Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2005

He is a great artist, i believe this is his lover for she is another picture of him which i cant remember the name and she is dressed very intimately. Or should i say not dressed. I love the way he used color and he put in every single detail like the loose string of hair coming out of her head. Its one of my favorite paintings and i don't even like renaissance art. It is oil on canvas and it is displayed at the Galleria Palatina in Florence, Italy. I say good on him.

Well, I'm not smart enough to remember who uploaded the image, but it is a famous painting by Raphael (the painter, not the Ninja Turtle). It's only around 500 years old, so I'm not sure of the Public Domain status. It is used in Raphael Rooms and a few other pages.

• Nominate and support. - Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great painting, I saw it when i went to the vatican. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You lucky little bast... ion of traveling knowledge. What did you think I was gonna say? 8^) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite sure. =P --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I'm not sure about the copyright tag. This painting is to be found in the Vatican Museum. It is strictly forbidden to take photos inside this museum. What is the origin of this image ? This must be cleared up first. JoJan 20:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know the exact origin of this specific capture of the fresco (whoever uploaded it might know), but what exactly would that have to do with the copyright? I think the tag says it all, no? Maybe Italian copyright law is different. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where it came from matters a lot, I'm afraid (because I'd love to have this as an FP on Wikipedia). The {{PD}} template quoting Bridgeman vs Corel is completely invalid for more than one reason, but the clearest one is that the subject of this image is simply not two-dimensional, even if the bit we are most interested in is flat (a lot of the apparent non-flatness is cleverness by Raphael, but the top right and left corners are genuinely arching towards the camera). Also, creativity and imagination went into the lighting of this (well above average) picture photograph, and copyright can certainly subsist in that. I guess from the fact that the uploader quoted Bridgeman vs Corel in support, that this image is in fact copyright and illegal on Wikipedia.  :-( I'll leave a comment on the uploader's talk page asking for the source. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. having re-read my comments, I want to make it clear that I'm not implying anything but good faith on the part of the person who took the trouble to upload this great image and made the effort to justify its presence on Wikipedia. This is always worthy of praise, even if it turns out that the effort suffers from a misunderstanding of a technicality. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I got the image from a google image search for "school of athens". Doing the same search, and looking for the dimensions of this picture, it seems one link at least is here, with the image itself here. I'm not sure if this is the original source or not, as there's no other information at that site. For all I know, they might have pulled it from Wikipedia. I uploaded the pic thinking that as a (really) old 2d painting, it is public domain. Of the 10-12 pictures I could find on google image search, this was the clearest (others had more resolution, but were blurry, etc.). Hope that helps. If it's decided that it isn't public domain, I'm sure a shout out to wikipedians could dig up a high-resolution, clear, appropriately copyrighted version. --jacobolus (t) 20:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the detailed pictures shown below the whole painting, at School of Athens, were taken from a different source. I don't remember where though. I found them on the same google search. These are certainly 2-dimensional portions of the painting. --jacobolus (t) 20:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted The rules require four or more supporting votes. If the copyright issue was to be sorted out I'm sure this would attract more votes if resubmitted. Raven4x4x 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Berkelah falls

Very nice panoramic picture of the waterfalls; appears in Berkelah falls.

• Nominate and support. - YeuJou 03:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks nice, but it's way too small, especially for a panorama.PiccoloNamek 04:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, I'd love to see some more detail on this one. Raven4x4x 06:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Half the picture is a big chunk of rock. I'd like to pan the whole thing to the left. --Dschwen 07:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking of the rock, is that the shadow of the photographer?—encephalon 07:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no copyright tags !! JoJan 19:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Postage stamp size.--Deglr6328 04:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons listed above - too small, big rock, shadow but nice otherwise It's... Thelb4! 17:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I want to say yes, because it's good--just not good enough, for the reasons listed above. Unschool 18:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very interesting picture. -Branddobbe 18:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No copyr. info. Plus the photographer's shadow on the rock. Jkelly 23:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I would oppose, but there's nothing to oppose anymore... Enochlau 10:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page removed due to deletion of image Raven4x4x 11:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting. Used in Trans Maldivian Airways. Image was created by Nattu

• Nominate and support. - Oblivious 22:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This vote will not change to a support when it is cropped closer. Thelb4! | Talk to me 07:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not striking. Enochlau 10:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, not of FP caliber. CapeCodEph 23:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Uninteresting.--Deglr6328 07:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral not bad photo but just not that interesting. --Fir0002 09:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with the previous comments...It's not a bad photo, just doesnt seem impressive or striking. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears in Saint Mary Lake, and illustrates it well. I know all of the sizists out there are going to complain, but even at this small size, it is quite stunning. Besides, in the past, FPC never had to be very big.

• Nominate and support. - Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lake seems a little dark... how about this?PiccoloNamek 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes that is correct, all the 'sizists' are going to complain. It just happens to be that larger pictures look better, and when we ask if the picture is available in a larger size, it is because we like it and would like to support it at a larger resolution. Obviously FP's did not need to be large in the past because monitor resolution capabilities were less. Phoenix2 22:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Severe compression artifacts in the sky. —Cryptic (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think those (only visible on the second picture) are due to the level correction in PS. The original picture does not have this problem Glaurung 16:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're worse in the second image, but still quite visible in the first. —Cryptic (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. (And just to be clear, I mean the 8-pixel blocking where the mountains meet the sky, not the banding in the second image.) —Cryptic (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oops, perhaps I shouldn't have edited it in 8-bit mode...I'll have to fix that. Also the levels correction was not applied to the sky at all. I used a gradient map so that only the lake was affected. Changing the levels in 8-bit mode must've posterized the image. How about this? (#3) PiccoloNamek 17:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Nice, but bordering on small. Enochlau 10:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Ridiculously small. Where did you get the image from? If it was the forest service or something I'm sure they will send you the full size version if you ask. --Deglr6328 07:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Could have been good but far too small. --Fir0002 09:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's beautiful, but the sharpness is off and its pixilated-looking around the edges of the mountains and the sky looks streaked and not quite focused to me. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Come on! Support! This is brilliant! It's... Thelb4! 15:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image, featured at the bottom of the Sigmund Freud article and created by Konstantin Binder for the Wikimedia commons is a real gorgeous one which immediately found its way to my desktop background. Konstantin writes about it in his blog (in German!) for those hungry for background info on the image itself. The couch itself is on display at the London Freud Museum.

• Nominate and support. - Nixdorf 19:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - unusual subject so invites you to learn more about it. I like the way the lighting brings the couch forward. The only problem I have with it is that the composition draws my eye into the dark area of the background with all the busts, which are a rather murky area of the picture. Perhaps cropping differently would stop that. --bodnotbod 17:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I just can't get excited about a picture of a couch. Sorry.--Deglr6328 07:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not a visually stunning image, but the topic is interesting. Thue | talk 10:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting (once you know what it is). Enochlau 23:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose As Deglr6328 --Fir0002 09:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Doesn't look like what I would have imagined, so the picture is both educational and attractive. Jkelly 02:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality photograph of historically-significant object. It seems to me that saying it's not interesting because it's a couch is something like saying a picture of the White House will not be interesting because it's a picture of a house. It may indeed literally be that, yes; in both cases, however, notability lies in their historical significance. This couch would not be sitting in a museum if it did not have that significance.—encephalon 04:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Deglr6328 took the words right out of my mouth. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Makes me want to read the article less knowing this is waiting for me at the bottom. Just kidding, sorta. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The psychiatrist's couch in an archetypal image in our culture today--how fascinating to see the origin of that archetype. It would be kind of like having a photo of the telescope which Galileo first trained on the heavens (which I have seen pictures of , but was disappointed was not in Wik.) Okay, now maybe I'm talking myself out of this. Perhaps it's enough that it's included in the article on Freud. Unschool 18:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, is that a support, neutral or oppose vote? We can't count it as it is because I can't figure out your opinion. Raven4x4x 01:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification. I have altered my entry.Unschool 08:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, thanks. Raven4x4x 09:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely beautiful and almost unreal picture of the Himalayas. Used in the India article, among others. Photo taken by User:Nichalp.

• Nominate and support. - Bash 23:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Brilliant! support! Thelb4! | Talk to me 07:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Excellent! I contacted the original photographer, User:Nichalp, to see if he has a higher resolution version to supplement the nomination. It would be nice to have the highest resolution file available. CapeCodEph 23:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support of course :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The image is scanned from the negative. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The foreground is washed out and has no detail. Enochlau 10:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any technique to rectify this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Poor image quality.--Deglr6328 17:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Blurry and over exposed highlights --Fir0002 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't this be photoshopped? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I am supporting on the ground that such pictures are rare. --Bhadani 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. blurry all around. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose over exposed foreground, blurry mountains and forrest Glaurung 07:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, agreeing with Bhadani's reasoning. Unschool 18:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. - JediMaster16 07:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 5/6 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because it vividly demonstrates what a hornet is and what it looks like. You can make out every detail of her body, from the hair on her abdomen to the dimples on her ugly face, from the teeth on her legs to the veins in her wings. And the picture itself is fairly large to boot. The hornet was alive at the time this picture was taken. I took this. I used an Olympus C-5050 Zoom in super macro mode. Through careful use of lighting and perspective, I used a single piece of unfolded white foam board as both the floor and the background. The light itself was a 100W equivalent 6500K compact flourescent.

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 08:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sensational! One of the best Featured Pics ever I think. Very well done! - Adrian Pingstone 20:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically amazing and every bit as vivid as you say, but I note you felt the need to mention that it was alive at the time... I agree it does look somewhat dead and that would be a problem for me. If you live near hornets, I'd consider trying to replicate your success with a more obviously live subject if there are still a few around. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 21:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That stinks. I've never actually seen one of these outside where I can get them. It was only by sheer chance that this one flew in to my house the other night.PiccoloNamek 22:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't look dead at all to me, but then I'm not an expert on what living hornets are supposed to look like. I think it's a fantastic picture. Raven4x4x 01:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw my comment. It is a fantastic picture ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 09:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't really care that it's dead, it can't very well be expected that an image of this quality be taken of a LIVE hornet!! However, from a scientific perspective, the absence of any scale is somewhat of a drawback. On the other hand, adding any kind of scale now would likely reduce the aesthetic quality of the image, so perhaps a note in the description of this specimen's size is enough. --Deglr6328 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Great pic. Ericd 14:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enochlau 23:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dead or alive, fantastic picture. --Cactus.man^>Reply 07:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Good photo, but the insect must have either been dead or very close to it - as I find it hard to believe it waited for you to set up your lighting. Not that I consider that a drawback in anyway, so good photo and glad to see it in jpeg format! --Fir0002 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful image with stunning detail. I'm currently using this as the wallpaper on my laptop! -- uberpenguin 21:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The white foreground looks very pixelly. Can something be done about that? As to whether it's dead or alive, it may well be alive, but the very significant axial flexion leads me to suspect it was clobbered over the head with a swatter and placed on the table for the pic. :) Yes? Or perhaps you shot it the second it was in an unusual pose (but I don't think so ;)) Count this as support if the foreground can be improved.—encephalon 04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to be rude, but what the H? Very pixelly? I'm completely open to all comments and criqitues, even negative ones (perhaps especially negative ones) but I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you mean pixellated? Or do you mean image noise? Now that can be fixed, although I don't see how much if it would show up in a white area. On my monitor, the image has an almost completely smooth gradiation from the white foreground to the black background, except for some minor color noise in the black and gray areas. There is some residual noise in the foreground, but I have to load it into photoshop and completely darken the midtones to see it. It is invisible at normal brightness levels, at least on my monitor. Man, I hope nobody else is having the same problem as you. Now I'm all worried! PiccoloNamek 04:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey there. It sounds like you might be a little upset, PiccoloNamek, but don't worry please, there's no need to be. I thought I'd simply tell you what I see on my monitor; I should have described it better. The white foreground does not have a smooth gradation. It has concentric, roughly circular layers as it heads toward the back, with the width of the layers gradually decreasing until, at the gray-black region at the back, it's hardly perceptible. Maybe it's my monitor (Dell, UltraSharp Flatpanel LCD), but I don't think so because I'm not having any problems with other backgrounds of any color, and on those images where other editors point to problems (eg. Cryptic's comment about the St mary lake photos) I see precisely the same thing. The actual wasp though is perfectly sharp and clear.—encephalon 07:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If by upset you mean upset at your comment, then certainly not. If by upset you mean upset that there might be a problem I missed in my own photo, then yes indeed. You mentioned you're on an LCD monitor. I wonder if that could be it. I'm on a CRT right now and I can't see the problem you're describing at any brightness or contrast setting. I noticed that when I changed my color depth to 16-bit, I can see the exact problem that you're describing. However, the problem does not exist when I switch back to 24-bit color. What color depth are you running at? The fact that visible color banding appears when I change to 16-bit color leads me to believe this might be your problem. If not, then I don't know what to do.PiccoloNamek 08:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 32. But wait, I think I know what's up. Old fashioned problem.—encephalon 08:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yeah. Cache, buddy. It must not have loaded right for me the first time and that version got cached. Doh! My bad.:) Remarkable that it was that way in both the thumb as well as the full mag. But no matter. Full support. :)—encephalon 08:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh! I had a feeling it might have been something like that. It's happened to me before as well. Glad to have it cleared up.PiccoloNamek 08:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To be honest I didn't notice anything wrong with the original image, still I'm glad you could sort the problem out. Raven4x4x 08:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. -- Solipsist 18:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hornet-vespa.jpg

This image, uploaded by Rama on Commons, appears in the Hurricane Katrina article. While I'm not (even remotely) an expert on judging featured pictures, the picture just struck me, and is very powerful. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blurry/distorted on the left side, and the emptiness of the stands works against the concepts being illustrated: the cramped quarters and distress of the situation. CapeCodEph 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for above reasons. Enochlau 23:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too empty is my main problem --Fir0002 09:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Don't know what it is, just don't like it. Isn't something that sticks out as shoking to me or worthy of being a FP. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What looks like a microscopic biological cell, is in fact a huge Supernova Remnant. But it's no coincidence; as a huge ball of exploding plasma, it was Irving Langmuir who coined the name plasma because of its similarity to blood plasma, and Hannes Alfvén who noted its cellular nature.

The image can be found on the page about plasma, was sourced from Nasa, and is credited to Credit: NASA/CXC/Rutgers/J.Warren & J.Hughes et al.

• Nominate and support. - Iantresman 12:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Particularly informative. Shows something most people don't get to see. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fake colors picture or real colors ? Ericd 18:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • all pictures of this type use "fake" colors --jacobolus (t) 20:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a false-colour x-ray image in which the energy levels (in keV) of the x-rays have been assigned a colours as follows: Red 0.95-1.26 keV, Green 1.63-2.26 keV, Blue 4.1-6.1 keV. All x-rays images must use processed colours since x-rays (as are radio waves, infra-red) are invisible to the human eye. But they are not invisible to suitable equipment, such as x-ray telescopes. --Iantresman 21:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I will marginally support with the caveat that the KeV-color correlation data is added to the image description page.--Deglr6328 18:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Love the picture, but need to add something about the "false colors" to the caption, in addition to the full information given on the image page. CapeCodEph 21:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added comment to caption and more detailed information to the image's description page. --Iantresman 08:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CapeCodEph 04:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I usually love space pictures, but this one doesn't do it for me somehow. Raven4x4x 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The same, I've seen better space pictures. Enochlau 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have to agree, there's many more striking space images. This doesn't do it for me at all. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is a spectacular view of unleashed forces in the universe. Let's not get smug by saying 'I've seen better'. JoJan 19:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not being smug. I'm just saying I don't particularly like the picture. Raven4x4x 02:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - JediMaster16 07:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Bash 22:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. encephalon 07:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:Tycho-supernova.jpg Broken S 17:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add your reasons for nominating it here; say what article it appears in, and who created the image.

• Self-nom. I like this one. The perspective is unusual and it shows that the Mole can be colorful in the morning light. Ericd 12:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit Average. It would have been nice to see the dome, it seems to be the most prominent feature of the Mole Antonelliana.

• Not exactly, the dome and the tower above is what you see from the heights around Turin. In the city you will mainly see the tower. Near the Mole you can't see the building has a whole, you can barely see the dome, you look ahead and notice it's very high. Ericd 17:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncomfortable angle, lamp post in the way -- does absolutely nothing for me I'm afraid chowells 06:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Chowells. Enochlau 08:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Uninteresting to start with and the angle doesn't work IMO --Fir0002 09:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - daring angle doesn't work for me. I feel ideally an encyclopedic image shouldn't require me to twist my neck to take in any meaningful info unless it's additional to that absorbed in the normal view. --bodnotbod 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That building requires you to twist your neck. I've been there three times and I still don't know what is the "normal view".... Ericd 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK "normal view" wasn't a particularly helpful phrase, I grant you. I mean a face on view from a greater distance, taking in a facade of the building. Plus a greater distance would give you an insight into how it is possible to view a building without bowing to its seeming demand that you stress the upper part of your spine. --bodnotbod 20:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That view doesn't exist this is a very high building surrounded by narrow streets. From a distant point of view you can see the top of the building with a "normal" perpective, but you can't see the whole building with a "normal" perspective. That's one of the reasons why I posted this view, this is a very strange architecture IMO. Ericd 09:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• sorry, but I lige like it supportRichardkselby 00:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nothing wrong with an image being "artsy" but it should never be at the expense of the presentation of the subject to be shown and here, I think it is. --Deglr6328 22:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Deglr6328. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose You can't really tell what the picture is meant to depict without a caption. I realize that it would be hard to get a wider shot of the building, but I think that's necessary. --Kerowyn 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous photo, beautiful colours and high resolution

• Nominate and support. - chowells 05:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Oh. My. Crap..... unequivocally stunning in every possible respect. --Deglr6328 06:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really like to see Diliff comment on the images he's uploaded. Either how he took them, or if he is a professional or what. Its not that I have any reason to suspect that the images aren't really PD and from him, its just that they are all [1] of such[2] unbelieveably[3], shockingly[4] high quality[5] and [6] so positively enchanting.....I'd just like to hear from the person himself. I've not seen anything quite like this here before. --Deglr6328 00:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Truly amazing photograph. Mind-blowing. -Branddobbe 06:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy crap! How sharp and well exposed! And what a lack of noise! It almost looks like it was taken with EOS 1DS. Not to mention that it's just plain beautiful.PiccoloNamek 08:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Feel free to include my support once voting starts. Stunning image. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Incredible night shot. Phils 14:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Great pic. With a great lens for this kind of photography on of those that renders light spots as stars, I wish to have some technical datas. Ericd 14:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy s&!t that is one beautiful pic(from a photographer's point of view) Richardkselby 20:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey guys. Thanks for all the nice words. :) Well, to answer a few of the questions, I'm a strictly amateur photographer from Melbourne, Australia who just enjoys providing high quality photos for as many wikipedia articles as I can. The photo of the Sydney Harbour Bridge was taken with a Canon 10D and 17-40mm f/4 lens, stopped down to around f/8 or so from memory, and is the result the stitching of around 10 images that were taken in portrait format, to maximise the angle of view. So that hopefully explains the detail that I was able to achieve! Diliff 06:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And with that, the last of my qestions are answered! :) Your images are easily on par with some of the best professional work out there. --Deglr6328 07:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fantastic sharpness and color. The long exposure on the water looks nice. I think (in reference to Ericd's comments) that the star effect is done by a filter. Diliff? Anyway really good work. --Fir0002 09:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Actually the star effect is usually, but not always, the result of a stopped down aperture that is not perfectly circular. I am not entirely sure why the 17-40mm results in a 10 pointed star, as it only has a 7 blade aperture, but it does :) Diliff 11:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of aperture blades has a influence on bokeh but I don't think it has have any influence on the "stars". Ericd 17:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could be right, I tried to do some research to confirm it but couldn't find anything specifically. Frrom my experience, though, generally the number of aperture blades is the number of points on the stars (eg my 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 has 6 blades and gives 6 pointed stars. It makes sense too, since inperfections in the 'circularity' of the aperture (at the point where the blades meet the incoming light) would let points of light pass through which would then spread at a particular angle (the specific angle would depend on what the aperture itself was). And that matches my observations. The tighter the aperture, the more acute the angle of the dispersion of each arm of the star eminating from the source of light. :) So while I have no evidence or proof, thats how I've always understood it. I'll see if I can find out more since I'm curious now! Diliff 00:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • For those who are curious, here is the explanation from a thread on www.dpreview.com [7]. A lens focuses light from a circular aperture into a point spread function. A point spread function IS the Fourier transform of a circular aperture. So, in effect, the process of focusing light is to take the Fourier transform of the incident wave function of light with respect to the linear aperture. The star effect (spikes) is what happens when the aperture is noncircular, or when the aperture is partially opaqued (like the spider vanes in reflecting telescopes). When the aperture is opaqued accross the aperture, the Fourier transform creates spikes at +90 degrees to the aperture blade and at -90 degrees to the aperture blade. When an aperture is opaqued at the edge, the fourier transform creataes a single spike rather reminisent of 'flare' from one side of a point-like object. When there are an odd number of blades evenly spaced around the aperture, there are twice as many spikes as there are blades. When there are an even number of blades around an aperture there are still twice as many spikes, but pairs of them line up, so you see the number of spikes equals the number of blades.. Simple, no? ;) Diliff 00:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Utterly spectacular - please go out into the world immediately, take pictures of everything encyclopedic you can find and upload them into Wikipedia. --bodnotbod 17:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy f***. Um. Wow.—encephalon 01:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I echo the sentiments of my fellow editors, including the expletives :) Support. Enochlau 03:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If you went ahead and printed posters of this shot, I'm sure you can sell millions to Sydney tourists. But I want 10% for the idea. CapeCodEph 05:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Wow... TomStar81 05:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, words really cannot describe this image. Phoenix2 00:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• well here it goes support Richardkselby 00:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Glaurung 06:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Totally SupportPiccoloNamek 07:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and concur completely with everything that has been said here. Raven4x4x 07:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Genuflect Support. First time I've ever been speechless ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 22:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Cooooooooooooool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - spectaculat view JoJan 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've never seen this angle before--including the Opera House in the background and to the side like that; the angle alone makes it work. But the color is outstanding too. Unschool 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Holy cow!!! So much goodness in one image! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like something from an expensive postcard. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definite must! --Hohohob 08:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb addition to FP. EZG 10:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose non-dynamic, boring and colorless! Broken S 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't be serious, I'm colorblind and the colors jump out at me! If there's one thing the image isn't, its colorless.--Deglr6328 19:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was joking actually, I like it quite a lot. (I suppose I should have made my html comment more visible) Broken S 20:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case could you please change your oppose to a support. Raven4x4x 05:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bah, it's in a comment in the source code. We can assume he's supporting... doesn't really matter though, I think this picture's going through :) Enochlau 23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I know that. It's just me wanting everything to be perfect, as usual :) Raven4x4x 08:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, the flags on the bridge are blurred. Um, who cares. Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 01:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We've previously had several FPCs on Sydney Harbour Bridge - this one takes the crown. Perhaps more a picture of Sydney Harbour than just the bridge, but then it illustrates Sydney nicely too. -- Solipsist 18:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks great. --Loopy 04:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - spectacular. --Msoos 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - What everyone else said. --Haon 15:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support See comment above --Fir0002 02:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This deserves to be more than a Featured Picture. (That means Support, by the way.) Titoxd^(?!?) 05:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg in probably the most popular nomination I've ever seen here. Not without good reason, I might add. Raven4x4x 06:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Incredible. Best photograph I've ever seen in my life. Janipewter 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image I found on Wikimedia Commons through the German Wikipedia, and I loved it so much I put it in the English article on Borkum. I think it's a charming and really quite fascinating image of the town and island. Also, the high angle the shot was taken from is pretty uncommon, at least from what I've seen. According to the Commons page the photographer was Peter Hudec; the uploader was Conny.

• Nominate and support. - Branddobbe 06:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I really like this one, quite an interesting angle. Raven4x4x 07:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Beautiful.—encephalon 08:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't quite understand the excitement about a bunch of houses. Enochlau 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree completely with Enochlau. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, they are a bunch of houses and buildings, yes. And there's a body of water in the horizon that I suspect is a sea. By the same token, Diliff's Sydney pic is of a bunch of buildings on the horizon and a harbour and a bridge. Point is (in my very humble opinion) they're both good pictures of buildings and houses and stuff. This one illustrates the town of Borkum. I think it's a good picture because the colors are lovely, the image is sharp, the angel and composition are interesting, there are no flaws that I can see, and it illustrates the town well. If you're going to take a picture of a town, and make it descriptive with just one photograph, this seems like a pretty good way to do it. Anyway, that's just what I think.:) (And if you all don't agree with me you're just cruel ;))—encephalon 04:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. - JediMaster16 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Charming town. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support I really wish this was in higher res. But very nice. --Fir0002 02:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic photo of Mount Kinabalu taken from Kundasan; it's found in the Mount Kinabalu article and I'm using it for the Featured Picture section of the Malaysian Portal. The photo is taken and uploaded by User:Sltan.

• Nominate and support. -Andylkl ^(talk) 10:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't the most amazing mountain (or mountain photo) I've ever seen, and I'm not sure it stacks up to the other Mountain FP's out there. Any thoughts? CapeCodEph 05:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the photo isn't quite up to FP's "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, incredible, or in short just brilliant" standard.—encephalon 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree, i think that it exceeds the standards, so I support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardkselby (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. I don't like those power poles. Enochlau 00:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The road and power lines in the bottom left are a bit distracting and to me kind of ruin the rest of the picture. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too hazy imho.--Deglr6328 04:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. - JediMaster16 07:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• support. It show the harmony blend of development and nature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinghuei (talk • contribs)
• Support. What a landscape! -Branddobbe 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Too good to pass by. The mountains in my opinion overpower the power lines. --Bash 22:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• support. i think it's beautiful, but not the best picture i've seen of this mountain. and its Kundasang, not kundasan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.210.25 (talk • contribs)
  • Sorry, anon editors can't vote. Please register. Enochlau 11:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll give it a belated support. I don't mind the power poles at all, and I love the lush green-ness of the mountain. Raven4x4x 01:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Dislike the haziness, powerlines, and don't feel it stacks up to other FPs of similar subjects. CapeCodEph 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this image because it adds significantly to the CPU article I'm currently rewriting from scratch. It wonderfully illustrates the construction of the type of typical discrete component transistor computer that was common during the late 60s and early 70s before the advent of the Integrated circuit.

The quality of the image isn't pristeen, but it's pretty good overall and is phenominal in comparison to most other photographs of minicomputer internals. I think both the rarity of this kind of image in this high quality, and its significance to the CPU article are very strong arguments for its nomination.

The photo was taken by Robert Krten for his online PDP-8 computer museum and was released to public domain upon my request.

• Nominate and support. -- uberpenguin 19:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Love the picture. Is it possible to put in a scale, though? I'm assuming the idea is that these components are monstrous compared to today's standards, but without a point of reference (perhaps a |----1"----| or other appropriate number in the lower right after some research is done to confirm it), this idea is lost. CapeCodEph 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fans do give SOME sense of proportion, but you have a definite point... It would be really cool if I could convince the original author to take a picture of one of the flip-chip modules next to a modern microprocessor die for proportion (I'll get on that). Each of the flip chip modules (the cards that plug into the backplane that you are seeing) are 2.5×5.0" (6.4×12.7 cm). I dunno how I feel about adding a scale to the image; I think it's a less effective way of making the point. I appreciate any more input on this matter! -- uberpenguin 23:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in a 19" rack? If so, the scale is built in. Fg2 11:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I really love historical images of scientific and technological devices but have unfortunately found [8] that unless the image is of truly exceptional quality and composition, most people just don't really care. I think here, focus and lighting will be issues.--Deglr6328 00:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda worried this might be the case, but with images like this you have to take them as they come... Anyway, I figured it's worth giving the image a shot. -- uberpenguin 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• support Richardkselby 00:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The picture quality is average, but the subject is fascinating. Enochlau 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. YUCK. I can appreciate the subject matter, but its so ugly to look at. I can't see this as a FP. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comment below. BlankVerse ∅ 12:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice core.
• Oppose. Not striking, very boring picture. Old computer parts? Cmon, at least provide a contrast. JediMaster16 10:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sure, old computer parts. Perhaps the subect matter isn't interesting to you, but the image is historical and plenty of folks have an interest in the history of computing. You wouldn't reject a rare picture of some interesting historical building or antique auto on the grounds that they are 'old,' would you? -- uberpenguin 12:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Touché. However, the photo just isn't striking enough for Featured Pics. JediMaster16 07:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Important subject that is used well in the CPU article. BlankVerse ∅ 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting subject, but the picture is ugly --Chozan 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not the picture that's ugly, it's the PDP-8 CPU that's ugly, which is a very important distinction. The picture gives a very good idea of what they looked like—they were cramped, cluttered and butt-ugly. Featured Pictures can't just be pretty sunsets and nice macro shot of flowers. I think that it is an important subject and an interesting picture, and that's it's worthy of FP consideration. BlankVerse ∅ 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see what you're saying, and I can appreciate what it does for the article, but that still does not make it FP worthy. It not only has to illustrate the subject matter it's talking about, but it should do so while "being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." This picture actually makes me NOT want to read the article. If I had to read an article based on seeing a picture, this would be far from the top of my list. That's how I judge FP's. I don't mean to say its a bad picture, I just don't think its striking in any way, shape, or form. I do think there are examples of FP's that aren't the pretty sunset type pictures, I don't think there are any as ugly as this though. Just look at my voting record...I'm very picky. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Things can be strikingly ugly as well as strikingly beautiful. A VLSI microprocessor die can be exceedingly ugly if you know what to look for, or exceedingly pretty if you just happen to like things that cause optical dispersion and interference. Frankly, pictures of old tube and relay computers are pretty dang ugly looking too, but that doesn't change history, nor does it (in my opinion) detract from the picture's value to the relevant article(s). -- uberpenguin 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I will support because, well, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't :) but I'd really like to see some explanation in the image description of what is what here. Without a more descriptive explanation I can't tell where each of the parts are in the image.--Deglr6328 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, but I think the different colors identify the different components of the CPU. BlankVerse ∅ 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the marked version... I was contemplating using this one, but I think the labels are kinda distracting. -- uberpenguin 00:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks bland and the computer doesn't look too nice either. --Bash 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense, and not meaning to sound like a broken record, but one of the requirements for featured picture is not 'is it pretty.' I'll echo BlankVerse's above sentiment that featured pictures should be more than super macro shots of flowers and pretty landscape photos. Those are nice, but come on, break out of the cliche photo box a bit... Your opinion is your own, but I think it's utterly silly to reject a picture because the subject isn't something really sleek or strange looking. -- uberpenguin 13:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not against pictures that aren't pretty landscapes; Image:Mouse-mechanism-cutaway.png is featured because it looks nice and is informative, and the computer mouse isn't considered to be the most exciting thing out there. This picture may seek to inform, but is not striking. --Bash 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of McCoy Tyner from 1973. Nicely composed available light photo of notable jazz musician. The photo is taken and uploaded by User:Gisle.

• Nominate and support. -- Egil 10:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was apparently uploaded by the person who took the photograph in 1973, Gisle Hannemyr. It states Copyright (c) 1973 Gisle Hannemyr. But it also has an Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 CC tag. Is this compatible with FP guidelines?—encephalon 04:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The FP guidelines say: "GNU Free Documentation License [GFDL] or a similar license." The CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 is identical in scope to the GFDL. If it is the copyright notice that bothers you, please note that the GFDL and the CC licenses relies on the copyright-holder granting the license. A GFDL or CC-license is only valid if the image is copyrighted and the license is granted by the copyright-holder. — gisle h. 08:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This photo would look much better if you cropped it down to just a square area around Tyler himself and got rid of that distracting spotlight. JediMaster16 10:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks gisle, that answers my question. As to the picture, the size is the nagging "detractor" for me, but its historical significance just about nudges me over the line to support—encephalon 08:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for your support! I'll try to upload a larger version when I can find some time. The negative is badly scratched, so I need to do some repair work for a larger version to be good enough for publication. As for cropping, I prefer the present composition. I think the spotlight adds ambience to the scene, but YMMV. gisle h. 08:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I love the lighting in this picture. This is something you could only do in black and white. -Branddobbe 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not special enough for FP.--Deglr6328 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a lovely picture of a musician at work. Lupin|talk|popups 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Deglr6328. Enochlau 10:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There's something that jumps out at me when I see this. --Bash 22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Superb composition. Image size is less than I'd like, but sufficient. —Cryptic (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We don't have enough FPs of people, and this one has the bonus of capturing a mood nicely. -- Solipsist 18:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Captures the emotion of the scene perfectly. DO'Иeil 06:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mccoy_Tyner_1973_gh.jpg Raven4x4x 08:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. I think it's a pretty cool picture.

• Nominate and support. - chowells 02:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• My first admittedly pedantic thought was that this animal is still alive, making the title "seashell" dubious (paired bivalve shells are rare to come by unless the mollusk is still alive, and judging on how tightly closed it still is, that's my guess). On a more useful note, however, I did a little internet investigation and tried to identify the shell. Specifically, this appears to be of the genus Acanthocardia (perhaps Acanthocardia aculeata, though I can't be sure with my amateur knowledge), but it is at least a common cockle. Compare some pictures: [9] and [10]. This information may come in handy (at least the "cockle" reference) in some of the captions. Perhaps "A seashell, specifically a live cockle, found on Crosby Beach"? CapeCodEph 04:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would prefer to see the entire subject in focus here. Enochlau 23:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's cool and the view is interesting, just not particularly striking. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. JediMaster16 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting, informative, but nothing special. And a little out of focus. Neutrality^talk 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like the focus of it, call me eccentric.... beautiful! (If it is alive, then to me it makes sense to focus on the opening and not the entire shell behind it... at any rate, it's a very nice shot anyway.) –Uris 02:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found this online and uploaded it for the page Ship Commissioning, then later placed it in the USS Ronald Reagan page. I think it does a good job of illustrating a ship commissioning ceramony.

• Nominate and Support -- TomStar81 04:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is it just me or are there blotches in the sky? Enochlau 00:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you have pointed that out, I do see some unexplained black spots in the sky. Maybe the camera lense was dirty, or they could be birds of some sort. In any case, I lack the photoshop expertise to edit them out. TomStar81 01:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's digital reflex, this is dust (or water as we are on a ship) on the CCD. Ericd 12:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Bland. Enochlau 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's cool, but i'd like to see more of the ship. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Far too bland and colorless, and the ship's own shadows detract from the photo. JediMaster16 10:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - perhaps a historic photo but a great photo ? JoJan 19:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this picture has what it takes to be featured. Last time it was nominated the main issues were the small size of the picture, the odd angle of the plane, the person in the picture, the odd coloring of the plane and its ability to blend into the background. This version of the photo is supersized, and has been rotated to fix the slight slant of the plane. The guy is still in the picture, but there are guys in this featured picture too, and it still made the cut. As for the fact that the plane seems to blend into the background... its a stealth bomber. Thats the whole point of having the plane shaped and colored in this particular way. It makes the plane unique, and from my perspect the plane should be praised for this ability and not put down for it.

• Nominate and Support -- I said it before, and I'll say it again: It seems that everyone has a picture of the B-2 or F-117 flying... in the blue sky... at high noon... in plain sight. Its just so...depressing. This picture, on the other hand, shows what the B-2 was really built for: Stealth. Were it not for the eriely cool runway lights playing off the B-2's belly the craft would be practically invisible. That makes this shot worthy enough, in my opinion, to be a featured picture. TomStar81 03:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I stand by my comments at the previous nomination. Stealth aircraft aren't unique because they're painted black; it's because they're shaped to avoid radar detection. In this head-on, poorly-lit night shot, you can't see the shape at all. —Cryptic (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A fisheye lens was used ? Ericd 17:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although I respect their greater expertise in photography, I don't concur with some of the opposers in the previous nom. The man standing there doesn't detract from it, IMHO; he's a nice break away point from what might otherwise be a monotonous composition. The slant was easily corrected. The composition itself, the perspective, the night-time shot, all this adds to the picture in my view, because it showcases the nature of the beast. I'd support this.—encephalon 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I also disagree with previous assertions that the man takes away from photograph. I think he gives a great sense of scale, and I second Encephalon's thoughts. CapeCodEph 04:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this a good photo. But I'm quite sure the perscpective is distorted by the use of a fisheye lens. IMO it's a step too far in "special effects" for an encyclopedia. Ericd 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me for my ignorance on the matter, but what exactly is a "fisheye lense"? And how does that relate to this picture? TomStar81 02:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • :o] --Deglr6328 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose it could have been taken with a fisheye lense; however, I'm not sure that the lense —if it was used— is responsible for distorting the plane. According to the History Channel, Secret Weapons of the Cold War, various studies on stealth technology, and an ex-soviet mathamatical theory the distortions of the plane could easily be explained as having been engineered into the bomber to help make it stealthy. With all do respect to your position the US Government still maintains a tight leash on its stealth fighters and bombers, so jumping directly to the conclusion that the lense used is somehow distorting the picture may not be factually true. TomStar81 04:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah Right, if the stealth bomber's technology is even able to distort the ground in front of it, then I am really impressed by its technology! The picture is clearly taken by a fisheye lens as can be seen on the horribly distorted straight lines in the foreground's concrete. Fisheye lenses are OK as long as there aren't any visible straight lines, but on that picture it is very disturbing. Glaurung 06:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral for original version. I am personally not fond of fisheye effect, and I prefer the defished version, which I support. Glaurung 09:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said anything about the camera distorting the runway, only about the plane; furthermore if your only reason for opposing the picture are the distorted runway lines I have to ask why the (this parted censored) you bothered editing the page in the first place. TomStar81 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calm down please. Fisheye effect affects the whole picture, the runway and the plane, but is more visible on the runway straight lines. You can not consider the plane only. Your FPC nomination concerns the whole picture. I dont like to see features I expect to be straight being completely bent. Glaurung 08:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't mind the fisheye lens, or the person in the photo, I just wish the bomber itself was more clearly defined and contrasted from the background. Raven4x4x 06:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS FISHEYE LENS BULLSH*T! It never mattered to anybody eight weeks ago that the photo may have been taken with a fisheye lense and now all of sudden its an internation incident. What changed in eight weeks, huh? You Answer me that! TomStar81 07:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • What changed is that I saw the pictures and I noticed than the runway lines are distorded, nothing else. Ericd 07:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What also changed was that different people are commenting this time, people with different opinions to last time. Personally I don't care about the lens, I'd just love to see the bomber itself more clearly. 144.137.226.238 11:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was me. I'm sure I was logged in. Obviously not. Raven4x4x 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

• This page can be a bit rough. To get through, a pic usually doesn't just have to be a great pic, it has to be seen to be an important contribution to an article, and I guess the problem with this one is that (a) not enough of the plane is visible and (b) the fisheye is an intended distortion. If it fails here, it might well do better as an FPC on commons. That said, I think the photographer here knew what he was doing and the pic isn't only really attractive, it does a good job of illustrating an aspect of the plane's stealth - the face it presents to an enemy radar. There are several other, less striking, pics in the article showing more surface detail. Support ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My opinion hasn't changed. Other people are just cruel. Enochlau 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, folks. I needed to here that. It makes me feel a little bit better. I suppose I owe you an apology for exploding like that to. Understand that I'm not a photographer, and because of that I feel left out over all this fisheye lense buisness. Worse, because I don't really understand it I feel like the photo is being discriminated against for something beyond my control. It nerve-racking to know that something your suppose to be helping is beyond your help. TomStar81 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the photograph is superb. Еdit 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• FIrst off I ave little photographic knowledge and have no idea what a fisheye lens is so I cannot oppose based on that.Though a new reason for opposition could come up, maybe people didn't notice that because they were focusing on other things or as stated before, new people. I still have to oppose though. I hate the lighting, the colouring just seems weird. Also some people like the person there, but for me it is the second thing to see, after the strut for the front landing gear where it is really bright, before i look at the plane itself. Your comment about the other featured picture, I would have opposed that if given the chance. It also seems to show the plane at a weird angle. And I am not just being "cruel".say1988 02:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't vote when this last came up just because I didn't feel like getting into an argument, but I have to say this is one of the coolest B2 pictures i've ever seen anywhere. I still have to oppose though. I don't like the huge foreground and the guy drives me crazy. When I look at the picture, I can't stop looking at that man instead of the plane. I wish he was more to the side so he could be cropped out, he just drives me crazy though. Those are my only complaints. And you're right TomStar81, it is something out of your control, that doesn't change the fact though that there's an incredibly annoying little man that ruins the whole picture. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Photo is colorless and taken from weird angle. JediMaster16 10:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : I've uploaded a processed image with correction of the fisheye effect. It is still not perfect, but this shows that distortion can be corrected. Glaurung 09:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Good work. I'm more than happy to support the edited version too. Enochlau 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does mean that you're soon going to plop down a vote to support, right? Right? ;) Oh, and great work on the "de-fisheyeing". I'm supporting both.—encephalon 08:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, after carefully reading all the arguments, I think there is no reason not to support the picture. Except for the distortion that was bothering me, I think the picture is great Glaurung 09:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is the first time that I've ever looked at the picture voting process in Wik. Seems to me that the one universal requirement is that a picture (which after all does not require one to undergo lengthy analysis in order to have strong feelings) must acheive a consensus, almost upon first glance. There truly are a lot of neat, even unique qualities to this picture. But it obviously doesn't "do it" for most people here. Am I wrong in how I'm seeing this situation? Unschool 18:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main rule is that you vote based on the above stated criteria, namely does the picture add signifigantly to the article, or articles, in which it resides. Some vote on what they feel, not what the community feels. Other people with a more photographic background vote on even higher criteria, as evidenced by Ericd when he oberved that a fisheye lense was used in this case. Normally one would only oppose if there was something wrong with the picture or the lisence; however, since featured pictures should make one think "wow!" when first seen there are some other considerations as well. The community consesus is required to promote a picture to featured status, but please don't vote on what the community thinks. You're an individual, I trust you can think for youself. Come up with your own critera and use it to measure the worth of a photograph. TomStar81 20:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please vote on individual grounds, not on how others have voted. Otherwise, why don't we just take the first 5 votes and go home? Enochlau 23:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a related note: Unschool, could I ask you either to change your vote or to give a specific reason for opposing? In the case of the former, you need not nessicarily vote support, but the way your text is phrased at the moment sounds more a like a "comment" or a "neutral". In the case of the latter, a solid reason for opposing (ie: to dark, the person, the odd lines, etc) would help firm up the oppose vote some. TomStar81 04:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The matter of opinions reflected on this page is a matter if they look at the picture and say: "WOW! What a great picture!" This picture is interesting, but it does not particularly excite me in any way. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looking over the comments on my "vote", I can see that I did not make myself clear. It's not that I was voting "no" because the group was voting no. Like others have stated, to be a featured picture one would think that the picture causes a "Wow" reaction, drawing one to the article. I was merely making the observation that almost no one making comments seems to be super-excited about the picture, and that perhaps it was a lost cause. Now, as to my own feelings about it? In its small representation on this page, frankly, I find it unimpressive. However, when linking up to the high resolution full-size picture, I do find it quite interesting.

I suspect that most of us who choose to spend time not only writing and editing articles on the Wik, but even commenting on these articles (and pictures), are, by and large, a group of rather large-egoed individuals. At least, I am. While I will always be humble in the face of factual information that contradicts a previously-held position of mine, when it comes to matters of opinion, I do not need nor desire to follow others. Still, having the ability to have an independent opinion does not always mean that one will have an opinion. On this particular picture, I am ambivalent, except to say that I prefer the non-fisheyed version. Unschool 06:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can see the merits of your argument. In fact, looking at that picture once again, WOW, this is fantastic, I love this photo. Enochlau 14:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (I am being facetious, but the support votes (at least mine) here supported last time, and the excitement has... perhaps worn off? In any case, it's a subdued picture, and that's where it's beauty lies, so maybe that explains the lack of "wows" as well. Enochlau 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Support - For what it's worth this late in the voting, I too believe the photo is well done, interesting (not distracting or misleading) in its coloration and contrast, and possesses a "Wow" factor at first glance deserving of FP status. CapeCodEph 08:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. As an Aerospace engineer in training, I can say that this image does not do any justice to the B-2 Spirit bomber. The beauty of the plane is its shape, especially when looked from the top, because of the "flat diamond" design that Skunkworks designed for the F-117 Nighthawk. The angle from which this picture is taken is pretty unflattering, because it does not show any of its special features. The fact that it was a fisheye does not have anything to do with it, it's just a bad picture. If you want a nice picture, nominate Image:Usaf.b2.spirit.750pix.jpg. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for organizational purposes...Votes in Support:8, Oppose:7, Neutral:3 (As of 03:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC))
• Oppose. This is a bad photograph, and it does nothing to illustrate what makes the B-2 remarkable. This plane is not built to "blend into the background" (as suggested in the nomination), but to be invisible to radar. This has to do with the shape of the plane, which is not even shown in this badly lit photograph from an awkward angle. gisle h. 15:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted This has been a heavily contested nomination, but with the lack of consensus I cannot promote the image. I know the fisheye lens has been removed, but it also seems to me that the majority of the oppose votes were due to the man, the angle or the colouring, not the fisheye lens. Raven4x4x 12:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a pretty good pic of a Boeing 747 taking off, the plane's angle in the image is perfect; Image is found in the Malaysia Airlines article and it was taken and uploaded by User:Arpingstone.

• Nominate and support. - Andylkl ^(talk) 07:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, can something be done about the background? It's bland and causes the white plane not to contrast like I believe it should. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Bland. Enochlau 04:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. JediMaster16 09:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not sharp enough; otherwise good picture, but not extraordinary. JoJan 19:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Dull, cut off wing, grey depressing sky.....--Deglr6328 03:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - and I took it!! I've got far better airline pics than this on WP (and its landing, not taking off) - Adrian Pingstone 22:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nothing interesting here that would distinguish it from other photos. --Bash 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Diliff spectacular. At full magnification is ever so slightly less sharp than it perhaps could be (cf. the similar Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg), but this seems to me to be of such a minor degree it's hardly an issue. The figures might be a problem. I thought I'd put it up for you experts to decide. Appears in Yarra River, illustrates it very well.

• Nominate and support. Both.—encephalon 02:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting, like the composition. Phoenix2 03:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. I've just discovered a second Diliff work on the Yarra, this one taken at twilight (looks like late twilight to me): Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg. It looks as good IMHO, and I think both deserve FP noms. When voting, perhaps editors could state their preferences for "Night" and/or "Twilight"; is a separate nom necessary?—encephalon 07:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the twilight image to this page as well. As they have almost identical subjects, I don't think creating a seperate nomination page should be necessary. Raven4x4x 08:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Raven. Nicely done.—encephalon 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- both of them are awesome, although I prefer the full night shot myself. TomStar81 03:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both, even though I live in the better city of Australia :) Enochlau 04:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. JediMaster16 09:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both as well. It's great to see some wonderful pictures of Australian cities. Raven4x4x 10:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both but I prefer the twilight version. JoJan 19:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, but I too prefer the twilight one. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Drool Support both - remarkable.--Deglr6328 03:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only the Twilight one. The light on it just is slightly better. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both images. They both deserve FP credit, despite their similarities. CapeCodEph 06:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I prefer the twinlight one. Very impressive picture. Mistikal 07:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both. Marvelous work. EZG 10:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. --Bash 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either of them; they both look great. --Loopy 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the twilight image. I think it's lit better. DO'Иeil 06:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both. Twilight version looks better but is at lower res, so I think they're equally worthy. --Fir0002 02:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wow Nixdorf 21:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both and make Diliff our official Wikimedia photographer! Titoxd^(?!?) 01:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg Promoted Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg It looks like both of them were popular. Raven4x4x 08:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this image because of the way it feels. I like the clouds hanging overhead, I like the color of the grass, and I love the bikepath cutting through the plant life at that angle. The man on the bike and the hills or trees on the horizon give it a sense of scale. I think this is really quite a marvelous landscape shot. Photographed and uploaded by Jan van der Crabben (Jvdc).

• Nominate and support. - Branddobbe 06:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the colors, but the picture is small, and the horizon does not look like it's really horizontal. Phils 14:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it matters if the horizon is horizontal. -Branddobbe 19:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree horizontal isnt too important, but a lot of people don't. I can understand why they would want a horizontally aligned picture in an encyclopedia as it can throw off the slope of things, especially pictures with structures. So I advise you try to correct the hoizontal before voting, along with the size if possible.
• Oppose - Small size and mostly washed out sky are big drawbacks.... --Deglr6328 23:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the sky is washed out. Also, is large size a requirement for this or something? I think it's a decent size for a picture. -Branddobbe 03:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I like it, but it's bordering on small. Enochlau 06:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• supportRichardkselby 00:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Boring and hardly striking. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - JediMaster16 07:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A fine landscape - First, I live in a large European city, and when I'm not travelling, I forget places like this even exist. Second, what kind of lanscape has such curiously thin stone paths running into the horizon - to me this is exotic. Third, compositionally interesting, with the perspective lines (including the clouds) converging on the bike-path, and the natural grassy expanse on the right providing contrast to the man-made on the left. More contrast in the color of the grass, and the color of the clouds, and in the size of the figures in relation to the landscape. Fourth, this image made me discover the Featured picture candidates section. - Tdiew 11:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am the photographer and will just comment on what is said without voting. If you look closely, the picture is horizontal. Take something rectangular, align it onto the edge of the photo on your screen, and you'll see that it's 99% horizontal. Or, go into photoshop and draw a line. The non-horizontal-ness is an optical illusion due to a) a slight spherical effect from the lens and b) the footpath, which is angling away to the left -- the eye likes to think that it's straight and "adjusts" the horizon accordingly. As I scanned this from a slide, I don't have a bigger version of this right now, but could get one once I hae moved into my new flat and have my slides back. Thamis 13:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted although it was very very close. If Thamis can get a larger version of the image it would probably pass if it was nominated again. Raven4x4x 23:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice light reflection from the marble floor in the second largest mosque in the world; Hassan II Mosque, author: Lsorin

• Nominate and support. - Lsorin 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I note this is your own photo Lsorin: nice work, but before voting starts, I'd recommend you re-crop it for perfect symmetry and rotate or skew it very slightly to correct the vertical. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 16:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Please check the modified version - Lsorin
• Oppose - Horribly blown out highlights....unfortunately. --Deglr6328 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. agree. Enochlau 04:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Highlights a big problem. Unschool 18:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as everone else says, overexposure has wrecked it - Adrian Pingstone 22:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately oppose for reasons listed above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breathtaking study of the cathedral. Perfect alignment. Beautiful light and shadow work. Crystal clear. I'm simply left speechless by this guy's talent.

• Nominate and support.—encephalon 07:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Oh man... Raven4x4x 02:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support of course - Who says there's no such thing as perfection in photography?--Deglr6328 03:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. of course. Enochlau 04:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An absolutely astounding photograph. DO'Иeil 12:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Beautiful. TomStar81 04:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CapeCodEph 06:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - simply stunning. — ceejayoz ^★ 23:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Is it really aligned? To me it seems to tilt to the right a bit, but it could be just my two lazy eyes. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 14:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Bash 22:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful --Fir0002 02:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although it does look a bit tilted... Titoxd^(?!?) 05:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Voldy and Tito are right, there is an ever-so-slight tilt, with the right lower than the left. I checked on my humble microsoft photo editor (stop snickering, you in the back :)); a vertical line right down the center shows the slight tilt (it's less than one milimeter at 100%). Can someone with Photoshop rotate it counter clockwise, please? Although I wonder if this is not a more complex 3d rotation that occured when the picture was taken, not a simple r-l tilt. Also, my understanding is that rotating an image permanently alters its quality. Is this true, and in what way? Thanks encephalon 11:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC) NB. None of this alters my support though. This is still one of the best pictures on WP, IMHO.[reply]
  • Hey guys, well it isn't perfectly aligned, you're right. From memory and from having a quick look at it, I think it was because I wasn't perfectly centred in the cathedral. If you fix it by rotating it slightly, you will only accentuate the misalignment elsewhere. I think it is going to require a slight perspective shift. Is it really worth it though? :) Far be it for me to judge its perfection, but most people aren't going to notice. We're just a bunch of pixel peepers here, but thats ok! Diliff 08:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Snickering at Encephalon :P) Yeah, it seems like you were a little bit to the left of the central axis of the cathedral, but judging on the other merits of the image, it passes with flying colors. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (scoffing airily at Tito ;)) Diliff, I quite agree that it isn't a simple x-y axis tilt, but a 3d rotation, as I said earlier. Which is why I'm not sure simply rotating it to the left will work. I'm quite happy with it as it is; the little stuff is the handprint of the human master, as opposed to a souless drone. Keep the pictures coming! :) encephalon 08:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --kxd23

Promoted Image:St Vitus stained glass.jpg Yet another featured picture for Diliff. Again, it's well deserved. Raven4x4x 09:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See how it's beautiful when greenish mediterranean vegetation meets the various blue colors of this uncontaminated sea in Sardinia, Italy. This photo was taken on June 2005.

• Nominate and support. - Paolo2K5 16:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ordinary, and there's that yellow thing on the bottom left. Enochlau 04:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will still oppose the edited version. It's overly cliched. Enochlau 10:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. That yellow thing does sort of kill it. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cropped one is better, but what makes this pic special? Isn't it just an ordinary rocky-type beach? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 19:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a cropped version that removes the yellow thing. I will support the new version. Raven4x4x 08:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Yellow dot aside, this photo lacks a particular subject and, though beautiful and indeed colorful, is quite boring as a result. CapeCodEph 07:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - where have I seen this before? Oh, yes, in every travel brochure! It's... Thelb4! 20:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it. It's nice to look at and beautiful. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Nothing special to me. --Fir0002 02:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoted Broken S 03:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a picture of Baker Beach when I found this panorama. The over exposed area in the center is very dramatic.

• Nominate and support
• Yikes, overexposed highlights detract from image quality, people. Only very, very rarely can it be made to actually add to the quality of a photo. --Deglr6328 23:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This is an appropriate liscense, right? TomStar81 04:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An anon changed the license from "Copyrighted Free Use" to "Public Domain"; I reverted the change. Both are perfectly acceptable. don't be scared by the big word "Copyright", "Copyrighted Free Use" is actually more permissive than any other license.--Eloquence* 16:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Overexposed highlights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enochlau (talk • contribs) 22:47, October 2 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry! Enochlau 23:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ahhhhh...the sun...I'm blind. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose As ScottyBoy --Fir0002 02:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The sun really messes up this one. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoted Broken S 03:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[:Image:Meissner effect.jpg|thumb|The Meissner effect of superconductors.]]

An image of the Meissner effect (levitation of a magnet due to the complete expulsion of all external magnetic fields) in a high temperature superconductor. This image has its problems, its a scan so the dynamic range leaves a bit to be desired, there is still a bit of speckle and dust left even after having been cleaned up, some may object to the centering, and focus is just off at the subject. However, the very striking and unusual nature of the phenomenon, the large size of the image, the clear bubbly liquid nitrogen and wispy nitrogen/freezing water vapor and the nice vibrant contrasty colors make up for it I think.--Deglr6328 22:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Deglr6328 22:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good, but one question: is this a true or false-colour image? Raven4x4x 00:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like many laboratory "publicity" images, this is almost certainly a true color image (no reason for false color use) however, the subject was probably lit with different colored spot lighting in order to make the image more interesting. eg. [11]--Deglr6328 02:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, just making sure. It's a very impressive effect. Raven4x4x 04:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Raven4x4x 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enochlau 04:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - CapeCodEph 16:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, if this doesn't bring across the nature of the Meissner Effect, nothing will. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Bash 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Kind of boring to me. While it does a good job illustrating its topic, I just don't see anything particularly special about it. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But its an object levitating in mid air! :D I think that's pretty special! --Deglr6328 03:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --David Wahler (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –Uris 00:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Very cool. --Fir0002 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Adds significantly to the article, and the color is simply striking. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nixdorf 21:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- TomStar81 02:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great pic, adds to the article too. Banes 11:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:Meissner effect.jpg Broken S 03:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selfnom - I had noticed the corn article looked a little drab, and that there were great looking varieties at my local market.

• Nominate and support. - — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I like this! Very vibrant. -Branddobbe 18:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it too. Enochlau 04:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A great variety of pretty multicoloured corn. DO'Иeil 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't believe that I'm supporting a picture of corn. Very nice though. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Who'd have thought corn would look so attractive? — ceejayoz ^★ 23:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Don't we already have one of these featured?--Deglr6328 05:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a criterion is it, uniqueness? Enochlau 10:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Congrats on adding a very nice photo to wikipedia. Oska 23:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Indeed there is another, but this one is excellent in its own right. CapeCodEph 08:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support: very colourful corn! It's... Thelb4! 20:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Is it genetically modified? :P --Andylkl ^(talk) 06:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Its a nice picture, but we already have Image:GEM corn.jpg as an FP in the same Maize article. This one shows fewer varieties of corn, is smaller and has a somewhat less interesting composition. -- Solipsist 18:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Agree with Solipsist and add that it is slightly blurred --Fir0002 02:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current FPid better Circeus 15:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current FP is superior Broken S 14:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Bevo 22:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Glaurung 07:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Corncobs.jpg Raven4x4x 13:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two previously failed noms - 1 and 2 - both times the major objection was the bodybuilder in the upper-right corner. That has now been replaced, and I think it's FP material now.

• Nominate and support →Raul654 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not to dredge up old ghosts, but the photo of the man is still distracting, mostly because it is a square photo with defined edges while the other important parts of the image are dynamically arranged sketches/diagrams. Would it be possible to use a sketch of an bicep, so as to blend that level with the rest of the image? CapeCodEph 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. That man... argh! Enochlau 10:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, could you be a little less vague please? →Raul654 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think the man is distracting, because it is in such stark contrast with the rest of the image - it feels out of place. I think Capecodeph's idea of using a sketch is a good idea. Enochlau 06:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -I agree - lose the photo. I also find the way you follow the increasing magnifications around in an arc a bit off-putting. I think I'd prefer it as a long strip. --bodnotbod 19:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. See my comment above for Airport_traffic_pattern.jpg. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - for one, the drawings would be much more revealing if they were coloured, as you might see in an anatomy textbook. — ceejayoz ^★ 12:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Either a diagram or a photograph, but never both. –Uris 02:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I poked recent changes, and saw this stunning picture of one of the 2005 California wildfires. I like it because of the way it completely blocks out the sun, and that nearly opaque wall of smoke approaching. Nerval took this picture.

• Nominate and support. - Phroziac^(talk) 22:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Would be nicer if it was a higher resolution, but otherwise it's a very nice pic. --tomf688^{talk} 02:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Lacks detail. Enochlau 10:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Oska 23:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It lacks detail, and the cloud looks grainy / out of focus. Even though it's smoke, it should come more out clearly. Cliffhanger407 18:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A very bland photograph of a dramatic event. It simply does not capture the magnitude of the disaster. gisle h. 14:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the way this looks. The black and white makes it look dramatic and reduces the glare off of the hood, but I provide both for your judgement (please specify which you are voting for). The color version was nominated here (the B&W version was introduced only at the end). The picture was taken by User:Rdsmith4.

• Nominate and support. - Broken S 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I like both pictures alot, but I like the color best. The wings blend into the hood slightly on the black and white, and the color looks more "modern". --Phroziac^(talk) 04:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer the black and white version. It's just so sleek and smooth and sharp looking. It must be the artist in me. ;) The color version is just "eh" but the BW version just screams "Style!".PiccoloNamek 09:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Users may wish to consider this past nomination. Enochlau 23:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reflections huh? I think the reflections are what make it look so cool.PiccoloNamek 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as I did last time. Cropping uncomfortable. Enochlau 10:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Though I hate voting this way, I'm uncomfortable with the photographer's reflection (in the lower left) and the pedestrian (in the lower right). I prefer the black and white version because it minimizes these distractions and brings out the excellent metallic sheen of the photo, but not enough to convince me to vote to support. CapeCodEph 08:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I gotta agre with the other comments. Its just a bit unsettling to look at. Cool...but the reflection is too distracting. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Well, I like it. The Black and white one, that is.PiccoloNamek 04:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the black and white version. The reflections are much less distracting in that one. DO'Иeil
• Support B&W version it destroys the distractions of the colour version while enhancing the dramatic and beautiful sheen Tekana (O.o) Talk 16:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support B&W Glaurung 06:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support B&W — ceejayoz ^★ 12:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the black and white one! --Loopy 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support color version. Metal is shiny. Neutrality^talk 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support B/W only. Much more classy --Fir0002 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support B&W. I think both would be dramatically improved if the photo were taken without the reflection of the building/man on the hood, although the current B&W very surprisingly makes that less notcieable. Is access to the car, uh, not a problem :)? Could you take the photo again with a clear background? encephalon 12:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sadly, I don't own a Bentley! I took the photo at a car show in Indianapolis during the US Grand Prix this summer, so it can't really be recreated. If I go to any similar events in the future, I'll have my camera in hand, of course. — Dan | Talk 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support B&W ONLY I agree with Capecodeph, as in the colour actually detracts from the photo by diverting your attention to the reflection. With the B&W they are less defined and more like shadow. I also think the general shadows look more defined and the reflections less. —Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]