Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/June-2009

Unsuspended after original was restored. Seven days starts.... NOW! wadester16 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Edit Fantastic image, great restoration, awesome EV = Definite support. wadester16 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Still a lot of streaking. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity where is the streaking you are referring to? I will try to get rid of it when I have time. Thanks. Victorrocha (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think, but am not sure, that he means the peculiar vertical lighter/darker bands. Stare at the thumb and look for unusual darkening as you move horizontally across the cloud...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's correct. They're clearly not part of theexplosion: They're straight verstical, and extend outside the cloud. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm.... I guessed I was looking too closely for spots to notice that. That's a lot of work to remove that, if it's even possible without diminishing the quality of the photograph. Victorrocha (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd say they are inherent parts of the photograph that aren't worth the time or effort to try to "remove", kind of like the reflections off the window in this. But then again, I'm no restorationist. wadester16 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's more like an artifact from the scanning, but to get a better scanned version of this may prove impossible. Likewise it's probably very difficult to near impossible to remove it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I could be completely wrong, but a lot of these detonation images were partially or completely lost due to gamma radiation. Fortunately, they shot a shedload more than that and this is one of the most pristine. It's likely that those streaks are due to minor fogging, basically, which would be on the negative and actually quite intereting from an enc POV if it could be established as fact. --mikaul^talk 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • From looking at other versions of this image the same streak's seem to be present, although the other versions are lower quality and could possibly origniate from this same scan, but it's entirely possible the streaks are on the negative giving credence to the fogging hypothesis. It definitely would add to the EV of the picture if this could be confirmed as the source of the streaks... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • According to this reference from a first-hand person working with the photography on the islands states almost all the film was damaged/destroyed by radiation fogging and that a special chemical technique had to be developed to save much of the images. That was for the Bravo shot though, but it does give more credence to the streaking on this image possibly being from radiation fogging. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Right, that's very interesting! Wyckoff was an early pioneer in HDR imaging where he used upto three layers of film to capture a wider dynamic range. His "burning off" layers of emulsion to save the image doesn't make sense unless you appreciate that... I'll do some reading and get back. It does make the streaking a very small price to pay, needless to say. --mikaul^talk 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit A job well done.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Good job editing. Great wow factor, definitely one of Wikipedia's finest. RMelon (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic image. Seddσn ^talk 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per RMelon. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: the explosion was captured in its entirety with no noticeable obstructions. Alexius08 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question The image page of the original gives the Library of Congress as the source, but (as far as I can see) the LoC doesn't have a version at this resolution on its website - is this an offline LoC version or is it from another source? Time3000 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone sourced a larger image and added it to the page on 5-1-09, they didn't state where they sourced the larger image, but it is clearly the same image as the one linked on the LoC version, from a copyright standpoint I'm fairly sure that isn't an issue, the image is clearly a work of the us government? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, I can't see copyright being a problem. Time3000 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Ka-boom!!! Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historically important.. and stunning!! -- œ^™ 06:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV through the roof, great quality all things considered. Spiral5800 (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Awesome! (In all senses of the word.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It's very interesting, but I have to agree with Shoemaker (but not enough to full oppose). Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edited version. Indeed, one of the finest pictures. M.K. (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit - lots of EV, lots of wow, unimportant technical issues. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The edited version is amazing. Bernstein2291 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conflict-of-interested Support - Too bad the streaking in the top couldn't be fixed, but man, is that a great shot or what. Great restoration in the rest of the shot though. NW (Talk) 21:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg Hopefully nobody is bothered by the fact that I closed this nom, even though I supported it. But it's been open a while, and the consensus couldn't be any more obvious. --wadester16 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very high EV image by notable photographer. First African American pilots in US military. Digitally restored, dirt and scratches removed and levels adjusted.

Articles this image appears in

Tuskegee Airmen, Military history of African Americans, 332d Air Expeditionary Wing

Creator

Toni Frissell, restored by Jake Wartenberg

• Support as nominator — Jake Wartenberg 22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question May I see the unrestored version? ZooFari 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You bet—it was linked to from both image description pages, but I have added a thumbnail below. — Jake Wartenberg 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There are a number of Toni Frissel images that I think could pass (such as Durova's earlier (failed) nomination), but this is a good example with high EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think the image could also be added to 332d Air Expeditionary Wing and Military_history_of_African_Americans#World_War_II. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 14:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not an expert on restoration, but it sure looks like there's still a lot of dirt or something all over it. Can anyone corroborate this or are my eyes just fooling me (it's nearly 3 AM here)? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you were looking at the unrestored version? It seems fine to me. ZooFari 06:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a bit dusty still and although it's a decent enough repair otherwise, I'm not keen on the slightly compressed shadows compared to the original. Good to see it's looking like a promotion though, as these are minor niggles. --mikaul^talk 13:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ZooFari 06:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The photo is clearly posed, but it still has lots of EV and meets the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historically important. -- œ^™ 05:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good historical value. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bernstein2291 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - excellent photograph with good historical value. Meets criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tuskegee airmen 2.jpg --wadester16 04:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Informative diagram that explains how an ICBM with MIRVs works, covering the sequence from launch to arrival and detonation over a target. High encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

LGM-30 Minuteman, Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle

Creator

Original created by Fastfission, this version created by Martin23230 based on previous FPC suggestions.

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 13:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous Nomination (file has been modified a fair bit since then) Noodle snacks (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This is a fine diagram, but it seems pretty cartoonish to be a FP. That said, I don't see how it could NOT be cartoonish. I'm willing to agree that this image has a good deal of EV. Thus I find myself neutral on this nomination - so far. Question: would this be better as a jpeg? Spiral5800 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. SVG is good because it is resizable (think large posters for example). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I believe my concerns from the original nomination have been addressed. Other than that, unless someone with more expertise knows better, I think it illustrates the subject well. --jjron (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It is a fine diagram and illustrates well the subject. Still it lacks sophistication to reach FP level. Yes, it could be a lot less cartoonish. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It can use some more effects (gradients, blurring, strokings, etc.) ZooFari 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, The atmosphere should fade into black, not grey. ZooFari 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral & Comment - In my opinion, it will be more suited to be nominated here, where I could give a support vote. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_ΞΞΞ_} . --  09:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refuse to be a part of the VPIC process; from where I sit, an article and an image should be judged by the same criteria, and if an article is good enough to be a GA, then its good enough to be A, and if its good enough for an A than its good enough for FA. By contrast, VP offers images no chance for promotion to FP, and since VPs do not receive a bronze star, are not mentioned in any official avenue, and can not be on the main page the whole point of VP is null and void. Lastly, on a personal note, I consider any comment on an image I add here to the effect of "take this to VPIC" to be an insult; I add images here because I feel they have what it take to go all the way here, not someplace else. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say nominate there too, but I opposed with no further suggestion. Maybe that means anything to you... ZooFari 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looking cartoonish isn't a big deal imo. Correctness is by far the most important thing. I'd like to see black space too ideally. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above . An odd mix of styles lacking just a bit of finesse for FP, I think. Not keen on the trajectory crossing the box on the left, for example. Detailed missile doesn't sit well with posterised land & sea, and so on. Valuable image, having said all that. --mikaul^talk 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image adds exceptionally to the article that it is a part of. On top of that, it is an incredible view of the marvels human engineering is capable of.

Articles this image appears in

International Space Station

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Spiral5800 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent image given the circumstances. Why are there two types of units in the caption?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the units. Thanks Spiral5800 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Though some annyoing technical flaws, I'm willing to weak support because of, as HTH says above, the circumstances. As similar photo, File:ISS after STS-117 in June 2007.jpg, is of much worse quality. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote reconsidered --> full support. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Heavy JPEG artifacting, but wow, what a picture! Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Quality just isn't there. The EV is good, but hurt by the poor quality. I bet we can find a better picture of the ISS than this. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that NASA took this photo, and took it in March, unfortunately I doubt you're going to be able to find a better picture - especially considering that only as of a very recent shuttle mission have all the solar panels been installed (I believe the same shuttle mission that installed the last of the solar panels took this picture.) Please try - wikipedia would certainly benefit were you to find a better one and I would wholeheartedly lend it my support for FP nomination. That said, I very much doubt that, currently, any better picture exists. Of course, you could always take a quick trip up there and snap a better one with your Nikon =) Spiral5800 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • NASA should have a better quality, less compressed version. The original 12mp image from NASA is around 700kb only. --Muhammad(talk) 09:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if they do, they do. I have not seen any evidence that that's the case. So right now, it's the best we have, and I don't think the quality hurts the EV. — Jake Wartenberg 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change my vote to full oppose per my comment below. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The EV of this image completely overshadows the quality issues, in my opinion. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV. — Jake Wartenberg 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Good EV. If a better version is found, this can be replaced --Muhammad(talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment another possible image here, and another thing to remember is that these images are going to be out of date fairly quickly. Seddσn ^talk 02:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. At 27,000kph it should have the earth rushing past it, right? Umm, seriously, given that NASA operates under generous image licensing, I'm not at all convinced that better publicly released images of the ISS do not exist. It has very high encyclopedic value, but this shouldn't trump the lack of quality if better examples exist. I'm open to convincing on the matter, so I'm not opposing for now. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I've decided to support, per Mikaul. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As far as I can see this has been rotated 180 degrees. Land isn't visible, but isn't this bending the facts just a bit? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's probably the best image we have of the ISS right now, and there are quite a few. A tricky subject to start with, most of the panels seems to have been recorded pretty well so there's good EV here. Some lens aberration around the edges, but not bad detail elsewhere considering the compression. Worth noting that NASA like image compression for practical reasons and are pretty good at it, so don't read too much into small file sizes. --mikaul^talk 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As I can't go and take a better picture myself... I love space... Gazhiley (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The picture Seddon linked to proves to me that better pictures of the ISS definitely exist. Clearly, then, an exception shouldn't be made for this inferior quality picture. Because of this, I changed my vote above. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:ISS_March_2009.jpg The consensus is obvious, though it seems if a better image can be found, that is up to date, it should be nominated to replace this image. The image found by Seddon may have a bit higher resolution, but the artifacting is worse (I also think that the composition of the FPC is better, but that's my opinion). Either way, this is a pass. --wadester16 04:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Taken from PPR while archiving - I said a couple of weeks back that I would nominate it pending other opinions, but none were forthcoming. For mine quality looks good, but not overly sold on composition. Will let others judge. Original PPR nom: Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Lima Lima.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Lima Lima Flight Team

Creator

JMSchneid

• Weak Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Sharpness is lacking, this is probably due to the length of exposure, although the longer exposure has allowed motion blur in the props which is positive. More problematically composition is vertically very cramped, especially on the lower plane/smoke trail, I feel that removing this plane would add to the picture but sacrifice enc. - Flying Freddy (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as creator --JMSchneid (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much blur. Although a difficult image to shoot, far from impossible to have a higher quality shot. Seddσn ^talk 02:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Resolution trumps sharpness. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "resolution trumps sharpness" is one I must point out to be a fallacy. A 10 mp blurry out of focus image is in no way better than a 3 mp well-focused, sharp image of the same thing. Resolution does not trump sharpness at all. The purpose of higher resolution is to allow for and contribute to image sharpness/detail. Spiral5800 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've had approximately one hundred thousand discussions here over whether images that will be perfectly sharp if downsampled to minimum size (generally, 1000px in larger dimension), should indeed be downsampled, and the discussions have shown marginal consensus in favour of *not* downsampling to fix sharpness issues, in accordance with "avoiding unnecessary digital manipulation". Downsampling is destructive editing, and thus to be avoided. Good day! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just too many minor faults, per comments above. A crop from the right seems to help the lack of headroom, but it's not enough to mitigate the rest. --mikaul^talk 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor IQ --Fir0002 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems pretty smart to me ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The zoom is a great feature to provide a close, high resolution shot of the planes, but a slightly shorter exposure would be best to remove the blur on the planes themselves. The framing of the shot would be perfect if shot in a portrait style rotation. Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 01:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 16:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click to see image

Reason

One of Wikipedia's best, highest resolution images of this subject matter.

Articles this image appears in

Nudity

Caption

A group of people participating in social nudism.

Creator

Cataloni

• Support as nominator --Erik9 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not very sharp, JPG compression artifacts, overexposed/sun-bleached in the centre. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Vanderdecken Seddσn ^talk 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – poor lighting and quite heavy compression artifacts, EV is its only redeeming feature and that much is compromised by the posed figures. We don't feature zoo animals unless they're particularly hard to photograph, and this particular breed are very easy to capture in a more natural setting... it's some dude's holiday snap, fer chrissakes. --mikaul^talk 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- not everyone may want to see nudity portrayed on the main page... Lilaac (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia_talk:FPC#Sexual_content.2C_nudity.2C_pornography.2C_etc.... WP:FP and WP:POTD are different things. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment given the uploader's slight lack of other contributions almost certianly a copyvio.Geni 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF, we generally presume that uploaders who have asserted that images are their own work have done so honestly unless proven otherwise, either with respect to the specific photograph or other uploads by the same editor, unless the claim is so implausible on its face as to require additional supporting evidence. We do not require that people who wish to release their own photographic work under a free license make additional contributions to prove the rectitude of their intentions, nor would doing so be advisable for a volunteer project. Erik9 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image doesn't have any metadata, is the uploader's only upload and depicts nudity. My experence is that such images are pretty much always a copyvio.Geni 09:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 16:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent image which contributes to a reader's understanding of Hawaii hotspot, and it is of high standards and resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Hawaii hotspot, Maui Nui, Penguin Bank

Creator

United States Geological Survey, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

• Support as nominator --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's an extremely interesting map. I have two issues though. First, the fonts are rough; I prefer them to be smoother. Second, are the blurrier areas not as well documented as the clearer ones? Because they are kind of annoying (almost like my eyes are playing tricks on me at first). wadester16 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply Fonts can be fixed I guess, but you are correct. As you can see, some ship-based sonar data is more detailed than the rest of the map, which is taken from whatever space-based radar thingy, I assume. There is not much I can do about that, but the major areas of interest are mostly detailed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Unrealistic depiction of the relief, looks like a stack of plates. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your comment of "Unrealistic depiction of the relief" Seddσn ^talk 02:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, because of the low resolution of the elevation information, the whole thing looks like the The towers of Hanoi -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So I guess we really need to determine if higher resolution is available. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Info PDF was apparently composed in Adobe Illustrator ("Hawaii-poster.ai"). Resolution of alternate pdf does not seem significantly different. Will point out one vector drawn part that apparently is not on the original raster image, and that's just North of the text "Honolulu" (best apparent on the original PDF). Not sure what's going on there, in terms of providence and accuracy. The original raster image may also have had some jpegesque artefacts, but I'm no expert on PDF-embedded images. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My attempt to upload a much bigger png to at least fix the fonts did not succeed (commons gave an error, "empty document", after about ten minutes spent in transferring the 31MB file); however, the previously uploaded image may be at or near the maximum resolution of the embedded raster image from what I can tell. Text is vector, though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question about the various lines and trails that run across the sea floor, especially in the deeper parts of the image, but also at the edges of the image: Are they artefacts, and if so, which stage of the measuring/processing introduces them? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply Some of the lines you see are the edges of data integrated from ship-based sonar, hence the zig-zag detail of the Maui Fracture Zone. If that is what you're referring to. If you're referring to the purple area below the Molokai Fracture Zone, that is more of an artifact of the lower resolution zone and this is what the source has to say about it:

Bathymetry that is predicted from variations in sea-surface height, observable from satellites, provides the low-resolution (fuzzy) bathymetry in between ship tracks. Subaerial topography is from a USGS 30-m digital elevation model of Hawaii.

— Hawaii's Volcanoes Revealed

--ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have provided a higher resolution image, so the fonts issue is solved. Also, there is no "towers of hanoi" effect, as this shows the natural features of volcanic lava flows piled up over time. All of the ship based data is of high resolution, but the areas of fuzzy low resolution are still present. Nothing can be done about this, but the supposed "artifacts" can be smoothed out, however, the this would only "hide" the fact that there is less data available for these areas (i.e., its still not going to be as detailed as the rest of the map). I'm hoping the previous !voters will be kind enough to re-evaluate the image again based on the new and improved version, and in light of new information. Or should I just renominate? I don't deal too much with Featured Pictures, so I'm not up to speed on the procotols around here. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Technically edit 1, but uploaded over the original). Looks much better now, with the fonts cleaned up and all. Very interesting and informative. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and Question There are a couple of places where 'Hawaiian arch' appears in large letters; I assume that's short for archipelago? Time3000 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Actually, no, it is not short for anything. If you notice, there is a "Hawaiian Arch" and a "Hawaiian Moat". The islands are surrounded by a peculiar moat-like trench (see this article). Some theorize that the arch is actually an effect of the hotspot deep below the islands, and this "swell" is proof of a "mantle plume", and that this mantle plume is pushing up through the crust like a pimple. Others might say it is simply an effect of the subsidence (sinking) of the heavy volcanic islands pushing down on the sea floor which produces a second arch beyond the moat (notice the words "Hawaiian Arch" again in the upper right-hand corner of the image). Also, the arch in the center of the image was part of an ancient mega-island, Maui Nui, which was broken up (through erosion and sea level rise) into several of the islands we see today. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV, the only image in the Morogoro article. It shows the infrastructure and the mountainous area around the town. Took me a very long time to put together and get it right. It covers app 120 degrees.

Articles this image appears in

Morogoro

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Flying Freddy (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Likely to be among the best photographic images illustrating this city. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Completely unrelated to the FPC, but do you mind explaining why the city is jokingly referred to as "Mji kasoro bahari"? (Last sentence of the lead.) Just curious. wadester16 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mji kasoro bahari" translates to City short of an ocean/port. I first came across the phrase when I was adding the image so I am not sure why, probably because it is one of the most populated towns after Dar es Salaam but unlike DSM, it is landlocked. --Muhammad(talk) 07:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Weak because I'm hoping you'll upload a bigger version. The height seems a bit small. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded larger version. --Muhammad(talk) 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but agree with Noodle Snacks. For a panoramic image, the height is a bit lacking. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Wow, Muhammad, :-) Meets all the criteria in my opinion. Better with the extra sky, too. Maedin\^talk 06:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is there so much focus on the roundabout when the picture is about Morogoro's panorama? Wai Hong (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The area around the roundabout is one of the busiest and most developed places in Morogoro town. --Muhammad(talk) 19:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely picture... I'm intruiged as to the random bike parked half on a herb half into the road in the bottom left that to me seems to be the krb dividing and entrance and exit to the roundabout... As a driving instructor by trade that seems like a silly place to park a bike... Gazhiley (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I'd prefer that the comment indicate the vantage point, the direction you were facing, some landmarks visible in the photo (especially if they have their own wiki articles) and the names of the mountains in the background. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vantage point was the terrace of a 4 story residential building, facing North. Mountains in the background are probably the Nguru Mountains. the Uluguru Mountains are to the south.

Promoted File:Morogoro panorama.jpg --wadester16 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. Compared to the current FP it shows a different cultivar and also shows the seed. IMO both show different features and hence can be both featured.

Articles this image appears in

Mango, List of mango cultivars

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hmm, it's tough, I think your photo is the equal of Fir0002's but I'm not sure if it differentiates itself enough from it. You know what would be ideal? Combining Fir's images with yours. ;-) You could turn it into a really wide image! No, I'd say it has just enough EV to pass. You're right, it does illustrate a different cultivar and is probably more realistic in appearance. Fir's is a little too perfect. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Support. This image is too similar to Fir0002's. If it had a better license, I would suggest doing a delist and replace, but as it is, I see no reason to favor this image over Fir's and the article doesn't need both, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it actually becomes an issue, you need to stop voting on the basis of licence preferences. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikimedia and FPC both allow GDFL-1.2 only so IMO, not a valid reason to oppose. That said, I don't mind releasing this image under a different license. So,  Done --Muhammad(talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to clarify that I wasn't opposing specifically due to the file's license. I was opposing because I didn't think that the article needed both images and there was no reason to prefer using this image over the other one in the article. Now that this image can be migrated to cc-by-sa, however, which is a much freer license than GFDL, I would prefer that this image be used in the article. I don't see why the freedom of the license isn't a valid consideration. To me it seems analagous to considering the resolution of the image. Just as I wouldn't object to an image solely because it was only 1001 pixels wide (as that meets our requirement), I also wouldn't object to an image solely because it is GFDL 1.2-only. I think it is perfectly fair, however, to include either of those issues when weighing the pros and cons of the image. Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Shows the pith. Higher EV than the other one. Lycaon (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replace per Lycaon. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor lighting. Dark shadows and over contrasted flesh/skin tones - fruit doesn't look natural. --Fir0002 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Which mango species is this? List here. With current article placement, I find that enc. is more on the low side, if it's not in the species (like the comparative FP). Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Species is Mangifera indica as mentioned on the image page in the description. --Muhammad(talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Can't believe I missed that. Thanks, Muhammad. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The top 2-4 pixel line at the top needs to be cropped—some irregular shading is present. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, can't see what you are referring to. Could you upload an edit with area highlighted? --Muhammad(talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, I see it. Uploaded edit --Muhammad(talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Support edit 1 per above, but do not replace. There is room for both FPs, IMO. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Support either, but prefer edit 1: For several reasons, I think this is superior to the current FP. The cross section actually shows the juiciness and texture of the fruit, as well as, crucially, the pith. The background is more uniform in colour and less pink/grey towards the bottom. I thought the other was too bright and hurt my eyes; the lighting here I far prefer. It's more natural. Like PLW, I would support a replace. Maedin\^talk 06:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let's sing the chorus one more time, with feeling. "Needs a size reference!" Spikebrennan (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Uploaded Edit 1 includes scale per Spikebrennan and cropped out some irregular shading mentioned by Spencer --Muhammad(talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 Spikebrennan (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Scales are the best ! Ksempac (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I want to hear the mango song by Phish. now wiki ppl, please dont find that offensive173.54.200.196 (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Apple mango and cross section edit1.jpg --wadester16 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Seems to meet criteria - I hope not too narrow? See original version File:Chiroxiphia caudata.jpg if you think it should be cropped differently

Articles this image appears in

Blue Manakin

Creator

chzzFlickr user Dario Sanchez Corrected  Chzz  ►  11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --  Chzz  ►  02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the creator should surely be listed as Flickr user Dario Sanchez. I've always been an admirer of his contributions (via Flickr) as they have provided us with images of dozens of species in an area we don't have many from but I don't think the quality is quite there for a featured picture (although many might qualify as valued images) Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks. Sorry about that - I simply didn't know; I certainly didn't intend to 'steal credit' or anything. I'll know for next time, so thanks.  Chzz  ►  11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose yeah, quality isn't enough for FP. Somewhat grainy (color specs, I suppose) and soft. ZooFari 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. The on-axis flash is doing strange things to the plumage colour too. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lovely plumage, the Norwegian blue :-)  Chzz  ►  11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Noisy, unsharp, small. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for the above feedback, which will hopefully help me to assess potential candidates better in the future.  Chzz  ►  11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - bad lighting. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Fairly typical member of Erigeron

Articles this image appears in

Erigeron glaucus, Erigeron. Astereae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but hmmm. In this case, the focus (literally and compositionally) is so much on the flower itself that you don't really get any feel for the actual plant, such as how big it is, its environment etc. I know full well that a good macro shot makes this sort of context difficult, but a photo like feels a bit sterile to me. It's technically almost perfect, but I don't learn as much as I would from a photo with more context. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good enc. and strong technicals. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pretty much perfect (except for the license of course :P). Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A version that featured the stems and leaves of the plant would be better, but this illustrates the flower well enough, and you can't ask for everything in one image. This is an analogous case to objections regarding headshots of animals. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Erigeron Glaucus.jpg --wadester16 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Pretty typical Echeveria flower stem.

Articles this image appears in

Echeveria

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice, good detail and separation of the background. I would personally have cropped the bottom slightly, but a minor issue. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent. Photographed at the perfect point in the flowering cycle.--ragesoss (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good DOF, sharpness and bokeh. Amazing! Second minor cropping suggestion --Muhammad(talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As far as I know, the most well-known Echeveria is the "hens and chicks" plant that you displaced as the main image. Can you explain your reasoning? Maedin\^talk 06:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a rough estimate, there is a collection of about 100-150 succulents in my garden. Most of the Echeverias are similar as far as appearances are concerned in my view. I swapped the Echeveria elegans back to the taxobox, given it is probably more representative of the plant as a whole. A large number of cultivars and species could represent the genus well though in my opinion. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for doing that, I did think it was more appropriate in the lead (even though it's a poor photograph). By the way—I hate you! Your garden sounds magnificent! Maedin\^talk 13:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the others. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 15:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Incomplete EV since no scale provided. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose great image but its current placement in the article doesn't seem to make it much more than decorative to me. Guest9999 (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No other images in the article show any flowers, or how the plant reproduces. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good enc (see comment immediately above) and good technicals. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Echeveria Blue Curl.jpg --wadester16 05:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I spotted this after skipping through some others. Probably one of the finest banknotes to appear in circulation (unedited version).

Articles this image appears in

Belgian franc, Mythology

Creator

National Bank of Belgium, uploaded by Brandmeister

• Support as nominator --brandt 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are literally tens of thousands of banknote designs out there. What's special about this one? Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is quite representative, with state and allegorical symbols and an excerpt on criminal penalty for counterfeiting (bottom center, between the signatures). brandt 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The explanation given in the custom PD tag for this image makes no sense to me. Why is this image claimed to be in the Public Domain? Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the copyright laws that existed in that time, were struck down by the current copyright law of Belgium, which also does not specifically mention the national currency as a non-free subject. brandt 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got that part. But why are we asserting that it's public domain under the current copyright law? If the national currency isn't mentioned in the current law, doesn't that mean that it's copyrighted by default? Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were copyrighted, I would not have received the scan from NBB's Museum. I've found, that it is the largest denomination to be issued prior to euro, so EV is high. brandt 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close not in any articles. MER-C 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Belgian franc and mythology just feature the original version, I don't see any problem regarding that. Brandt 09:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's common practice to replace in articles upon promotion, so that should be okay. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this version of the same image is used in the article Belgian franc a straight swap might be appropriate as the one nominated seems to be of a higher standard. Guest9999 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Didn't see above comments, obviously hadn't refreshed the page. Guest9999 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV and aesthetics. When I uploaded the image I was not aware of plantations other than the sisal ones but after asking around, I was told there are sugarcane, coffee, cotton and sisal among the cash crops grown in the region.

Articles this image appears in

Sisal, Morogoro Region, Uluguru Mountains, Agriculture

Creator

Muhamad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Has slightly weak EV for Sisal and agriculture (as it is fairly sparsely agricultural in view) but I think it provides good EV across the many articles it is used in - particularly Morogoro Region - which don't otherwise have much in the way of high quality illustrative images. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportgood quality picture but will prefer less cloudsWai Hong (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clouds forming over mountains is part of the water cycle.. It seems a bit silly to be concerned about them when they're pretty common and therefore representative of the environment of the area. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. High encyclopedic value in illustrating the region and mountains. It's not particularly well focused at full resolution, but at lower resolutions it's good enough. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak technicals (blurry), and EV isn't too strong either. — Jake Wartenberg 12:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is high resolution for a single non stitched image, and the procedure for voting, is to view it in the size requirement as per the FPC criteria and not at full size. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, opposing based on sharpness at full size is not fair, although even downsampled, it is still a little unsharp on the left side. I noticed that this was brought up at the PPR too actually. My guess is that the problem is with the lens. I don't know if your 18-55mm is the IS version or not, as you don't mention it on your kit list, but I'm guessing it is. I occasionally have the same problem with my 24-105mm f/4L IS lens, and I think it's the image stabilisation at fault. It must adjust the lens elements incorrectly sometimes which shifts the plane of focus away from the sensor. It seems to happen to me more often when I'm not holding the camera steady (but of course that's what IS is for!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, my lens is not the IS version, but I agree the softness may have something to do with the lens. If you remember, this image seemed to have the same problem. But at the shutter speed this was shot at, I doubt it can be motion blur --Muhammad(talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly, and it cannot be shutter speed if the centre is not soft. Most lenses are a bit softer at the corner but not usually to this extent. If I were you, I'd be looking to upgrade to a good wide angle zoom (the 17-40mm f/4 is very good), but I know that money doesn't grow on trees. Hmm but what about cash crops? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • LOL. I may get the 17-40mm in a couple of years time but for now, I am more interested in macro and want the MP-E 65mm. --Muhammad(talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suspect that the softness is probably due to the shot being taken at f4.5 which is pretty wide open to be expecting a kit lens to be at its optimum, you should try shooting a static scene with this lens at f4.5, 8 and 11 and see if the softness improves as you close down. Certainly I would be looking to shoot a landscape such as this at at least f8, both for DOF and for lens sharpness. I would hesitate to go past 11 with a crop sensor though or you are going to start seeing diffraction softening of the entire image. Mfield (Oi!) 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposeper mfield. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FWIW, the edit's a slightly sharper version. Time3000 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose per myself Mfield (Oi!) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It's a nice composition, but I find the contrasts a bit harsh. Must be difficult to get this right in the tropics, but a smaller aperture probably would have helped, per Mfield. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution and wide angle image, providing an interesting, detailed view of the interior of the building and the waterlilies.

Articles this image appears in

Kew Gardens

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both educational and absolutely lovely. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good illustration of the garden and the activities that take place, taking notes and pictures. Must have been a headache getting the people right. --Muhammad(talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Full of fun.--ragesoss (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Great photograph David, can't say otherwise. There is however one person double in it. Is there anyway you can edit her clone out of the panorama?--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just uploaded an updated version correcting that problem, and also resulted in many of the people changing position too, as it became tricky to match their reflection with their bodies (because it was a double row panorama). I had to manually edit the blending layers to fix these problems. Also stitched it with cylindrical projection which made the image slightly taller. Finally, saved it with higher resolution (5000x2808 vs 3480x1703). Hopefully this is an improvement in all respects. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support stunning quality as always. Cacophony (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like to think that beret man on LHS is still staring listlessly into the lilies. - Flying Freddy (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Forgot to support :) --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpg --wadester16 02:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A detailed and high resolution panorama of the Seven Sisters, a series of chalk cliffs in the South of England. The view shows the ocean, the well-worn path along the top and the geological structure of the chalk cliffs themselves.

Articles this image appears in

Seven Sisters, Sussex

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for smaller or more compressed version --Muhammad(talk) 20:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shall I email a smaller copy of every nomination to you in advance? :-) I don't mind uploading a smaller version but I just don't want to clog Commons up with duplicates... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just get wiki to thumb the size you want: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Seven_Sisters_Panorama%2C_East_Sussex%2C_England_-_May_2009.jpg/3000px-Seven_Sisters_Panorama%2C_East_Sussex%2C_England_-_May_2009.jpg is 3000px wide for example. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Do you have to enter the link yourself or do you get it from somewhere? --Muhammad(talk) 06:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In firefox, right click on a thumbnail and choose properties. Copy the image url and then change the pixel size. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'd imagine this is a tough subject to get a composition that works for it, but Diliff has done just that. At 100%, each screen-width column is interesting as I scroll from top to bottom, and the whole thing is also nicely balanced.--ragesoss (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I noticed you removed some ghost people from the original. Do you have any version with a proper person? That would add a nice scale. --Muhammad(talk) 06:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did remove them as the blender had decided to remove half of a torso... There are plenty of people in the original though, walking along the cliffs in the distance. It would be hard to judge the scale of it regardless though, as the distance varies from about 8-10km away for the cliffs in the distance to about 400 metres away for the cliffs on the far right. As you can imagine, people would look very differently sized depending on where they were. The cliffs are up to about 150 metres high though if that helps. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well composed, good quantity and EV. --Muhammad(talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case there are fences, people, buildings, gulls and sheep which give a good indication of scale. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Illustrative and compelling. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A very nice shot. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Since no one seems to have noticed, why's the sea so white? It doesn't look right, and certainly the other image in the article doesn't have this appearance. I can't help but get the feeling this has been overexposed. --jjron (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reflection of the overcast sky vs a blue one? Noodle snacks (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had thought of that, but I've never seen the ocean look like that due to reflecting the sky (it's more likely to go a steely grey or just look dark and green or something), and as you suggest, the sky is overcast, not pure white. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And before someone suggests it, had also considered whether we were seeing eroded chalk from the cliffs lying on the sea floor, but again I find that a bit hard to buy given the other colours we see on the beach above the waterline. And the sea certainly doesn't look rough enough for it to all be foam. --jjron (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know why the sea looks the way it does either exactly, but I don't think it's overexposed. What was happening in this shot, if I remember correctly, is that the sun had just started to peek from behind the clouds (out of frame) which lit up the shallow water (I've seen this happen before, and it does result in the water looking similar to this) and also the cliffs. I've got other images from this area where the shallow water also looks similar too. In any case, you can tell that it's not overexposed because the rest of the scene is not overexposed, particularly the rocks just to the right of the water's edge (there is no HDR blending here - WYSIWYG) and because the water in the distance blends to a less brown muddy colour, and then to a greeny-blue in the distance. I'd guess that it's a combination of the murky chalky water and the fact that it stays shallow for quite some distance. But as I said, I don't know why. All I can do is suggest that it isn't overexposed and that there must be an earthly explanation. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my experience it's quite common for rough water over sandstones and chalky soils to appear quite white. I don't think there's any irregularity there. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I commented above though, this water doesn't look that rough and the composition of the beach above the water line may indicate what the bottom is like below the water. Having said which, just happened to see a pro image of The Twelve Apostles (Victoria) over the weekend that had a similar appearance. Granted the water there can be pretty rough which would help explain it, but it may be possible. Still looks strange. BTW, I also thought the cliffs looked a bit bright, which is what I was referring to with the overexposure. How's this hypothesis - the sun peeks out opposite the cliffs, lights up the white cliffs which reflect onto/off the shallow water thus also giving that a white look, which is captured by the camera... --jjron (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure that's the actual explanation but if that's what helps you believe, then I'm okay with it. ;-) The water wasn't rough in the sense that the waves weren't large, but it was extremely windy and this was chopping up the water, hence lots of flat white surf. You do appreciate that the cliffs are supposed to be white? There's no luminosity that absolutely corresponds to the cliffs as exposure is inherently subjective and relative, but I think the cliffs look fine, and they look about the same, if not slightly darker than a lot of the other images of the cliffs in the article - any darker and the grass would look rather underexposed IMO. I don't know what else to say. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um, duh! BTW, admittedly I only loaded a preview size and copied to PS so it may not be entirely accurate, but it had quite a range of blown highlights. --jjron (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not going to spam commons with images of little value, but I could provide you with a file showing all pixels from 252 to 255 and yes there are some blown pixels, but certainly not 'quite a range'. Most properly exposed images will have overexposure on specular highlights and the like. I had a look at a number of your images (eg this and this) and they had vastly more overexposed pixels. I could email them to you to illustrate if you'd like. I'm not attempting to deflect criticism of this image - just putting it in perspective. There is no fundamental overexposure in this image IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Water doesn't bother me. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Considering the number of things that could have gone wrong impressive.Geni 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]