The quality of the original out-of-camera-jpg upload Bammesk is totally irrelevant. Perhaps you do not understand post-processing. Post-processing technology has improved since 2018. In 2018 I did not process from RAW. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What has the original file size got to do with it? Nothing wrong with it anyway. The image dimensions are almost the same. Image-processing software can make file sizes much bigger. Please only vote on the nominated photo unless you believe there has been unacceptable digital manipulation between two versions. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posterization and small file size (file compression) go hand in hand, see Posterization#Cause. Nominated image is posterized, because it's derived from the original upload which is also posterized due to its small file size. BTW, the file source says there is an uncompressed 18 MB version. Bammesk (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know the physical size of this painting, i.e. the scan/captured pixels-per-inch resolution. However, looking at it at full size (or larger), there is a writing in Arabic alphabet at the bottom left. Also there are small writings on many turbans (and collars). The painting is old so there is some natural fading, but still the writings on the turbans are so muddled (and indistinct) that I suspect insufficient capture/scan resolution. Bammesk (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution is definitely not up to snuff, I see signs of it being a scan of a printed source; also damage in lower left corner. --Janke | Talk07:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the original out-of-camera-jpg upload Bammesk is totally irrelevant. This is the second time you've said this. Perhpas you do not understand post-processing. Post-processing technology has improved since 2017 and sophisticated software was used on the other image. In 2017 I did not process from RAW. You may be aware that inn photo competitions, photographers must be prepared to provide the out-of-camera-RAW file to check for untoward digital manipulation. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that out-of-camera-jpg quality is irrelevant, because cameras don't put out poor quality jpegs when the RAW capture quality is good. But regardless of its relevance (or lack of), it's parenthetical; my oppose rationale precedes the parenthesis. The 'sophisticated' post-process difference (now versus 2017) is the 'Topaz AI' software (primarily to sharpen and denoise [1]). The enhancements fall short in my opinion in this case. Others can disagree. Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think we should be looking at an older JPG when this has been processed from raw but the other image linked by Bammesk is indeed much better and should precede this one--Muhammad(talk)09:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2021 at 12:49:51 (UTC)
Reason
Featured picture on Commons and Arabic Wikipedia. Quality image on Commons. Encyclopedic value in identifying Bleu de Gex cheese. CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
Comment – I prefer and would support the infobox image if it's introduced as an Alternate, or if it's nominated at a later time. Bammesk (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2021 at 15:31:31 (UTC)
Reason
New Good Article. Photo has high EV. Clearly portrays characteristic features of the pure-bred breed: white with "badger" coloring, double dews claws on hind legs, "pantaloon" hind legs, "shepherd's crook" tail, etc. New .png upload from previous .jpg with higher resolution and adjusted image contrast.
This image has been at the head of the article for 9 years (please verify for yoursef). Upload today was just to increase resolution which was the point of contention when this image was presented for POTD in 2012. See FP criterion #5. Please consider revoting on this basis. --HeartSpoon (talk)
The image hasn't been in the infobox continuously for 9 years - in fact, May 10th to June 26 it wasn't in the article at all, and currently, it's not. I'll let others decide if that makes it ineligible or not. (Added proviso to my oppose above. There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page: [[2]]) --Janke | Talk07:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But if you look BEFORE those couple of months this year, it's about 9 consecutive years. The point is, this is not a new image. HeartSpoon (talk)
I think that rule is meant to quickly disqualify images that get uploaded and added into the article purely for a FP nom; clearly not that case here. Belle (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the above comments about the trunk and I'm also distracted by the large branches on the ground behind the dog which break up its outline. I'm also distracted by odd noises and balloons; though this has nothing to do with the picture, it will come in useful if you are trying to stealthily steal my purse. Belle (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2021 at 16:53:58 (UTC)
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously. Higher resolution than existing FP File:Alectura lathami - Centenary Lakes.jpg which will be nominated for delisting if this succeeds.
Comment I think the blurring of the background (what's that called? Umami? Origami? Harakiri?) is a bit overdone. I suppose the greenscreen is good for adding the CGI Optimus Prime later though, so swings and roundabouts. Belle (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2021 at 07:31:05 (UTC)
Reason
This is one of the first photos I took with my new camera, and I think it is a good one. It's high-resolution, composed neatly, and clearly illustrates the thing it's a photograph of.
I tried it two different ways; crop 1 maintains the water at the halfway point of the image, and crop 2 maintains it at a third. Personally, I'm partial to the first, although the second looks more photographically proper. jp×g09:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crop 2 seems the better option to me, but I'm not sure if it's FP standard. It should meet the valued image criteria at Commons. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a far superior photo of the bridge in question. I've been advised that the proper thing to do is just withdraw this nomination and make a new nom for the new photo, so I'm doing that. jp×g05:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Charlesjsharp No building details are lost because of time-of-day. I actually prefer the more gentle lighting of this, compared with your daylight example. However, the people do distract a bit. I would support the author's version (similarly cropped) without the people: [[3]] --Janke | Talk09:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A line of soldiers trudging up a hill after the (presumptive) previous action on the beach isn't really interesting or illustrative. Lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo, and similar photos, are often used to illustrate the Allied success in the Normandy landings in books and the like and has very strong EV. Consider what the photo shows: the day after the bloody and almost-defeated landing at Omaha Beach, it has been tidied up and is being used to land large numbers of troops and vehicles in broad daylight. The troops are bunched together and the landing craft appear to be operating freely, which illustrates that the Germans were unable to hinder the follow-up landings. This was the foundation on which the Allied victory was built. 08:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs)
Oppose – valuable photo to illustrate an article, but not "among Wikipedia's best work" when compared to other FPs, I'm afraid - subject backlit, tree overlapping, distractingly-dressed person in shot, crop quite tight, possibly a little soft around the edges. A fine contribution but not, to me, an FP. TSP (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pity its tail is curled under the leaf, but maybe curling its tail under leaves is normal behaviour, in which case, well done for capturing its curling tail under leaf behaviour. Belle (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This might do well to have some of the empty space on the right cropped out, which would center the subject. jp×g22:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very pretty as a photo, but the moisture blurs the features of the flower and the weight of the water has perhaps made it droop downward as most other images show an upward-facing flower. Send flowers if you want me to change my mind; not wet ones though. Belle (talk)
You'll need to read the rules, I think QI has to be your own work. Good pictures includes FP, QI and VI - it is not an award of its own. It is safer to nominate for FPC on Commons where there are more voters before nominating here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I have nominated another painting of the artist on commons. (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raja Ravi Varma - Mahabharata - Shakuntala.jpg) I am sure this time that it is complete..245CMR.•👥📜13:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2021 at 14:28:21 (UTC)
Reason
High quality
Notable in its own right: Yes, the painter is very reputed and this painting is one of the his most famous paintings. Has Wikipedia article, see Shakuntala (Raja Ravi Varma).
Of high artistic merit: Yes, this painting is regarded as one of the most influential modern Indian painting.
@Belle: See [4] The company features the works of the artist. I don't think there is any significant colour alteration from the source, but you can ask @Aavindraa:, the uploader of the latest version..245CMR.•👥📜14:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Belle and 245CMR: I'm not sure. I used to adjust the color balance in my previous uploads, but it was a point of contention especially from those with museum curation background. So nowadays I upload stuff as-is. I doubt that it changed on the Google Arts side, as I saw that a new ID gets assigned. For example, the Stoclet Frieze by Klimt has been uploaded twice. In any case, please feel free to reupload the image if it is clear that there is a difference. Avindratalk14:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The colour is noticeably different from the original upload. It's better looking but unless there is some reference for the change it probably shouldn't be changed (unless you put it in day glo colours on a black background in which case I'd definitely support) Belle (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Belle: That's is an old version and the latest version is taken from this website [5] which has access to the artist's works. Most probably, the yellow varnish has been removed and cleaned..245CMR.•👥📜02:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2021 at 09:11:43 (UTC)
Reason
I nominated Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dumbarton Rail Bridge with a previous version of this photo. My friend, who is a very good photographer, saw this and sent me the following message: "jesus you nommed this thing? cringe". After some helpful advice, I was able to go out and take a far better photo, which I present here for your consideration here. As with the other one, I think it's a well-composed photo that clearly, distinctly and effectively shows the thing it's a photo of, brings encyclopedic value to the articles it's on, and is pretty.
Oppose – This overly distant view of the bridge seems a poor composition lacking readily accessible visual info. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's in this picture is a mile away from the shore, and the trestle leading to it was destroyed by arson many years ago; I'm not sure if it is possible to get any closer without a boat. jp×g23:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: My understanding is that this rule didn't apply in cases where an image was an improved version of a previous one (the previous one here being File:Dumbarton Rail Bridge 2021.JPG). If this isn't the case, I would be happy to withdraw. Well, not happy, I'd be a little embarrassed at having misinterpreted it, but you get the idea. jp×g07:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a fairly different picture, given the lighting is quite different - sunset photos are pretty, but not always the best for EV, so I think that this needs to be in the various articles for a while for reviewers to have confidence that it is accepted by the relevant editors. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An improvement over the previous one but as Charlesjsharp mentioned, it is a bit soft. I'd be interested in seeing a stitched image, with longer focal length --Muhammad(talk)08:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quite soft in full size (upscaled?), barely fulfills size requirement. Also, the facetious caption is quite unusable as such. --Janke | Talk08:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are we using the FPC captions for? Genuine query, I've never seen them used anywhere but in the nominations, but I haven't nominated anything for seven years. ...and if barely fulfilling the size requirement is grounds for objection we should raise the size requirements.Belle (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My objections were in the order of importance; the softness alone is enough. A good caption suggested here might even be used as such in the Picture of the Day on the main page... --Janke | Talk14:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't dissing your softness objection, I just wanted to know if we had started using the captions for something outside FPC while I was away in case I was risking a spanking for being silly. Belle (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would say flawless, but it isn't (also there is a tiny white speck lower left about 2 inches up on the 6000x6000 version; this could be removed or given a tiny red and white striped jersey and a bobble hat). Belle (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The lighting looks uneven (hotspot on face, less light at edges); do we have a comparison anywhere that shows another photo of the same painting? --Janke | Talk19:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is how it looks on the Museo di Capodimonte's website [7]. Colours are quite different, so we can't say for certain which is 'right' (unless we organise a group trip to the museum and then vote. I'm up for it but COVID restrictions might limit the numbers) Belle (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A closer oblique view might capture better detail than this rather static straight-on image with its excessive expanse of foreground. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not usually a fan of NASA portrait photos, but the EV here is clearly very strong and the photo is quite well executed. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2021 at 11:30:52 (UTC)
Reason
An FP on Commons. Shirts with figurative art are rare, so this is significant both as a work of art and a piece of religious symbolism. This photograph has a very high resolution.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2021 at 01:18:23 (UTC)
Reason
I think this is a good photograph of a relatively uncommon event; not only does it show the immediate aftermath of a wildfire (which was still burning when I took this photo -- maybe that makes it the duringmath), it also shows the effectiveness of techniques used to contain it, with sharp contrast between the charred carbon to the left of the firebreak and the intact vegetation to its right. I also took a different picture of the same fire, which shows the same thing (burnt material to the left of a firebreak and unburnt material to its right) as well as some dramatic stuff like still-burning fires, atmospheric haze, et cetera -- but it's a little blurrier, and doesn't show the firebreaks as clearly.
Oppose Interesting image. Quality is insufficient. Dust spots on left and right (fixable). Blurred when zoomed in (not fixable). --Tagooty (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2021 at 12:53:47 (UTC)
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons. Adds value to articles. I would not normally submit two images of the same species, but feel this is justified here.