ridiculously cropped. Plus, I see no real problem having the man in the photo. - Cuivienen 01:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first or second. The third one is poorly cropped, but the other two are well-composed and informative. Camerafiend 19:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first or second only. I think the photo itself is rather average, but the significance of what is captured is what compels me to support it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first or second, significant contribution indeed. --Dschwen 10:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Overall image quality is lacking. What can I say, I'm just not wowed.--Deglr6328 07:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, creepy. Neutralitytalk 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first or second Second preffereble. Nice pic. TestPilot 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image: Geisha_Kyoto_Gion.jpg Raven4x4x 04:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Isle of Capri
File:IsleofCapri-Edited.jpg

I visited the Isle of Capri a year ago and it is one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen.

Comment - It looks kind of dull, and red too, so I uploaded this edit. The JPEG artifacting is kind of heavy, too.PiccoloNamek 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second is a bit too contrasty. --vaeiou 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool image - good luck! - JustinWick 00:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old pocket microscope

Not yet used by any article (a suitable one is yet to be found).

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this satellite photo the pollution from the explosions, appearing black, is spreading in two main streams from the explosion site at the apex of the inverted 'v'.

One that made me say "wow". From the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, although I haven't found this picture on their website; the ones on [15] are rather less impressive.


Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking out towards the Monashee mountains at the top of the Powder Chair, Big White Ski Resort.

Good light and back drop of stunning mountains. Displays people using the mountain aswell. Appears in Big White Ski Resort article

I concur with above. Oppose Cafe Nervosa | talk 20:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

View from Mt. Ainslie at twilight

Here is another photo from Mt Ainslie taken at a better time of day.

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian War Memorial at night

Not quite as moody as my other photo, but this time a genuine shot.

Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A maxell DVD-R that was microwaved.

A picture of a microwaved maxwell DVD-R that looks pretty awesome. There are no artifacts, the size is large and the focus is good. It also makes an interesting subject. User:PiccoloNamek took the photo, not myself.

It is part of the Microwave oven article about the hazards of microwave ovens. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, you should mention it is already removed from Joule heating. And it does not significantly add to the microwave article. Putting CDs into a microwave is a very specific danger and lacks general relevance. This article would benefit much more from a pic of the guts of a microwave oven. --Dschwen 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply yep, I've struck it out now. I didn't manage it earlier because I'm at work and I just scraped enough time to correct my insertion to the article as 1st priority. I have also struck out my support vote. Now I've done a bit more research, I still think the pic is of FP quality but as yet the article for it hasn't been written and may not be for some time. I can envisage an interesting article on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on solid objects and this pic would be a great addition, but until then I'm not sure I can support it either. ~ Veledan 15:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment, I might add that this pic is still very beautifully done, so I'd suggest nominating it on commons instead. --Dschwen 15:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Various large Japanese utensils, including a long flexible Oroshi hocho ( おろし包丁) (middle) and a hancho hocho (半丁包丁) (closest to camera). The utensils are used to fillet large tuna.

This image shows some of the Various large Japanese utensils, including a long flexible Oroshi hocho ( おろし包丁) (middle) and a hancho hocho (半丁包丁) (closest to camera). The utensils are used to fillet larger tunas. I am the photographer and took the shot during a visit to the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo. In the background is a large piece of tuna and two workers to the side. The image appears in Oroshi hocho.

I intend to upload a higher resolution copy. Cafe Nervosa | talk

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqis show off stained fingers in the January elections

I stumbled upon this image when reading about the recent Iraqi elections and the January elections. The picture captures the emotions well, and the contrast between some of the people add to effect. True, it's not absolutely stunning as some of our other featured pics, but I believe that it is a great picture that illustrates Iraqi legislative election, January 2005, Purple Revolution, and 2005 well. The picture was uploaded by Mindsweeper onto Commons.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian national monument, the Tugu Negara, is dedicated to those that fell during World War II and the Malayan Emergency

This is a monument dedicated to those that fell during the Japanese occupation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak and during the Malayan Emergency. IMO, the monument along with the sky as a blue backdrop is stunning. Properly licensed for Wikipedia's use. The photo appears in Tugu Negara, History of Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur. Produced by user:Theyenine.

No, I don't have another picture. =( __earth 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks more like a backlighting problem. The figure at extreme left is sidelit and shows up better. It's a fine composition. Try a different time of day? Durova 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:SaintLouisSkyline.jpg
The skyline of Saint Louis, Missouri.

October 2004, Paul M. Girouard. I woke up real early one morning, and snapped this picture of my hometown as the sun rose. View from the east bank of the Mississippi River, looking towards downtown Saint Louis, Missouri.

Ummm... Hello? The arch is the defining aspect of the St. Louis skyline. - Cuivienen 04:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]