Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 01:21:49 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of Savonia railway line in Finland. It shows a Sr1 locomotive hauling lumber across an interesting looking drawbridge. Saw this on Commons recently.
No surprise with an exposure time of 1/1600 sec (0.000625)! ;-) Assuming the train moves at 50 km/h, it moves only 8 millimeters during the exposure... --Janke | Talk19:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that also limits the amount of light let in. Basically, I'm impressed at how well focus, exposure, focal plane, and so on were used. There's really not much notable blur until you get right back towards the land in the distance, which is great focal depth. Sure, maybe the smooth concrete structure helps with that, but it's still very well done. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs21:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2022 at 01:31:34 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of this marine mollusc. I agree with the comments of User:Poco a poco (who does underwater photography) and User:Ikan Kekek on Commons nom here about the quality of this photo. It is photographed with a high quality camera and lens (at f/22 and iso160) Exif here. FP on Commons.
A photograph is a work of art. You wouldn't crop The Mona Lisa and so I don't believe it is good practice to crop others' photos. Cropping for specific uses like a newspaper is fine, but not for an encyclopaedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're an encyclopaedia, not an archival site or an art gallery, so if deadspace is making the encyclopedic value of an image worse, yes, I think we should crop it. What extra value does the shoulder provide? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2022 at 11:39:15 (UTC)
Reason
This was part of a delist and replace a while back that didn't get enough participation. I think it's a superb image for chromolithography as it shows the various colours used in it.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2022 at 13:52:36 (UTC)
Reason
Portrait of jazz pianist Art Tatum by notable jazz photographer William Gottlieb. Tatum was an innovator in the jazz genre. For details see the lead section of his article. On a sidenote, he lost his left eye in his twenties. FP on Commons.
Support, colours seem a little dull, and it could be a little bigger and sharper, but the challenges of a bird in flight make up for it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs13:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2022 at 17:15:11 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image. FP on Commons. This, like most flight images, is not in the infobox but has high EV. It shows a bird carrying a transmitter to aid conservation work in Spain. The bird is carrying discarded plastic to use in building its nest.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2022 at 17:52:05 (UTC)
Reason
Portrait of Marie Curie, a pioneer in radioactivity, first female Nobel Prize winner, discoverer of radium and polonium. See her article for details. The image needs a bit more restoration, to remove small dots and artifacts, which I will do if the nom gets a few supports.
Comment A few dust spots and a horizontal scratch (w. 3 white spots in hair at 1 o-clock) need to be addressed. When done, I'd Support. --Janke | Talk19:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noted in the reason section above that I will do additional restoration if/when the nom gets a few supports. I take your comment as a conditional support. Bammesk (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will do more restoration and clean it up. Zooming in at say 400% there are lots of small spots and dots that can be cleaned up. I should have it in a day or so. (I didn't/don't want to spend the time if someone has a legitimate oppose rationale) Bammesk (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There's some whitish "clouds" in the lower half of the image that I'd have probably edited out, but it might be some artistic effect. Certainly better than any other Curie image I can find online. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2022 at 13:04:10 (UTC)
Reason
The last nomination failed to reach quorum. There was a suggestion of another image of him in that, but it was over a decade before his period of notability, when he was working as an illustrator for a local newspaper, whereas this is literally while doing the thing he was notable for.
Comment Image looks pretty good, but the left half of the roof is substantially lower than the right half, and the pseudo-pillar on the left edge isn't very straight. Is there a bit of perspective distortion? It's a high-quality image overall, but if it's able to be made even better, it should be. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs19:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction was, there's something odd about the perspective, but I couldn't decide what the problem – if any – was. -- Sca (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 04:21:31 (UTC)
Reason
In May 2022, Le Violon d'Ingres sold for $12,400,000, making it the most expensive photograph. Beyond that, this is one of Man Ray's most famous works and for surrealist photography.
Are you sure that makes sense? This is an original Man Ray print, with his stamp on the back--it is not a scan of a negative like some of the photographs in the Featured Pictures collection. If the print is being treated by the museum as a distinct work of art (and, as the nominator notes, another print of it proved extraordinarily valuable), then shouldn't it be represented as it exists? blameless03:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite likely, as a photo of a photo, the specks are part of the original and certainly reflect the quality of the original process. I'm strongly against cleaning up. If that needs cleaning up then where does one stop - do you edit out the cracks in the Mona Lisa? ProfDEH (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: I'm not going to bother if people are going to go to war over it. Don't think it should pass, though, as it's not a fantastic copy, and almost all uses I can find are better looking. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs02:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the print is unique or there are even a few copies, all with specks, we shouldn't be trying to imrove the original. Restoration here should be about restoring a print artwork to how it was. Not trying to improve the original. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nominated version; I'd consider supporting a scan of a different print. It is clear that the various prints of this photograph are valued and contextualized distinctly by their owners and others (hence the enormous value of one of them cited in the nomination); therefore, I think our FP should correspond to an identified print, not an idealized representation of a putative "original." blameless19:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2022 at 00:39:23 (UTC)
Reason
The last nomination happened during a time we were working out the details of how non-lead images work with FPC. I think we've largely sorted that with our simple criterion that the image should offer some sort of unique insight into the work. As such, probably time this comes back. And, anyway, I've kind of been spending a fair bit of time making comics out of artworks for the Signpost.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2022 at 22:34:55 (UTC)
Reason
This artwork by LadyofHats provides an incredibly detailed yet concise visualization of the three simplest structures adoptable by phospholipid (bi)layers in an aqueous environment. Phospholipid arrangement is at the foundation of biological study and this image gives a great geometric explanation of why cell and organelle membranes form the structures they do.
Leaning to support but I like to see a title (or note) on the image itself, something like "Phospholipids in aqueous solution", to make it more complete as a stand-alone image. Bammesk (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what image captions are for. The advantage of having that sort of text as a caption rather than embedded in the image is that you can adapt the caption to the context rather than forcing the same caption to work for all the different articles the image appears in. Do you demand captions embedded as pixels in the photos nominated here? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is basic cellular biology. It's the basis for the cell membrane and everything related to it, such as several means of transport into and out of the cell. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs17:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We should support encyclopedic and well-rendered diagrammatic content in FPC, not just pretty snapshots of charismatic megafauna and postcard views. This is a high-quality example of this type of image, well illustrates an important distinction in biological membrane structures, and is used prominently to do so in multiple articles (among which Lipid is listed as vital, Lipid bilayer both vital and Good Article, and Micelle is high-importance for biology). It is not easy to make these kinds of images both stylized enough to focus on the important aspects of the topic and to render the three-dimensional shape accurately enough for it to immediately stand out to the reader, and the creator of this image has done an excellent job of exactly that. Of note, it is in a vector rather than raster format, making it more widely reusable (for instance, it would be very easy to change the embedded text, unlike in a photographic image with overlaid and pixelated text). LadyofHats has many good diagrams (I had recent occasion to use File:Wine grape diagram en.svg off-wiki, for instance) and I think we should feature more images like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2022 at 16:06:41 (UTC)
Reason
I think it's a fine historical image. If it's passing on the 16th, I'll open a discussion on an IAR POTD for the queen's funeral. (Edit: I opened it on Talk:Main Page already, so that there's as much time as possible to talk things over.
Yes, it's a judgment call. I don't think it is misfocused though. I think it's shot handheld in low light. A tripod would have allowed f/8 and a sharper image. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to vote "Neutral", as I think it's a good picture, but the artistic choices, while pretty at lower resolution, do substantially affect it at full resolution. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs02:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2022 at 17:00:23 (UTC)
Reason
While one could criticise some aspects: the way the poster raises up its lower right corner to accommodate the attribution onto the plate is a little awkward - it's still from the opera's première, and that makes it valuable. An annoying bastard of a poster to clean up - loads of micro-tears and filthy border paper, but I think I did a good job.
Was seen on Commons today and no-one's voted oppose yet! ...Or support. It's early.
Comment: This it not the original map by Al-Idrisi, but a 20th century copy by Konrad Miller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skimel (talk • contribs)
I don't mind that entirely, though the original would have been preferred. Although that said... 1929? ...How is this out of copyright in the US? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs16:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would greatly prefer one of the source documents (themselves copies, but at a step less removed) used by Miller. I think the latin captions and redrawing are likely to mislead readers about the content of the original. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2022 at 16:39:46 (UTC)
Reason
Pretty sure the last nomination - which wasn't opposed but failed to reach quorum - was just unlucky as to timing. I've had bad luck this year with that. It's probably the best known of the Royal Gallery of Illustration pieces by far, still quite frequently performed to this day and with modern professional recordings and performances. Passed Commons unanimously.
I'd say it's because of the lighting - a bit unnatural since it is coming from below - maybe reflection from yellow or orange ground? We have a juniper bush in the yard, and there's nothing "coppery" in their berries... OTOH the other picture of berries shows an unnatural purple coloring - the correct color is a dark, slightly greyish and muted, but pure blue, as seen only on the top of the berries in this FPC. If the photographer can be persuaded to do some color balancing, I would support. (BTW, as the berries mature, their color changes from green to pink, then to purplish, and finally to greyed blue.) --Janke | Talk15:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ProfDEH: I suspect it's to some extent assumptions: Not so much what angle is the light coming from, but what angle the camera is pointing, since this could just as easily be looking down at a horizontal sprig, for instance. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs23:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2022 at 16:28:41 (UTC)
Reason
I think the cleanup went great, despite an imperfect scan. Poster is your typical blocky woodblock or silkscreen print of the time, and you can see slight imperfections on the black border where it didn't quite reach the paper (it's cropped to the edge of the paper, somewhat by necessity as the scan is on some sides). Historical value is what really pushes this into valuable and featurable; this is the kind of artefact that you're surprised still exists.
Support. High quality, scenic, and sets the context well, despite not really conveying just how long it takes to walk up all of those stairs, nor the contrast between the huge glass fresnel lens one finds at the top next to the small electric lamp that replaced it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wouldn't mind more pixels dedicated to the lighthouse itself, but the wider view gives important context, and there's always a chance for more images that zoom in, as it were. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs05:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]