Shortcut WP:PPRA Please cut and paste nominations to be archived from the Picture peer review mainpage to the top of the appropriate archive page, creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary. 2012: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2011: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2010: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2009: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2008: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2007: January - June | July - December 2006: January - December

Not sure if this would qualify for FP. I just wanted to find out where I have either gone write or wrong with this composition for further improvement with future images. This image is my second upload of the same photo. The first had strange lines on the right hand side of the image but had better height and possibly more W factor (if you could call it that) in the sky. I took this image to help represent the suburb of Parramatta in article mentioned above. The image could possibly be used in the article Bus lane as well

Creator

Adam.J.W.C.

Nominated by

. Adam (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Seems to be nice enough quality, quite good lighting, etc, but I'm not overly sold on composition. The dominating features of the photo seem to be the big empty expanse of road, bus lane and footpath, with the bus sign and back of the road sign front and centre - I guess for mine it just lacks anything to really grab the eye. Having said which, I am intrigued how you got the road so empty! I'll leave it up to you. --jjron (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeh, I think your write. I also thought that the image was a little dark in some areas as well. Thanks for the advice though. Adam (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This image has lots of EV. It has been included in 360 North Michigan and 35 East Wacker for some time and has been added to Multilevel streets in Chicago and Wacker Drive yesterday (actually a few minutes ago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Unfortunate lighting (though you're looking southward, so I don't know whether there's a time of day that would result in a better photo), and needs perspective correcting. I have a couple of shots of the same building from the same vantage point (you took this from the boat pier under the Wrigley Building, correct?) but yours is sharper. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

File:2070530 333 North Michigan, 360 North Michigan and 35 East Wacker.JPG

It has EV for several Chicago Landmark buildings in the Chicago Loop. It is included in Mather Tower, List of Chicago Landmarks, 35 East Wacker, 333 North Michigan, and London Guarantee Building

Creator

the creator of the image, where possible using the format TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This image is used on Deer. I believe it makes a good addition to the article because it shows a full scale deer in its natural environment. Everything is clear and visible.

Creator

USDA photo by Scott Bauer

Nominated by

Neu_tralle 12:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Nice enough at small sizes but disappointing at bigger sizes. Quite poor quality, almost looks like it may have been upsized from a smaller original, or cropped from a distant shot and upscaled. Unfortunately no metadata is present to get an idea of the sort of equipment used (given the source I'm assuming it was taken with a DSLR, but use of a digicam may also explain the issues). Would not succeed at FPC; may have a chance at VPC. --jjron (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, looks like film to me, with that grain pattern and a couple specks of dust. Thegreenj 20:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I think this picture has high EV, it shows the plane itself well, and has a "wow factor" of it being crashed into the ground. I also believe the photo is of very good quality considering it's age (1918).

Creator

Pvt. J. E. Gibbon (Uploaded by Cobatfor)

Nominated by

Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Interesting. I agree, good EV; I'd say this was worth a nomination. Thegreenj 20:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Archived 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC) by Rambo's Revenge (talk) so it can added as a to FPC to generate more discussion

This map is pretty good and detailed. I'm thinking about nominating this one for a WP:FPC or a WP:VPC but I would like to have your comments before doing that. Should I remove the white border? I tried to cut that portion off using Paint.NET, but that would remove the legend. Also, I fear whether modifying the image using Paint.NET would make the image ineligible for a FPC

Creator

Originally created by the U. S. Map Service. Uploaded by Ravichandar84

Nominated by

The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No, you should keep the border. Editing the image to undo accumulated damage (e.g. scratches) is generally regarded as appropriate at FPC. The editors over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration are willing to offer advice and coaching on restoring images. You could start by removing the tear in the top left and delicately zapping the call number. MER-C 13:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The picture captures parts of numerous Chicago Landmarks and is a sharp image of an important building.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wide angle distortion, blown whites in sky. Good at articles but not FP material. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This is another feature of 35 East Wacker, a Chicago Landmark.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Actually, as I tried to correct this image I noticed a lot of things about it. This happens to be a block away from a bus stop I use just about anytime I am returning from the Magnificent Mile to home. I can probably retake this one. Feedback on what should be in the shot would be helpful. I am now thinking getting the second floor windows might be an important part of this shot. Any commentary?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wide angle lens distortion, needs counterclockwise rotation. Useful at articles, not FP material. Durova^Charge! 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

[[:Image:20070530 35 East Wacker Clock.JPG|thumb|35 East Wacker clock]]

This is one of the three or four most famous clocks in Chicago. It contributes to making 35 East Wacker a Chicago Landmark.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The whole building was submitted here a few days ago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This could be viable at valued pictures. Durova^Charge! 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Althought this is a point and shoot, it may be VP quality. It has been in Magnificent Mile. I added it to Guess (clothing).

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest cropping the foreground slightly. A bit more pavement than necessary. Otherwise possibly VP (not certain of the encyclopedic value). Durova^Charge! 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This picture has high EV from being in Streeterville, Magnificent Mile, National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago, and Michigan-Wacker Historic District.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out the article on focal length and reshoot at a different time of day, with the sun on the buildings' fronts instead of backs. You used an extremely wide angle lens to get this much of the view, and the result is significant distortion. Durova^Charge! 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This is an unique subject that has decent EV. It has been in Magnificent Mile for a long time. I have added it to Intersection (road) and Saks Fifth Avenue

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See above regarding lighting and lens. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

I think that this is a very impressive image. EV is there with its appearance in Houston, USS Texas (BB-35), San Jacinto Monument, Houston Ship Channel, and San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site. I am very open to a better name and/or caption for this...

Creator

Louis Vest

Nominated by

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Shouldn't a FP/VP image of dawn be from the golden hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my fault; this should be moved to "at sunrise"... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• While attractive, it lacks EV due to the lighting - no detail is visible on the ship other than that given by the silhouette, and same goes for other things it's supposed to be illustrating. Quality is also in question - on size alone this would be unlikely to pass, even though technically it just scrapes in to the minimum requirements. --jjron (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the point of the picture! :) That and the fog gives an eerie feeling to an old battlefield; it's mysterious, I guess. Right from WP:FP: "This page highlights images that the Wikipedia community finds beautiful, stunning, impressive, and/or informative." I believe that this image completely fulfills the beautiful, stunning and impressive requirements, and it is only slightly less on the informative part; it shows everything that is in the battleground...the museum ship, the monument, and the field itself. Maybe not 100% clearly, but you wouldn't have an amazing picture if this was taken at noon.
  • Also, what's the point of a minimum requirement if it won't pass at the minimum...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if you don't like my review, put it up at FPC. It's up to you. --jjron (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Goodness dude, I didn't mean to insult you or give you the impression that I didn't like your review...my apologies. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, sorry, I was probably a bit grumpy at the time. --jjron (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Its a great picture, but it isn't that good as an encyclopaedic illustration. I doubt it'd pass for that reason Noodle snacks (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was thinking that it would be similar to this... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a valid point. You'll note some people opposed that based on lack of EV - I tended to agree with that viewpoint. Re comments above on size, the 1000px limit is the lower limit, but landscape type photos are generally expected to be bigger in order to help see more details. Things like say bugs or flowers are generally able to get away at smaller sizes, because there's usually less detail that's going to come out at bigger sizes. As I pointed out (rather abruptly) above, remember comments here are a guide only, and you don't have to get reviewers here supporting in order to decide to go to FPC/VPC, so you're welcome to do so if you think it may have a chance. --jjron (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This is a unique perspective on this classical building.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The composition isn't really that good because the foreground lamppost and leaves obscure the subject. (There's not much you could do about the other trees and signs, maybe winter time?) There are two ways you could improve in a reshoot:

• Stand near the rear left wheel of the car to eliminate the lamppost and the leaves.
• The signs could add enc by showing location. Step back and to the right so that the lamppost does not obscure the building but is still in the picture.

It also needs a perspective correction. That said, I am not sold on the enc of a shot of the back of a building. MER-C 11:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

It is a clear picture of interesting architecture.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Although the trees along the street create limitations that caused this picture to be slightly cutoff, this is a good depiction of the hotel that adds value to a couple of articles (Magnificent Mile and Allerton Hotel).

I have added the image to hotel.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You'd probably be able to get a less-distorted shot from a window of another building rather than from street level. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This image has contributed to Magnificent Mile, List of Chicago Landmarks and Allerton Hotel for nearly two years. I have added it to Garmin and retailing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the image to Streeterville.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This image has only been in the United States Soccer Federation article. I have added it to Prairie Avenue, Near South Side, Chicago and William Wallace Kimball.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This images has contributed to Magnificent Mile. I have added it to Apple Store and retailing. It now has good EV, IMO.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This contributes as the main image to a Chicago Landmark page of a building that has become a part of pop culture.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This picture was taken from the only head on elevated location on the Lake Michigan side of the Towers (you can see the perspective of the Chicago Half Marathon PPR on this page). It has helped the Regents Park (Chicago) article for some time and has been recently added to South Side (Chicago) and a gallery in Kenwood, Chicago.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I have attempted a perspective correction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The image has contributed to Chicago Public Library and Washington Heights, Chicago for some time. I have added it to South Side (Chicago).

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This picture adds value to Lake Shore Drive, South Side (Chicago), and Kenwood, Chicago. I just added it to Hyde Park, Chicago.

I have just added this to Chicago and half marathon.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This picture depicts outdoor speakers that are part of a special acoustic configuration. It has been a part of Jay Pritzker Pavilion for over a year. It was just added to loudspeaker and acoustics.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This picture has added value to Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Trellis (agriculture) and LARES. I have just added it to Loudspeaker and Acoustics.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This is a very sharp image that has been the main image for a WP:GA for two years.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This has been the main image of a WP:GA for a couple of years. It depicts the view of the Chicago, Loop and Hyde Park, Chicago skylines as well as Burnham Park.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment. Tilted horizon and dubious EV. A better view of Promontory Point can probably be obtained from a high floor in the Shoreland. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a view of the point, but rather a view from the point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This has been the main image of a WP:GA for nearly two years.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this to Harold Washington, South Side (Chicago) and Grand Boulevard, Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This depicts the detail that makes a Chicago Landmark building historic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• To me, looks too dark, especially the top half, and a no-man's land of composition. --jjron (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. I kind of see that. I guess I will let this one die at PPR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The evolution of Block 37 is so widely watched that this view of the remnants of the block prior to redevelopment is historic.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The composition is messy eg cars. For FPC, I don't think it would do well. --Muhammad(talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about VPC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This is a picture of a historic sign that livens several articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This has illustrated the Trump Taj Mahal article for a couple years now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

It is a great view of what a horizon can look like during a snowfall and depicts several Buffalo landmarks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added to snow, Buffalo City Hall and snow flurry.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

I found this picture while working on smoking and found it very compelling. I think it's especially interesting since it is quite unlike van Gogh's most famous paintings.

Creator

Uploaded by Peter Isotalo, tweaked for contrast by Actam.

Nominated by

Peter ^Isotalo 09:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Alternate version, appears in Van Hogh's article and is featured at the turkish wikipedia. --Muhammad(talk) 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This captures so many of the tallest buildings in the city at once that it is by its very nature valuable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

I think this is a cool looking contribution to the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added to car dealership.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This captures the beauty of nature and metropolitan life simultaneously.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that since the stadium has been renamed Coca-Cola Field, this picture with the Dunn Tire park ornamentation is now historic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You say this on a few of your noms here, but I don't get it - where's "...the beauty of nature"? Not much nature that I can see... --jjron (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean the natural element of a light dusting of snow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, thought you might have been referring to that - not being smart, but I don't think you're going to sell too many people on that. I mean, if it really showed the beauty of nature and metro you might have this scene with the dusting of snow and some beautiful plant surroundings all under a stunning blue sky. This is all a pretty dull grey for the most part. Not much point trying to sell it as something it's not. :-) --jjron (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see by your most recent FPC that you are a beach fan. In Buffalo, they do love their snow. This has less perspective distortion than most, but no blue sky. Does it have a shot at VP?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not while it's only in an image gallery... While you're at it you'd want to crop the edges to take out those hangers-on, and probably rotate about a degree CCW. And to be honest, it shows more about those nondescript buildings down front than the C-C Field. I'm not really sure you'd be able to get an external FP/VP of this place, at least from this angle. It all seems too busy. --jjron (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd love to knock down those obstructing buildings for the sake of WP. This is taken from the top floor of a downtown parking garage. It is probable that a less obstructed shot could be taken from the Ellicott Square Building see PPR on this page. Also, on the Dunn Tire Park page you can see that One HSBC Center would also accomodate a good shot with a wideangle lens. I do not think I have any software to do any rotation. I don't mind cropping the right. On the left is Erie Community College main campus. I think that is a historic building that I have half of. Should that really be cropped? If we crop the buildings in front, we also lose the snow, which contributes to the character of the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I moved the gallery into the text. Do I still have to wait a month?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Eh, it's been in the article, just the wrong spot, so I guess it meets the essence of the time requirement. I meant crop left and right, not necessarily the bottom. At the left there's a couple of odd little things poking in in the sky that need to be cropped out, the building's not so bad (given the stadium goes behind it). Oh, and there's too much sky. --jjron (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I cropped it retaining the 4:3 ratio. I could get rid of more sky taking it to 3:2. Do you want more cropped on the left or right?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This picture captures the beauty of nature and architecture simultaneously.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This picture contributes effectively to several articles, especially 333 North Michigan. It may be VP-eligible. This image has been on 333 North Michigan and Magnificent Mile for nearly two years. I just added the image to Allerton Hotel, Old Chicago Water Tower District, and Chicago Water Tower.

I have added image to Chicago, Streeterville and Near North Side, Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

I think this may be a VP-eligible image.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

I think this image is suitable as a featured picture as it clearly highlights an example of Cream tea, with the clotted cream and scones in the foreground, with the tea and accessories in the background which complement each other.

Creator

Liyster

Nominated by

Liyster (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It's a reasonable contribution for the article but would be unlikely to succeed at FP for several reasons. Shots like this are regarded as 'easily reproduced' and are usually judged quite harshly. On a technical front it is very soft, has some significant chromatic aberration, and the noise, though not too bad, may be frowned upon. As far as composition goes, I just don't think you've quite hit it - the plate is clipped left and bottom, the cup/saucer is cutoff at right, there's too much dead space of table at front right and that red thing poking in at the bottom right corner is distracting. Also, just a personal point, I think it would be better to have sugar bowl rather than the sugar sachets to go with the 'traditional' scene. Thanks for putting it up here. --jjron (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Its the first picture Ive uploaded for the first article ive created myself. The primary reason id like feedback is to see if Im on the right track with the article in choosing a good photo, or if my 'taste' is completely wrong, as id like to upload a photo that does this part of the building justice, thanks

Creator

Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by

Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The uneven lighting makes this look really ugly. A more appropriate time for this shot would be in cloudy weather or near sun(rise|set). You should select a narrower aperture (higher f/number) to make sure everything important is in focus. You should also touch up the subject before taking the picture by, in this case, removing the aluminium can. MER-C 07:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously you're not suggesting this for FP say, just looking for feedback. A few other points: I know nothing about this place, but this really just looks like someone's backyard - but if that's the best view of the place... Secondly, is it not possible to get a wider view of this scene, it feels a bit cutoff? Thirdly, a more natural/typical view of an ampitheatre is looking up into it, not down from the top, see Commons:Amphitheatre for many examples - perhaps you had a reason for shooting down, for example to get the Alma sculpture thing? It's not bad, keep working on it. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I like this picture and feel it might be VP worthy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Not convinced of the EV of a partly built building. Unless it's good enough to illustrate some aspect of construction articles, I wouldn't be sold on it. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current article has extensive text on the design and construction of the building at Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago)#Development. I have also expanded the caption.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the image to Construction along with another favorite construction photo.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The Rock N Roll McDonald's is an interesting part of Chicago Trivia and this picture adds perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 11, I added this to LaSalle Street.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to the gallery at McDonald's today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to drive-through, Golden Arches, fast food and museum.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I have edited perspective to make the buildings on the left and right edges of the picture straight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I think this may be VP-eligible as an interesting subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Low EV, tells me nothing about RedEye, the only article it's in. I had to go to the article to find out it was a publication, not the name of the boat or a soft drink or something. Composition suffers with the boats overlapping. --jjron (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-captioned. Again, what is EV?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. encyclopedic value. I added it to advertising.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now added to Sailboat.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Whats the point of asking PPR opinion if your not going to follow it and nominate it anyway? This image has virtually zero EV for all of those articles. Plus the logo probably crosses the threshold of originality for copyright, and probably does not qualify as de minimis and is probably a candidate for deletion on Commons. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

File:20070913 iPod 5-6 Gen side-by-side.JPG

I think this is a good enough picture to belong in the pictures in need of placement in an article. It was either in iPod or iPod Classic for over a year. People keep trying to put their own favorites in these articles, but I think this is a very deserving picture for public use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical use in iPod Classic:

Both added to iPod Classic on September 13, 2007

The top one was removed as a duplicate September 14, 2007

It got renamed and moved to commons on April 4, 2008

It got cropped and added in two places (one as the main image) on June 27, 2008

The side by side got swapped out for the cropped verions on November 30, 2008, by a person who used wikipedia for two weeks

The three uses of the cropped version got swapped out between December 20-24, 2008

I have tried adding the top one to iPod and the bottom to iPod Classic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have cropped, rotated and perspective corrected the top image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A version with a much cleaner background would have better chances at FPC. Use a white sheet of paper to get a white-neutral background. --Muhammad(talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have sold the 5th gen. What about VPC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any comments on the propriety of the picture placement in iPod Classic?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

[[:Image:20070906 De La Salle Institute Sign.JPG|thumb|A sign outside of the De La Salle Institute

I just think this is a neat photo that ads to some articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Tilted, low EV, ordinary composition, average quality, trite message - sorry (I don't mean to be too harsh or terse, but you've put so many PPR images up at once it leads to rather brief feedback). --jjron (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What is EV? Are you evaluating this from the FP or VP perspective?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • EV I think you've figured out. Re FP/VP, to be honest you couldn't even consider this for FP, but EV relates to both projects. --jjron (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to be submitting dozens of pics to PPR, and you will surely be commenting on many of them. Let's just operate under the assumption that all my submissions and all your comments are from the VP perspective and unless you say otherwise FP is out of the question. In general, all my pics will need basic distortion corrections as I understand it so that is sort of a given. The question is whether I have captured anything worth working with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say you are going to be "submitting dozens" of pictures to PPR - I think this is actually counter-productive. With the dump of, what, 20-odd images here in the last couple of days, you'll notice you're getting very few comments. I know you're not intentionally spamming the project, but I think it has the same effect. Can I suggest you try being a bit more selective? Put up one or two at a time, focussing on the ones you feel are particularly good, then give them about a week to attract comments, then put up another. Even actually try one or two of your best ones out at VP and see what feedback you get (pass or fail, it will give you a better idea of what people are looking for). In general you'll get a more positive response if people think you've put a bit of thought into it yourself, rather than them thinking you're just shoving on every picture you've ever taken and wanting them to spend their time reviewing and editing them. Just my opinion. :-). --jjron (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may be aware that I am not a photograher. I view PPR as an effort that does not take much time for reviewers compared to reviewing an article. I don't know much about critiquing a photo. I will not submit any new images until next week. If you tell me which of my images you think is best, I will take it to WP:VPICS right away.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What about trying the one MER-C edited below? At least the lighting etc look quite nice. Make sure it meets VP's one month time limit though (if the original had been in the article for that long, replacing it with the edit should be fine). --jjron (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Could you officially second that one and close out the PPR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Doesn't need a seconding for you to proceed to FPC/VPC (a seconding pretty much indicates that person will support at FPC/VPC). Just do it when you're ready, and probably note it on the PPR nom here. I'll just close that along with the next batch. --jjron (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This seems to be a vibrant photo of a landmark that enhances multiple articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this image to Ida B. Wells and Douglas, Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Without saying too much, perhaps look at the voting on the current nom Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anne Frank House, and a previous incarnation of it Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anne Frank Huis for the type of feedback you could expect. And this also has other issues, such as the blown sky to consider. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that with the sky I probably could not shoot for FP, but what about VP?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even in thumbnail there's a number of obvious problems, the blown sky, the tree at left, the perspective distortion, the awkwardly cut building at right. VP has lower technical standards, not "no" technical standards. You could try nominating there if you want to try it out, but it's not something I would personally support as I think it would be easy to get considerably better. --jjron (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you know how to crop and adjust perspective so that just the house and not the cutoff neighbors are in the picture. This would almost eliminate the tree problem. Would't that get us to at least VP. I can't make the sky blue on a day when it wasn't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll be honest, I am confused on what the perspective standards are for FP and VP. FPs like File:Treasury_of_Athens_at_Delphi.jpg and File:ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg don't seem to have such great perspective. Do the edges of buildings have to be perfectly vertical?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't make the sky blue, but going on your contributions you're from Chicago, so you could go back and take the photo again on a better day ;-). There's no hard and fast rules about anything much - judging images is by its very nature subjective. The technical criteria we use such as resolution, noise, etc are a way to add a degree of objectivity to the judging. But re things like perspective, if an image is spectacular enough (often termed "WOW factor") things like that may be overlooked. In general though, yes, the edges pretty much should be vertical. Standards are increasing all the time. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Treasury of Athens was promoted nearly four years ago, and even then it raised quite a few grumbles - I couldn't see it passing now. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg is indeed an odd one, I was on a wikibreak at the time so didn't see it, but I suspect if it was a photo rather than a painting it may have met with less success - if you read the votes a lot of them seem to be going with the 'wow' vote there. VP standards aren't necessarily so high and are really still in flux, but things that can be fixed are usually expected to be fixed, e.g., tilts, likely perspective issues, etc. --jjron (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is Chicago. There may never be another day when the sky is blue!-) I do see that almost every architecture at FP has a blue sky. I also see lots of blue skies at VP. I see your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Comment I have corrected perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Image:20070701 Man Enters The Cosmos.JPG

I think this may be VP-eligible. I don't know.

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm afraid this is a copyvio as there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. MER-C 11:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This is an edited version of one of my point and shoot images. I think it may be VP-eligible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger (edited by User:Vanderdecken)

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is this potentially a copyvio problem too as MER-C identifies for the above image? (I honestly have no idea, I don't really care much about that copyright stuff.) --jjron (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a Bronze casting of a dead person from over a hundred years ago. The possibility had not entered my mind.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Although taken with a point and shoot through a glass window Chicago Avenue Pumping Station is a key image in Old Chicago Water Tower District. I think it may be VP-eligible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image contributes to Old Chicago Water Tower District, Chicago Avenue Pumping Station, Streeterville, Magnificent Mile, List of Chicago Landmarks as well as the Portal:Chicago/Selected picture rotation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to Near North Side, Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Unfortunately this image suffers from two technical faults VP reviewers don't tend to forgive - perspective distortion (correctable) and the building being cut off on the LHS. I would have reframed to the left a bit. MER-C 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about cropping just the main building and adjusting the perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. You might still get "subject cut off" opposes. It's still preferable if you got the whole thing in, then you could offer both versions. MER-C 12:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I like this picture so much I made it the main image in one of my WP:FAs (South Side (Chicago)). I think it may be VP-eligible even though it is from a point and shoot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this to Douglas, Chicago--— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this to Fountain of the Great Lakes--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Tilted, off-centre, poor lighting (the main figure is all shadowy, and pretty much without detail in the thumb and even on the image page - you have to go full size to really get anything). For mine it's taken too far back - if you're trying to get the monument you don't need so much space around it. If you were trying to get the base as well, you've cutoff one side. And either way, I doubt it needs so much space above and below. I couldn't see this passing at VP, but give it a try if you want and see what others say. --jjron (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)--jjron (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple other pics on the article page. Do you think any of the others is better technically?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compositionally File:20070601 Victory Monument (3).JPG is better - if it had been taken from the front, it's more what I'm talking about (but it still suffers from the tilt and poor lighting). Aesthetically I don't mind File:20070601 Victory Monument (7).JPG, but of course it's too far away to really get detail on the monument. --jjron (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think of the three the only one where the sun was with me is the one presented here. How is the lighting better on the others?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it possible that the main figure is just too dark to capture along with the full monument. This seems to be a pretty sunny day and I have the sun on this photo? It seem the tilt and centering might be mild enough to be corrected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lighting's not better on the other ones - they just look nicer aesthetically or better compositionally. That's why I'm not saying any of them are up to VP/FP standard. Given I don't know this place it's hard for me to comment on the monument and whether it's too dark. But one thing to consider is you've taken this at 12.19 in June - midday in summer in Chicago. That's always going to lead to harsh shadows unless it's a pretty overcast day. Try a different time of day/year when the sun's not so bright or overhead. Have a read of Golden hour (photography) for starters. --jjron (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That time is approximate because my camera is off by an hour half of the year. Can I nominate a pic requesting tilt/centering adjustment? Also can you do a nom with three alternate pics at VP?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can nom three alts if you want, but in general it's better if you can decide beforehand. The Graphic Lab might be willing to help out with adjustments, but as I said about PPR, if you swamp them with all these images they are likely to baulk. :-) Also worth reading Wikipedia:How to improve image quality. It would be best if you learnt to do some of that stuff yourself, those things aren't hard to fix. If you don't have or can't afford a commercial program like Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, or Paintshop Pro, you could give the free GIMP a try. --jjron (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't want to pay for a commercial program because I don't pay for stuff on WP. I am going to try to get GIMP going.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Nominated at VPC. MER-C 11:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be VP eligible. I use a point and shoot, so with rare exceptions, my pictures are mostly not high enough quality technically for FP. Let me know if this is VP-eligible--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this to Town square.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

TonyTheTiger

Nominated by

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This image suffers from perspective distortion - the flag poles aren't vertical. Correct it and you will probably get the VP. MER-C 11:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a place to go with a request for technical assistance?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. How's this? MER-C 09:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but I think that is what is desired. Do I have to wait, or can I take this straight to VP?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Duh. I see you are the same person who made the suggestion. Yes. I am sure you made the correction you wanted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At User:Jjron's suggestion, I am taking this to WP:VPC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Nominated at VPC. MER-C 11:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never considered listing any of my creations for Featured picture before, and sadly I am not the creator of this one. I was doing research at the local historical society for a couple good images for the Plain City, Ohio article (which I plan on working on as soon as I am semi-finished with my most recent creation). I came across this photo at the historical society, and thought it would make a good addition to the article, since the clocktower in the background is a famous local landmark. Once I uploaded it, and added it to the article, I was looking at the image again, and personally think it is a very good picture. Great historical value, very good focus, nicely centered, great exposure, not in too bad condition (considering the original is almost a century old), etc. I was just wondering if anyone else thought is was a good picture... The photographer is unknown, but the image has been released into the public domain by the historical society...

Creator

Unknown

Nominated by

Adolphus79 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some comments:

• Why am I seeing green and purple in a black and white photo?
• License should be pre-1923 if it was published before then (otherwise it may be a copyvio)
• Spots need cloning out.
• I'm not sure whether it was the scan or the original photo but it is overexposed (the American flag has a rather transparent feeling).
• What is that random streak on the RHS?
• White border on the left needs to go.

Do you have access to the film original for a rescan? This looks like a bad reproduction to me. As for FP I'm not sure whether this one has the goods, but you can contact the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration for help re: restoring this image. MER-C 06:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

One of the main landmarks of the city of Charlottetown PE (Prince Edward Island), the city hall is a fine example of the Romanesque Revival style of architecture. The photograph provides a nice view of the City Hall as it stands today.

Creator

Smarter1

Nominated by

Smarter1 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Here is my analysis:
  • Blown The sky is blown (bright) and makes the sky unequal.
  • Distractions There are several distractions shown (street light, cars, antenna, etc)
  • Composition It isn't the best composition. The photo was taken too up and too right.

Project preferation: None (value-lacking image for a Valued Picture) ZooFari 03:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This is a restored version of an already incredibly poignant image (you can't help but wonder what happened to those kids, can you?). I'm not really looking for featured picture status but rather for useful feedback. Zapped dust, scratches and stains and let image speak for itself, mostly.

Creator

mvuijlst

Nominated by

Mvuijlst (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Scratches are pretty prevalent at full res. Ceranthor 17:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say where? Thanks. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see them on the farmer's head. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got them. It's a fine line between removing scratches and inventing content. :) -- Mvuijlst (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture has great lines and adds a lot to the articles its currently places on. I just wanted to get some feedback and maybe get it nominated as a Featured or Valued picture. Thanks for any feedback in advance!

Creator

Daniel J Simanek

Nominated by

Daniel J Simanek (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The picture is misnamed. It shows the Union Terrace, but completely obscures the Red Gym. The foreground is too dark. It's a nice try, but not feature status. --Sift&Winnow 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the title is a factor for FP and VP. And could you please explain the what you mean by the foreground being too dark? I guess I just don't see it... Daniel J Simanek (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It becomes a factor if you're nominating it as an encyclopaedic depiction of The Red Gym though. I don't really understand the too dark foreground either, if anything the pavement in the foreground looks a bit bright to me. Shrug... --jjron (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • too: to an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable, fitting, or right
  • dark: having very little or no light
  • My comments are based on having seen many, many fine photos of the same scene in sunlight, not on an overcast day.
  • Plus, a photo of the back of a building shouldn't be considered as appropriately representing that building, particularly in a featured status photo. Other nice photos on Wikimedia Commons show the front of the building, with its lines and architectural detail, not unduly obscured by foliage. Compare the building as shown in this photo [1] and in the one above. Even this photo [2], though largely in shadow, shows off the building more. The important architectural features of this building - its castle-like appearance, complete with turrets and crenelated battlements - are totally obscured in the image above. That architecture is an important factor in its designation as a National Historic Landmark; the pretty flaming red maples behind it and some scattered sunburst chairs are not. --Sift&Winnow 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to respectfully request a second opinion for the entire photo. jjron, do you think you could do a full review? I am just trying to take a better picture. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone who wants to wants to consider the historical and architectural significance of the "Red Gym" in evaluating whether the photo "is among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer" per WP:VP?, the building is officially known as the University of Wisconsin Armory and Gymnasium, and its history is outlined in its WP article. For quality comparison purposes, dozens of images of the building can be found in a Google Images search or on Flickr ([3], [4], [5] and [6], for example). --Sift&Winnow 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sift will you please leave it alone! I think we all get it; you don't like the picture. The purpose of peer review is to discuss a picture on its technical merits for inclusion as a VP or FP. If it does not meet those standards, the reviewer usually gives a technical reason, and explains how to correct the problem. You have done neither. Unless you can tell me how to take a better picture, please refrain from further comment. Now can someone else please give a second opinion here? It would be much appreciated.

    Other notes: This is not only a picture of the Red Gym (background) but it also shows the Union terrace, and is currently included in the Memorial Union (Wisconsin) article. So even if there is some disagreement as to the pictures title, I still think it adds encyclopedic value somewhere, if not here. I don't really care if the pictures makes it to VP or FP; I just want to know what I would have to correct to get it there. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it at all. The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like the picture. (In fact, I think its colorful.) It has to do with: (1.) whether the picture adequately represents its subject matter (It doesn't - it obscures its subject.); (2.) whether the picture meets WP:VP? standards (It doesn't, for several reasons, including that it is not among "the most educational examples" of the building.); and (3.) the fact that you ask for comments and then only listen to them if they agree with your point of view.

You're just dead wrong in stating that I haven't said how to improve the picture. I have: (1.) take a picture of the front of the building, not the rear; (2.) take a picture that shows the building, not the trees behind it; (3.) take a picture that shows the overall design and architectural detail for which the building is known, not the roof.

Tunads - You need to be forthright, honest, and humble. The only reason this photo appears in any WP article is because you put it there, replacing other images that were already there. I'm not the one with the agenda. --Sift&Winnow 00:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a two subject picture, the Red Gym and the Union Terrace. I removed the other photo in University of Wisconsin Armory and Gymnasium because: 1.) it had no caption and 2.) it had weird proportions and was just kinda shoved in the article. But this is hardly the place for this discussion, and I have already brought up my reasoning on the talk page.

Secondly, the Red Gym happens to be obscured like this as seen from the Union Terrace. I was not going for a picture of the Red Gym in all its glory, as you seem to think. I was trying to take a picture of the Terrace and surrounding, and it just so happens that the Red Gym ended up being pretty prominent. If that's what I was going for I would say, "Yeah, I see what your getting at," but you totally missed the point of the picture and continue to harp on that same point regardless of what I say. Saying "take a picture of the front of the building," does not constitute advice and completely misses the point of this picture.

Thirdly, this picture does appear elsewhere (Memorial Union (Wisconsin)), and I think it is a great picture of the terrace (not trying to boast, but I really like it). So can someone please re-evaluate this picture from that perspective and tell me what I could do to improve it?

Fourthly, I do not have an agenda, and I don't like being accused of it either when all evidence points to the contrary. I only add my pictures to articles when I think they will add something. I have already addressed why I removed that other picture, and it was not to make room for mine.

Lastly, I want to apologize to everyone else in the PPR. This review is ridiculous, and the only thing I really wanted out of it was some helpful feedback. I was not expecting anyone to care about what the title of the picture was. I just hope this all hasn't caused too much disturbance. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and give an alternative review later per above request (don't have time now, but I'll download the photo and check it over). --jjron (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, have had a better look and will try to be pretty comprehensive. FWIW Sift raises some valid objections, but please try to be civil in reviews at PPR. Editors usually put up images here for an honest, yet ‘kind’, critique of their images, and to get feedback on their suitability for FPC or VPC. If they want harsh criticisms they would jump straight into the lion’s den at FPC; when put up here we try to look for positives as well as negatives and give an honest assessment. Sarcastic remarks like this ultimately serve to drive good or potentially good original contributors away from Wikipedia. Right...
  
  For starters I find this quite a colourful and engaging image with quite good composition. Some slight bugs though occur at the bottom left hand corner where the tables/chairs are just a bit cutoff (don’t know how much further they go, like if it’s possible not to cut them off) and at the top right where that sandstone type building clips the back corner of the red gym. If possible a step back and around to the left would help with some of that. I’d also suggest, if possible, to wait for a day where the sky is a more appealing colour (while it’s not blown out in this image, it’s not that appealing), and perhaps if possible try to take it when things like that crane (?) down on the lefthand side aren’t in the shot.
  
  Sift also raises a valid point that this has limited EV in University of Wisconsin Armory and Gymnasium, though I don’t think it’s inappropriate for the article. The image File:Old-red-gym.jpg that you apparently replaced has its own issues – it’s quite low res and quality, it really shows us very little the infobox image doesn’t already show, and based on both the image here and the taxobox image, the colours in that image are way off. As far as EV for Memorial Union (Wisconsin) goes it’s hard for me to evaluate. Certainly it shows us a different view from anything else in the article so would seem to be quite useful, as I said it’s an engaging image, and places like that are buggers of things to get a really good overview of the whole place in a single image. So it seems quite good for that article, but how good EV wise I can’t really say.
  
  OK, the other thing here is image quality. Since you’ve stripped the exif data I can’t comment on your camera or settings, but the image quality at fullsize is quite poor. At a guess I would say you’ve used a small digicam, perhaps on less than optimum settings, and possibly even downsampled after that? The only exif data present mentions Picasa and talks of a jpeg compression of 6 – I don’t use Picasa, but if they use a 1-12 scale like Photoshop, then that’s way too low for decent quality, especially if you’re thinking FPC.
  
  Some specific comments. Sharpness is poor, as is preserved detail, again possibly indicative of a small digicam and/or downsampling – look for example at what detail is preserved in the brickwork and tiles of the red gym and the tree leaves, or even the people’s faces (i.e., while focus was probably to the courtyard area, it’s not just a DOF or focus thing). There’s a lot of noise; this is all over the image, but to really see what I mean look for example at the presumably black suit of the man down the front. There’s also other quality issues such as purple fringing, look for example at the edges of the buildings and leaves at the top right corner.
  
  I wonder if you still have a full quality original version of this where we could get a full idea of camera settings and output? Even if not, I would guess that lighting was a bit dull and you possibly used auto settings on the camera. It looks that the camera has compensated by upping the ISO to a high level (as they are designed to do), but that comes at the expense of poor sharpness and high noise, thereby killing quality. If you took this at the right time on a brighter day, even with this same camera, you could greatly reduce noise, improve sharpness and detail, and get better colour in the sky, also most likely helping to remove that purple fringing. In short, you’d get a better result.
  
  Now this image looks fine at image page size, but poor at fullsize. For this reason it would not be successful at FPC, where images are assessed fullsize. It may stand a chance at VPC, though that has gone very quiet, and you would need to convince voters of the value of it to the Memorial Union article. --jjron (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WOW! That is quite a lot to digest. I uploaded the original (I think) here[7]. I think that Picasa strips out meta data (grr), but this one should still have it.

    The problem I had with the sharpness was that as soon as you would apply a bit of saturation, it would go to hell. Maybe its just the program I'm using? I do have Photoshop Elements, but I guess I was just being lazy at the time and just ran it through Picasa. Any ideas how to fix that now that you have the original?

    As for the camera/settings, it is a mid range digital (not sure on the exact model; is it in the meta data?) with adjustments for f-stop, exposure time, and film speed. I was using full manual at the time and didn't have the flash on. As for lighting, it was cloudy out and as I said, I didn't use the flash.

    Thanks for the review. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems we've had a discussion about my camera before. Here's what we said last time. Thanks again for the review! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, thought I recognised the name :-). I've downloaded the linked version and will try to give some feedback in the next day or so. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've put up an alternative edit. Some of the things you said ring true, like trying to up the saturation cause funny effects, it may be that the detail in the lines is just not sufficient to trap the colours and it bleeds across when you overdo it. I did a bit of an increase, but not as much as you, however it keeps things like skin tones looking more natural, and helps with the fringing. Enhancing sharpness was OK, and the noise is far better. However I don't get as red a gym for example. Also the sky in the original was pretty badly blown, so whatever Picasa did I don't know, but it must try to compensate for that but adding greys or something. Mine probably looks more realistic at fullsize, but not as bright as yours I guess. Probably the key thing in the exif was that you took this at ISO 200 and 1/250s. On these sort of cameras you really need to try to keep the ISO as low as possible in most cases. This camera goes as low as ISO 80; you would be best for shots like this to lock it in as low as possible. You could have used ISO 80 or 100 and set the shutter speed to say 1/100s, which shouldn't have created problems with motion blur say, but should give far better quality. Only use higher ISO if you really need to. --jjron (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I didn't realize the 200 ISO would cause that mush of and issue (sigh). That is generally my limit for ISO, because of that exact issue. I guess I'll have to go lower next time ... Thanks again! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It varies from camera to camera. Mightn't be a bad idea to set up a shot and take a series of photos at different ISO settings, then do a fullsize comparison, just to see the impact of changing ISO on sharpness, noise, etc. Even on my DSLR where I can get quite good quality at ISO 400 (and usable but degrading quality at 800), I still go for 100 whenever I can as I can see a minor decline above that. You have to compromise though - like I'll trade-off ISO for shutter speed if I have to, say for action shots. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This is a very striking image that caught my eye at the Library of Congress website.

Creator

Poster designer: Lucian Bernhard (1883–1972); restored, adjusted, and uploaded by Bellhalla

Nominated by

Bellhalla (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Do you have a translation for the German text? MER-C 12:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text in German is:

    So hilft dein Geld Dir kämpfen! In U-Boote verwandelt, hält es Dir feindliche Granaten vom Leib! Darum: zeichne Kriegsanleihe!

    I don't speak German, but a Google translation comes out as:

    To help you fight for your money! Submarines transforms, keeps it going enemy grenades at bay! Therefore draw war bonds!

    which I take to being roughly equivalent to:

    Make your money fight. U-boats keep enemy grenades away. Buy war bonds.

    Any proper translation by a German speaker is welcome :) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "enemy shells", as in artillery, would be a better translation! best, 194.80.106.135 (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more direct translation is: "This is how your money helps you fight! Turned into submarines, it keeps enemy shells away! That's why you should subscribe to war bonds!" (Apparently, intended to be direct speech of the person at the top-left.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Peer review request only, just want to see if this is an interesting and sufficient quality image.

Creator

Sunil060902

Nominated by

Sunil060902 (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I really like this as a picture, composition is really quite good, it almost looks like a painting at first. As far as FPC or VPC are concerned I wouldn't really support as I don't think the EV is that high - it doesn't tell me a lot about Santa Fe Southern Railway, the only very minor article it's in, and if there's articles on the trains themself I personally don't think we see enough of them for high EV. Nonetheless not all good pics are suitable for FP/VP, and I think this is a good contribution that adds aesthetically to WP. --jjron (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I like it too-- try Commons FP. In particular, I like how the cloud patterns seem to be a mirror image of the train tracks-- the composition suggests movement (even though I'm sure these trains were stationary when photographed). Pity about the shadow on the nose of the rightmost locomotive, which is a bit distracting. I agree with Jjron's comments re: low EV. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This 'Thamarai-Namam' ["Thamarai(Lotus) Namam(Form of Spirit)" in Tamil language representing Sahasrara with Ātman (Hinduism) ] is the symbol of Ayyavazhi.

This is, I feel, the best, and of high-resolution among all the Ayyavazhi symbol images uploaded here in Wikimedia. It was also used in a large number of articles and forming the conceptual centre of many Ayyavazhi articles; It looks good too. So i feel better to nominate it to FPC. It deserves?

Creator

Vaikunda Raja

Nominated by

Vaikunda Raja (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Best try getting this converted into an SVG before you go to either of the candidates pages. Put it up at the graphics lab and see if they can translate it into a vector graphic. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its in my opinion, the best image we have of Jimbo, its very high resolution, and has been on the article Jimmy Wales sense December 31st 2008. I uploaded this image to commons from the foundation website a while ago and I just recently decided to put it up for VP status at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal, and an editor suggested that this may be a good FP, so I decided to get some other editors opinions before putting in a FP nom :). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

Wikimedia Foundation

Nominated by

Mifter (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Okay, this has actually bothered me since I supported this at VPC. Can someone explain why when I see the image on its WP (or Commons) imagepage, the image is much less red than when I open the actual file? See my screenshots below. Based on the screenshots, I don't think it's my monitor (either my laptop or external one). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lighter version, which comes from here or here.
  Lighter version, which comes from here or here.
• Redder version, which comes from here.
  Redder version, which comes from here.

• • The same thing happens with me. Better raise it somewhere where it may get more attention --Muhammad(talk) 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unable to reproduce. — neuro ^(talk) 11:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The file was using the adobe RGB colour space. "Dumb" browsers just assume everything is sRGB. The wiki thumbnail generator, and some browsers read the colour space information and interpret it correctly. I have uploaded a new sRGB version which should stop the trouble. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still doing it for me. I'm using Safari, does that make a difference? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Try Control-Alt R, or the mac equivalent (I can't remember what it is). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I seem to recall a previous jimbo picture failing FPC. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I will support this at FPC because of the EV --Muhammad(talk) 04:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Clear, close up, crisp (it does go soft at the tip of the beak, mind), good EV.

Creator

Neurolysis

Nominated by

— neuro^(talk) 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This is a potentially featurable image, but unfortunately the image is over-compressed (resulting in visible artifacts) and has blown highlights. Crop seems a bit tight on the beak. It'd make a good valued image though. MER-C 02:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

It is a good detailed picture of a wild boar.

Creator

GerardM

Nominated by

GerardM (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The main problem is that you've cut off the back and the legs - which is a FP no-no. It's also overexposed, as some of the hairs near the boar's eyes are blown out. Here is an existing FP of this subject. MER-C 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the picture special is the angle. It is taken from really close by. The other FP does not show the animal as vividly. GerardM (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one's telling you that you can't nominate if you think it's good enough, but MER-C is right. If you nominate at FPC be prepared for it being opposed on the grounds mentioned. --jjron (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I am not sure this deserves to be a FP but it is my first panorama and I just wanted some feedback.

Creator

Remember (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by

Remember (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I Like Not bad for your first try. I found some stitching errors (SE) and distortion errors (DE) in the image, but it brought back fond memories of my college days (GWU '08 baby!). If you want to reach FP, I think the 1000px requirement is still in place (in this case, in the tall direction), even for panoramas (which I believe is different from Commons FPC). Used well in the article though. Due to the errors in stitching, not sure it would pass for VP either. What stitching software do you use? Your other photos on your userpage are great though. Here are the stitching and distortion errors I found:

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I used the free software that came with my HP printer so I am sure it is not the most up to date stiching software (but it is all I got). Remember (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the same software before I bought PTGui. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Try using Autostitch which is a great free stitching software. --Muhammad(talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It probably wouldn't pass at 400 pixels high. Also, there is no need to go around more than once. 360 degrees is the widest needed to cover the whole thing. Thirdly the view from on the bridge mightn't be so popular due to the distortion of straight lines etc mandated by the projection. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows the subject in full detail, in focus and natural lighting, I felt it is a pretty good picture and wondering if it is good enough to stand a chance as a VPC or FPC?

Creator

Tango22

Nominated by

Tango22 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm new to this but there is a lot of noise on the image so I'm not sure if it would be accepted as a featured picture. I don't really know anything about the subject though, so I don't know about it being a VPC. ~ contegni_«talk^stalk» 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not a bad image - getting photos of big things in museums can be quite difficult - but frankly it would have zero chance at FPC for several reasons. The EV would give it a possibility at VPC, but I personally can't say I'd support. You'd have to argue for it as a particularly good illustration of this particular moai, because we have better moai shots in situ, including at least one FP. --jjron (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

It is a clear image of an historic building relating to military history in Kentucky

Creator

Bedford

Nominated by

King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This could have been taken at a better angle. The two trees in the way are pretty distracting. You've got it in two articles so it has some EV. I would say maybe a VP nom, but I'll wait for another user to agree with me before seconding this. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

High quality image that adds value to several articles

Creator

Dbenbenn

Nominated by

-- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 04:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It's an interesting photo with interesting (but useful) lighting. My concern is that it's a scan, it's a bit fuzzy, and there are black marks along the bottom. It could go for VPC, but if you can get a higher quality scan, I would consider FPC. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Love this pic! Beautiful and simple. I have no idea how to nominate this though, but I could figure it out. NoFlyingCars (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This animation is of an interesting subject which is relevant to many peoples' lives and provides insights into the engines function. I would be keen to improve it to get it to a featured picture standard, in my opinion this is of similar quality to some of the animations I have previously seen as featured pictures...

As the original creator (with the source Blender file) I would like some really critical comments so I can perfect it!

Creator

Richard Wheeler (Zephyris)

Nominated by

- Zephyris _Talk 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Biggest problem I can see is the lack of indication of where the actual combustion is going on. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my computer, the rotation of the engine's turbines and fan appear to be rotating clockwise. The final LP turbine is correct, however the other turbine vanes aft of the combustion chamber should be rotated. This engine configuration would not operate. Otherwise, really nice animation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.180.54 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my thought -- not sure how hard it will be to draw a combustion chamber but right now the airflow seems to go straight through from the compressor to the turbine stages without anything in between. The arrows do turn from blue to pink, but it's not clear why just by looking at it. This page shows three different designs for combustion chambers. Fletcher (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmm, good suggestion. I think I could do some kind of particle effect there for flames...- Zephyris _Talk 15:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • One other possible point of confusion in the caption is that this diagram shows a high-bypass turbofan, but the caption notes turbofans can reach Mach 1.6. That may be true, but wouldn't be true of the model you are actually showing, right? As i understand it the high bypass models are used only into the transonic range; supersonic aircraft would use either low-bypass models or turbojets. Fletcher (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a good point, the caption is slightly misleading...- Zephyris _Talk 23:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated version; flame effects in combustion area, tweaked turbine shape to match the "classic" turbine and improved the labels and made them non-language specific.
  • I prefer the original method of positioning the numbers, all the lines going everywhere is distracting in the new version. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• The angles of the turbine blades are not appropriate to the air flow - except of the last turbine. All but last turbines would cause a reverted air flow. Cf. http://www1.rolls-royce.com/history/publications/jet_engine/section01.htm for real turbine details ;nosh:

• Blade angles corrected, not sure how I missed that! I also went back to the simpler labelling scheme... - Zephyris _Talk 18:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good with the simpler labelling and correct blade orientation – nice work! :-) --Red Sunset 12:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There exists low-bypass turbofans that reach more than Mach 1,6. You can confidently change the label to say that they can be used for speeds surpassing Mach 2 (e.g. the EJ200).- Jasón (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simplistic image, not of the best quality, but it does capture a nostalgic essence, back when there were only three channels, kind of like a relic harkening to a simpler time. The lovely sky and the trees in the backdrop make for a rather peaceful looking image, which, when I look at it, generates a soothing feel.

Creator

TurtleShroom, photographed via cell-phone.

Nominated by

TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 18:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Doesn't meet the size requirements for a featured picture, so you won't have any luck there. It may pass VPC, but it will need to remain the article for at least 30 days. Tomdobb (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not pass VPC either, I should hope. Although VPC quality doesn't have to be as good as FPC, it should be large and clear enough to be educational about the topic. The caption should also identify the type of antenna. Fletcher (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, no offense, but I would not support this at VPC (nor FPC). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• None taken. I wasn't actually trying to nominate this, I just wanted a peer review, preferably to see if it was a nice picture. For the record, though, this is the house of my grandfather. All he could tell me was "that the antenna was installed in 1976". Also, this is a noobish question, but what exactly is a "VPC" and "FPC"? --74.184.188.59 (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC) (TurtleShroom's IP Address)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (FPC) and Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates (VPC). --jjron (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

An outstanding display of the Space Shuttle and the Sound Suppression System of launch pad 39a.

X!

Nominated by

Stanislao C (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This came up at PPR a while back and I'm afraid the comments then still stand: the odd smudging effect to the left of the shuttle means that its becoming an FP is incredibly unlikely. Time3000 (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This is a restitch and a newer version of the current File:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg. I wish to delist and replace it. I believe this version has a more realistic exposure, given that the time of shooting is around 8:00 PM, completely after Civil Twilight. This version shows less mountains on the bottom left, but every notable architectual building is still preserved. I also adjusted the colour balance to match what I have observed every day ... Slight warm. I would like to collect more opinion, please inspect both images at full screen or full size, thank you. I edited this photo under a 400 cd/m^2 monitor, and I think this brightness is enough to see the detail and feel the atmosphere of "Night".

Creator

Base64

Nominated by

Base64 (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I mean, yea sure, go ahead and offer a new nom if you'd like. Personally I prefer the "less realistic" one just because it's cooler and shows more. Just my opinion though. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I'm hoping to eventually bring the article Sarah Palin to featured status (I know this will be difficult with such a controversial subject). But I'd like to have a featured photo to place in the article. We have plenty of photos of Governor Palin, but many are of low quality. The highest-resolution pics are military photos, such as the lead photo, and this one and we also have some fairly dynamic photos from the 2008 presidential campaign, but unfortunately they are of kinda low resolution (see gallery above).

I'm hoping on some feedback on these photos, and what I should look for in determining a possible featured photo. In making these selections, I looked at other featured photos of politicians, especially this one.

Any constructive feedback welcome, thanks! Also any help fixing the format of this nomination page, which I seem to have screwed up but can't figure out how to fix. :) Kelly ^hi! 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

Airman 1st Class Kristin High

Nominated by

Kelly ^hi! 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Maybe use File:Sarah Palin Kuwait 13a.jpg for featured?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 05:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if FPC will accept the lighting or the guy's face in the background. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO the best among these is the one from Missouri --Muhammad(talk) 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Striking features of this photo include the sky color, complimentary cloud patterns, excellent composition and color balance, and long depth of field. The composition is such that the unusual shape of the building and its proximity to Grand Central Terminal are clearly portrayed. The long depth of field shows details from the very top of the building (including the logo) and details from the Grand Central Terminal facade are in excellent focus and especially sharp. Furthermore, this photo is included in the MetLife Building article and helps the reader visualize the proximity of the building with Grand Central Terminal, as discussed in the article.

Creator

Jnn13

Nominated by

Jnn13 (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Great photo (and a surprisingly old one, given its high quality). I'm concerned it may work better artistically than encyclopedically however. The Met Life building is cut off on the side and bottom, and little of Grand Central is visible. I note the skyscraper has two levels -- I don't know what to call them -- where the facade is indented and large supporting columns are visible. This is an important architectural element but only one of them is visible in this picture. Yes, I realize it's New York City and a challenging place to photograph, but we do have other pictures in the article that give nearly a top to bottom look of the Met Life Building. It is a compelling picture, I grant you that, but given that it's such a prominent, commonly photographed location, I would expect folks on FPC to be very demanding. I wouldn't rule out a nomination though, if you are confident about it. Fletcher (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the fair feedback. My initial reaction was that this photo would pique a viewer's curiosity and compel the viewer to read the article ("...being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." - as per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. I don't know enough about the architectural significance of elements in the photo to argue either way. Thanks for the great review! Jnn13 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Fletcher. It is an artistic and visually appealing photo; kudos on your work. But I don't really see it passing FPC because of its artistic nature (the angle it's taken at, for one). I'm unsure if you live in NYC or will be visiting again in the future, but the article lacks a full shot of the building from Park Ave. A shot that includes Grand Central and the full building (best done if you stitch a couple zoomed shots together rather than taken one shot zoomed out) would easily become the main image of the page and would be something to put up at FPC. I'd even be willing to stitch the images if you don't have any software to do that. Also, I'm not a Commons FPC regular, but they do judge images on artistic merit. Maybe a trip over there is in order? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - already in the Commons. A shot of the whole building is especially tough, since the bottom portion (which is actually rectangular, not octagonal like the upper tower) is surrounded by tall buildings on all sides. I had not thought of stitching together a couple of shots - I will try that out next time the clouds remotely mirror the photo! Saw your photos, BTW - nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnn13 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not an artist, I don't take the best pictures (I submitted one captured by a cell phone above this), but I do know this. That image is very well taken, the angle is impeccable, and like any good image, you want to take a good look before scrolling onward. I especially like that fancy building (Grand Central Station) in the foreground, with its detailed little statues... it adds fantastic contrast to the sleek, modern MetLife building in the background. In fact, the Grand Central Station almost throws in an old-world charm. These are within miles from each other, old meets new, ect. It is a very appealing photograph, and is quite enjoyable to look at. In short, it's one heck of an imag! Great job! I commend whoever took it --TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 18:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

Seconder

It's a mind-blowing sequence. The viewer is invited to reflect on stars so large their size strains the limits of comprehension.

Creator

Dave Jarvis

Nominated by

StevenJohnston (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In general, it really is a nice, easy to understand comparison, but I have three concerns. There's quite a lot of leniency with images citing sources, but something like this, relying heavily on statistical information, really needs a link or some sort of citation on the description page. The credit at the bottom of the image also belongs on the description page, not as part of the image itself. Finally, I'd check the projection type for the map used on Earth; it looks stretched. For something like this, you need to use an orthographic projection. If those three things are fixed, I'd definitely consider an FP nomination. Thegreenj 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the Earth image is a bit squashed. I think it was done that way to avoid preferentially showing one hemisphere rather than another. I've had a little attempt at replacing the earth disc by a satellite image of the earth (see, for example, the images on blue marble article) but it doesn't look quite right because the lighting in the real-world image is from the side (if you have the north pole at the top) but in the image here it'd need to be lit from above to fit in with the other planets on the row. One alternative would be to put a real-world image with the north-south axis skewed to one side but I think that people wouldn't like that just as much as the squashed image. My image manipulation expertise don't extend to wrapping a map (from here for example) onto a sphere and then lighting it from above to get the shadow to look right. It should be simple enough to do using some 3D image software but I'm unable to do it myself. Anyone else? StevenJohnston (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks to me like most (if not all) planets have errors in the texture mapping causing distortion of the surface features. Mars' polar surface features are too large, Venus, Earth and Uranus have an incorrect planar texture mapping and Jupiter's texture is distorting all features to half their width horizontally. These problems would all be easy to fix with the original 3D file... - Zephyris _Talk 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've linked to an updated and improved version that coincidentally addresses almost all of the issues that have been raised. Opinions please. StevenJohnston (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a wonderful image of a basketball layup.

Creator

SD Dirk

Nominated by

Showtime2009 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This picture is not likely to succeed at FPC because of some uniform and very prominent weirdness and CCD blooming. That said it has high EV for the players and would make a great valued picture candidate. MER-C 11:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I thought that this was a pretty good picture and was just wondering if possibly it was suitable to be a featured picture.

Creator

LittleMountain5

Nominated by

LittleMountain5 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment. Pretty, but the mountain is out of focus and the image has purple fringing (which, I've learned, is what you get when you use a point-and-shoot digital camera). Spikebrennan (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thanks. I figured it was worth a try. LittleMountain5 21:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I took the picture and thought it was good; it has a nice perspective, and I'd like some comments. Thanks!

Creator

Dudemanfellabra

Nominated by

Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment. I assume that the picture is being offered as being an encyclopedic depiction of the carousel shelter house. A problem is that the composition focuses on the fountain rather than the building, and not all of the building is in the shot. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Reason

Good quality and EV. No other images in the articles display the details that this image displays.

Articles this image appears in

Sunflower, Asteraceae

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Few problems to fix first. There are "reflections" on all four sides that need to be cropped out (typical artefact of the focus stack). The shadows and highlights are both clipped, assuming you are using CombineZM it seems to inadvertently increase the contrast during the stack process. If you are shooting from raw reduce the contrast, stack, then fine tune it afterwards. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I didn't shoot raw. Would just cropping the reflections be fine? I can't believe I didn't see those. --Muhammad(talk) 10:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you reduce the contrast in the jpgs before doing a restitch? The blown highlights and clipped shadows are pretty substantial at the moment. I'd recommend shooting RAW just for the extra dynamic range you get. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will do and upload a restacked version soon. Withdrawing and moving this to PPR for now. --Muhammad(talk) 17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I reduced the contrast by 35 on each of the pictures, stacked and downsampled. Is it better? I have uploaded a slightly smaller temp version without any other adjustments made. --Muhammad(talk) 07:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highlights are still quite blown, but not much chance of recovery without raw by the look of it. The blown highlights aren't immediately obvious just looking at the image though, so as long as no one notices then you should have a decent chance at success if you pick your article(s) and caption correctly (to avoid the inevitable "cut-off" complaints)

Seconder

Highly-detailed and has EV

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

Nominated by

Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I currently haven't uploaded the full resolution of this picture (14 mpx or so). Though I'm confident the technicalities are good enough to become a FP, I'm not so sure about the EV. We already have two FP's of Amsterdam's canals, but none of them shows such a diversity in architecture (Different types of merchant houses and the bow bridge.) Also, both of them aren't this detailed and in both of them most of the merchant houses are obscure. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially with two FPs on the subject, I don't know about this one. It doesn't quite have Diliff's excellent composition or your other FP's night mood. It just seems, well, redundant, especially against your FP, which does a good job at showing the diversity in building styles. Thegreenj 02:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comment. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I think this is a pretty good image and, while it's not yet ready for VPC (hasn't reached the time requirement yet), I wanted to see if others thought it was up to the level of FPC. If not I'll run it at VPC when the timing is right. I originally took three images at greater zoom and planned on stitching them, but since I was on a moving tender, it didn't work out. So note that this photo was taken while moving toward the ship, also while bobbing up and down. Otherwise this image is pretty self-explanatory.

Creator

ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

Nominated by

ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment. Looks good to me. Do you think that cropping out some of the excess water would help? Spikebrennan (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, I guess I could do that when I nominate. Would you suggest FPC or wait and upload at VPC? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just nom it at FPC and see how you go. Although not directly in the criteria you might get a few opposes caused by something along the lines of "lacks wow" however Noodle snacks (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get it nominated as a featured picture. It's asthetically pleasing, colorful and technically correct. I get hungry just looking at it!

Creator

Mrmcdonnell

Nominated by

Mrmcdonnell (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment Very narrow depth of field-- most of the image is out of focus. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with the above comment. The fact that more than 50% of the image is out of focus is highly distracting. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 07:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I really like it, personally. It's very three-dimensional, brightly colored, nice contrast. I think you did a good job! However, at the very back of the picture, it kinds a bit blurry. It's not a problem at all for a photograph-Noob as myself, but it may annoy experts. Personally, I love it. --TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 18:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

Seconder

I have been looking for images of tanks to be featured on Portal:Tank, and honestly it's difficult to find a good picture. I found this one by "accident"; it was suggested through a conversation going on on Talk:Tank, and I thought it had excellent EV and was large enough to be worked on. Learning my lesson with two failed FPs, I decided to take this to peer review first, to get what people thought. This is an image of a M4 Sherman disembarking from a Landing Ship, Tank; it has EV value for the landings at Anzio, the M4 Sherman tank and the LST. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

WWII Signal Corps Photograph Collection

Nominated by

JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It does have brilliant EV, but it needs some restoration work before FP nomination; I'm thinking mainly of the dust (e.g. near the top of the door out of the ship). It would also need to be in some articles! The composition isn't quite perfect - to me it feels cut off on the left - but I think it could succeed at FP with the dust removal and certainly at VP even without the dust removal once it's been in a few articles for a month. Time3000 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

It clearly displays the overall body shape and appearance of this fish, it is of a suitable size, and the contrast between the subject and background is quite striking.

Creator

Lerdsuwa

Nominated by

Mister Morris (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It's well composed, but there was funny lighting happening that I wasn't sure about - when looked at bigger I could see that it's clearly been taken in some sort of aquarium and the dark parts are full of reflections on the glass of the other patrons and the windows behind them. It appears overly soft to me as well; it has been taken at ISO800 on a 400D, and I find that almost inevitably photos taken at that setting come out quite soft. It could handle some sharpening, but that will also exacerbate the problems, and there appears to be only limited detail anyway. I honestly don't think it would fare that well at FPC. It may be a suitable candidate at VPC however, although I'm not sure that the article really describes this pigmentation, so EV may be in question. --jjron (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The article about the Tokyo International Forum needs a photo of the interior; this one is the best we have and seems to nicely capture the elongated shape and structures.

Creator

663highland

Nominated by

AxelBoldt (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Quality does not seem that great and it looks a bit underexposed near the bottom. Interesting building though. Fletcher (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

A great picture illustrating the engineering advances made in the computing industry.

Creator

Toresbe

Nominated by

Peizo (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Interesting enough photo, but quality is quite frankly pretty terrible. It's clearly been overly and quite badly downsampled as it's full of heavy jpeg artifacting. If you're not sure what I mean, look particularly at shadow and dark areas such as the men's suits and the bottom and sides of the computer and you'll see blocks and grids of pixels rather than smooth gradients. The original would have been nothing like this condition. To be honest I probably wouldn't be that sold on the detail of the machine that the image holds regardless, at least not at this size. (BTW the creator was NASA, Toresbe was simply the uploader.) Thanks for putting it up here, --jjron (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pretty high quality picture, has a pastoral feel to it. Good encyclopedic value too.

Creator

Dido3

Nominated by

Todor→Bozhinov 10:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Great Picture! --Peizo (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• INCREDIBLE! That could appear in a magazine! This should definately recieve a Featured Status! FANTASTIC! Beautiful! Job well done! --TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 18:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

Seconder

• Gorgeous. Fletcher (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the workings of a particle collision detector cannot be worked out just by looking at it. However, this photo effectively captures its insanely evil nature. At least it made me want to read the article. I'm putting it up for peer review because I am concerned about the noise I see in the shadows and would appreciate tips for reducing it.

Creator

Justin Lebar

Nominated by

Wronkiew (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I went ahead and created an edit with NR. Mfield (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good, thanks! How did you do it? Wronkiew (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, in this case using Nik Dfine. Mfield (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The NR makes it look somewhat soft though, not sure if it would make it through FPC. Would a downsample help? Fletcher (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there is detail that would be lost by any degree of downsampling enough to correct any softness. Downsampling is never the answer for improving apparent sharpness, if the image is felt to be too soft then the way to fix it is with selective sharpening. (Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh, but its a bugbear that downsampling is too often incorrectly suggested as a fix for softness). What I do note is that the original is kind of artifacty from the camera NR/JPEG engine and sharpening will probably only make those artifacts worse. Mfield (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I have 100's of mushroom photos I'd like to upload, and think some of them might be good enough quality for FP. But I'm just an amateur photographer, and am looking to get some feedback about whether they're as decent as I think.

Creator

sasata

Nominated by

Sasata (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This is very soft at full size - as much an artifact of your camera as anything else. Focus is a bit uncertain, and depth of field appears a bit shallow. You could play with camera settings to help out a bit, but I'm not sure how much manual control you can take on your camera, though I believe it's not that much. I personally would suggest a downsize by as much as 50% - there's basically no loss in detail in doing so, and the picture looks a lot crisper as a result (it would still meet FPC size requirements). Re its chances on FPC I feel it's technical qualities may not be quite there, even with the downsize. It's a good and interesting photo, and well identified (often voters like a species to have its own article, but given that the Fomes article itself has just been created and is short on detail containing only this image, that may not be a problem). Sometimes photos that are down a bit on technical aspects get through with what's termed a 'WOW' factor - I personally don't feel many people will find a wow in this; composition is serviceable but not stunning, and I suspect most voters will feel 'it's just a fungus' so not that hard to photograph (regardless of the reality). It could be a potential candidate at VPC once the image/article has been around a while (that has a one month minimum on images being in articles). Would be interested in seeing some of your other best shots. I think we could do with some fungus FPs. Regardless of its chances at FPC, I think it's still a good contribution to Wikipedia, and would encourage you to keep uploading other good images you have. --jjron (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you kindly for your insightful comments, they are appreciated. I was thinking the same thing about fungus FPs. I'll put some more of my best shots for review here later. Sasata (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

good quality, clear. shows whole animal.

Creator

Benjamint 10:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by

Benjamint 10:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Seems sharp and well exposed. The grass looks like zoo grass, not its natural habitat, but that's not much of a criticism given that the animal is mostly found in zoos these days. Can't say if it would pass but I think it's worth nominating. And cool view of the fang! Fletcher (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

So I got a new camera (Nikon D60) and I'm working to get myself an FP. This image is stitched from six originals and is a high resolution view of the southwest face of the New York State Capitol, taken from the northeastern edge of the Empire State Plaza. I'd like to get some critiques to hear what I should/shouldn't be doing. I'm using PTGui for panorama stitching.

Creator

wadester16

Nominated by

ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm not sure if the aperture was constant throughout the frame here, the sharpness varies wildly across the frame, set the camera to manual for panoramas and use a similar aperture to the beach image (around f8-10). I also think that this was taken at the wrong time of day, the lighting is only really nice on one side of the building. I don't know what else surrounds this which might hinder better lighting though. It might pay to pick a day which isn't so overcast as well. Again I think there is some geometric distortion which the use of control points might help. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It has the appearance of being tilted (particularly at the bottom), but looking at it closer it seems that perhaps the building is perhaps built on a hill? Perhaps a bit more foreground would help to balance this out and lessen the apparent tilt. --jjron (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is built on a hill, which you can see from the main entrance (the archway on the left is shorter than its counterpart on the right). You can't back up any further because two buildings get in the way, the Legislative Office Building and the Justice Building, shown at right.
    • Fair enough. With your six originals, are you taking six horizontally or 3 x 2? Just thinking if you were doing the 3 x 2 you may be able to go a little lower at the bottom and therefore get more ground? If the metadata is right and you've gone 14.5mm on the D60 you probably don't have much opportunity to go much wider angle and get more ground that way. --jjron (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three wide by two high and yes, that was as wide as I could go. If you look at this, you can see that there's not really much to see on the ground. I guess if it's more photogenic to include the ground, it could be included in my next version (which I'll take during summer on a sunny day). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually that image confirms my thoughts that including more ground takes away the badly tilted feeling. It's not that there's that much to see as you say, though I find that patterned courtyard kind of interesting, but for mine it balances the photo better and helps with the apparent tilt, so I'd personally say definitely go for the extra foreground if you can. Oh, but I do like how yours removes those two side buildings intruding into the other shot. --jjron (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Accurate SVG

Creator

ZooFari

Nominated by

ZooFari 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Not really featured material. It's merely a county map of Idaho. No colors, no nothing. Sure, it's accurate, but it doesn't catch a reader's attention, and I hate to put it this way, but it is rather boring. No really stunning appeal. To quote Racheal Ray, "there's no WOW factor". --TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

Seconder

Nominated at both FPC and VPC by ZooFari. --jjron (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nice diagram showing the parts of an eye.

Creator

Rhcastilhos

Nominated by

ZooFari 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

• 
  Alternative 1
• 
  Alternative 2

Good EV. The picture quality is also good considering how small the fly was (~5mm).

Articles appears in

Picture-winged fly, Tephritoidea

Creator

Muhammad

Nominated by

Muhammad(talk) 11:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Good quality, Ev and has been in the article as the lead image for quite some time, replacing my previous picture.

Creator

Muhammad

Nominated by

Muhammad(talk) 17:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The sharpness is fine, but it is in dire need of a levels adjustment imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would an auto-levels suffice? Muhammad(talk) 09:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'd be a reasonable first step, except it might clip the highlights slightly. You need to get the white balance right, then I'd use curves to adjust the contrast without blowing highlights. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would require the raw file to get the white balance right, wouldn't I? Muhammad(talk) 12:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is the easiest way, but its not strictly needed, assuming that the petal is meant to be white just use the grey eyedropper in photoshop curves to get it right. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Is it ok? Muhammad(talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can't be sure of the original colours, but the edit looks greyed out and lifeless to me. --jjron (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • • I am not well versed with photoshop adjustments. IMO the original was probably closest to reality. Could either you or NS do the adjustments? Muhammad(talk) 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Perhaps I will leave it to NS since he knows what he's looking for. I'm not so sure what he's thinking, I guess it comes up a little dull and perhaps a bit over green, but I don't mind the colouring. I had a little play and got some more pop out of it, but didn't really end up with anything I thought was that much of an improvement. --jjron (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Added an edit, might be slightly too much, i'll let you decide. The white balance also seems to vary across the flower. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • IMO the edit is quite an improvement. If you guys think it has a decent chance at FPC, I am willing to go with the edit. Did you sharpen the image as well? --Muhammad(talk) 06:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I'd see how you go, and I think I did, but I can't remember as it was last week. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Aye, in need of a contrast adjustment with curves. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

One of the perfect examples of Chola art and architecture. The Airavateswarar temple is known for its rich sculptues and accurately carved figurines. I also feel that we need more pictures of Indian temple art making it to the main page.

Creator

User:Ravichandar84

Nominated by

Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment. Cropped too tightly. What articles would this image illustrate? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fairly accurate in its depiction of a 12-century chariot wheel. Also note the decorations along the circumference-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, the composition isn't really on - cropped very tight top and bottom, actually clipping off parts of the wheel, but with extraneous (and distracting) elements at the sides. You could perhaps try cropping 'square', i.e., just to the wheel, but only really worth it if you've got a version that's not clipped top and bottom. FWIW, I think a 'real' chariot wheel from the 12th century would have higher EV for a proposed article, and I'm guessing there's probably still some around, and if not there' be some pretty spot-on reproductions. I think it would really need to be able to represent the art or temple you mention. --jjron (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, there was the wall to the right; to the left are the hind legs of the horse to which the chariot is yoked. It would have been difficult, too, if I had positioned my camera vertically instead of horizontally. Then, the sides of the wheel would not have appeared. Yeah, I'll upload a cropped image of the wheel.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if I had taken a vertical shot, would it still satisfy the size requirements for an FP-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why not. The size requirements are simply at least 1000px on at least one side, though you tend to go a bit bigger, especially on shots like this. It sounds a bit of a difficult shooting situation, though I wonder why not just include more, such as the horse. The other thing to bear in mind, and as has been stated before at FPC, with some things it probably just isn't possible to take an FP quality image of the subject. --jjron (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Very well documented, high quality animation

Creator

Esemono

Nominated by

-- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 00:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This is one of those really cool images we need an FP on. I'd wait for a seconder before nominating, though. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to speed it up? (50-100%'d be ideal for me) Noodle snacks (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Great in concept, execution needs a little work. The border with Persia is thicker than necessary in some frames. In some frames, there's a border shown through Ottoman territory between contemporary Egypt and Israel. Why include the borders of contemporary (2009) countries at all? Ten years from now, that may render this image obsolete. In some of the later frames, there is no explanation of the internal borders that distinguish some of the associated Balkan states from the Ottoman Empire proper-- if there's a distinction between them and the empire proper, then maybe there should be a color difference and a legend that explains it. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree about the Persia border - definitely too thick. It could use a minor speed up, but not too much. I feel the present borders should remain so it gives users a better understanding of relative size of the empire at given times. But I think the present-day borders should be lighter and not so distinct. Def could be FP if some of these obstacles are tackled. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this image is fantastic. It really shows the growth of the Empire in a way that a static image could not do so alone. It's very slow, but worth the wait! I'd second the motion, but I don't think I have such authority. However, it's got my vote! Great job! Highly educational! --TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 18:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

Seconder

I asked for commentary on a similar image a couple years ago. Lahusen took thousands of images during the 1960s and 1970s during the infancy of the gay rights movement. The New York Public Library currently has her images in a Digital Collection. They allowed me to have two for Barbara Gittings' article, and I chose this one for its striking subject. As a gay psychiatrist, Dr. Fryer felt compelled to wear a grotesque mask and appear in costume. Homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder at the time, and Fryer felt he would be professionally ostracized for appearing without a disguise. I realize the pixel size is below 1,000, but this is the best size available from NYPL. I am asking for historical image exception for this one.

Creator

Moni3, uploader; Kay Lahusen, photographer

Nominated by

Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I would ask on of the experienced FP people who do edits (I could always do it, if need be) if they could resize this one, and possibly sharpen it if possible. However, I think reality is that this pic is too un-sharp to be an FP. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tricky one. It's not a great picture, but makes a point very effectively. I wonder if people would object to the encyclopedic value it has with respect to any one of these individuals. It has some to be sure, but it is really most informative as a reflection of the social and scientific view of homosexuality rather than as an individual portrait; I wonder if there is a good place for it in some article detailing the history of homosexuality or psychiatry. Fletcher (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is already in Barbara Gittings and John E. Fryer. I'd like to reiterate per sharp, size, and composition that this could be judged on its historical value. Before knowing what the image was when I first saw it, I gasped. The mask Fryer is wearing to my younger eyes looks like Michael Myers from the Halloween franchise. I see it as very creepy. Learning then what the context of the image is seems even creepier. --Moni3 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting subject. Unfortunately too weak on the technicals for consideration. Well below minimum size requirements and only 48K. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hi guys, hope I filled this out ok. This "process" we see here is apparently called secondary growth. It is a tree growing over a sawn-off lamppost, I can only presume that it will continue to "swallow" the post until fully consumed. I believe this is a unique image on Wikipedia (having done a bit of searching) and just wondered if it had what it takes to be featured? Cheers.

Creator

Ryan4314

Nominated by

Ryan4314 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This is one of those bizarre pictures I like to see nominated, a reminder we are an encyclopedia not a photo contest. However the overall sharpness of the picture does not seem very good and I bet it would generate complaints on FPC. Fletcher (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't personally support it at FPC due to the sharpness issues and I suspect some blown highlights, but it is an interesting picture, and the green works well to give some contrast to the trunk from the background. I'd suggest nominating at WP:VPC instead. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, I know nothing about editing photos etc. Is "sharpness" something that can't be fixed/improved with editing then? Ryan4314 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noodle Snacks could give you a better answer, but in a nutshell sharpening can help, within limits. The computer can't add detail that wasn't there. And too much sharpening looks harsh and unnatural (see Unsharp masking). I dropped the picture into the GIMP and sharpened at the default settings, and still found it too blurry. Sharpened and scaled down to 25% size I think it looks pretty good, but then it's below the image size requirements for FPs. Fletcher (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sharpening generally increases the acutance of an image, which can help the sharpness subjectively to a certain degree but it won't increase the amount of information in an image and it wouldn't do much for a fairly blurry case like this. The image does scrub up alright with a fairly heavy downsample but as suspected the highlights are still blown (and can't be recovered unless you have a RAW available). You could try submission with the downsampled version and hope no one is too muffed about the highlights, but then someone might still complain about the small size for a static subject.
    • If this is an image that you could go and easily reshoot then set your camera in aperture priority mode and to about F5-5.6 or so, the above shot was made wide open at f3.5, where most lenses are at their weakest. The trouble with setting such an aperture is that I don't think the image stabilisation would be able to successfully counter the camera shake at such low shutter speeds. You could bump the ISO to 200 or so (not likely to be pretty on a point and shoot) or borrow/buy a (cheap) tripod, turn off image stabilisation and use the timer so the camera is perfectly still for the shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can easily go and reshoot the tree, and I understood everything you said EXCEPT, what's the ISO? Also do you think I should replace the image with Fletcher's in the meanwhile? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a relatively in depth explanation of what the ISO setting does at Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index. There would be a setting somewhere in the camera. The best results will be achieved leaving it set at 75 and using the tripod/timer method though. Higher ISO settings (200, 400 etc) give you a faster shutter speed at the expense of more noise basically. Also, when you shoot it, set your exposure compensation down a bit to avoid the blown section on the tree. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should probably note that edited version was Noodle Snacks' as I was too lazy to upload mine, though I am more than happy to take the credit. =P Fletcher (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aye, I forgot to mention it, either way a reshoot is the best way forward here. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • A second "shoot" has been arranged. Should I post the new image here? Or start a new review? Ryan4314 (talk)
              • Here should be fine. Fletcher (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-shoot: Right, I took 12 photos on a tripod, all at various settings. I couldn't find the option to change my camera's "aperture priority mode". I noticed it says F3.5 on the actual camera, so do all cameras have the ability to change this? I was able adjust the exposure and ISO though. I didn't want to upload loads of photos, so I've upped what I thought looked best. If these are no good, I have photos that are more "exposed" or less "exposed", both with differing ISOs.

• 
  "ISO: 50, Exposure -1" #1
• 
  "ISO: 50, Exposure -1" #2
• 
  "ISO: 100, Exposure -1" #1
• 
  "ISO: 100, Exposure -1" #2

Also I should explain, I took 2 photos for every setting I tried, so it's your preference really. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just did a little googling, unfortunately your camera is missing the aperture priority mode altogether, which is unfortunate (as it allows setting the camera for optimum sharpness). As you can probably see for yourself the tripod has still improved the sharpness a great deal. ISO50 number 2 has the best combination of sharpness and noise in my book. I have adjusted the levels (so they are similar to the original), but with the highlights now preserved and sharpened/sized it a bit. The original does have better lighting (has a bit of sun shining on the stump) and framing however. So I'd nominate the edit of the original and the edit of this new version and people can fight it out for themselves. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work it does look better. I would heed Noodle snacks' advice above. I just did a google image search for this and there are a lot of diagrams and cross-sections that come up - it's possible people on FPC will want something more scientific that explains the parts of the tree in detail. However if it doesn't pass FPC, it's a good candidate for the Valued Pictures project, as it does seem a good illustration of the concept and there are no other pictures in the article. Fletcher (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I told my father it needed to be "zoomed in more!"

I have another camera though, with the above mentioned changeable settings. I never considered it before as I assumed it was a run-of-the-mill one that holiday makers use. I messed around with the settings tonight and took this pic , can you tell from the data whether this camera would be up to the job? Organizing another re-shoot is no big deal, we go to Oxleas Wood all the time.

LOL I actually know nothing about "Secondary Growth", when I uploaded this I basically went to the tree page and said "What's this?". Thanks again for being patient guys, I appreciate it. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other camera should work better. Set it to F4.5 to F5.0 in aperture priority, zoomed most of the way out (move the camera closer) and the lowest ISO possible and use the tripod again. Try for the same time of day as the original to get similar lighting too. Don't forget the exposure compensation. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, amazing, I actually understood everything you said, I'm learning. The lowest the ISO goes is to 80 by the way. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-shoot #2: Uh-oh looks likes the sun's buggered these ones up, well I'll list em anyway. All are at ISO-80 (lowest setting) and as before I took versions that are more/less "exposed".

• 
  "F4.5, Exposure -1" #1
• 
  "F4.5, Exposure -1" #2
• 
  "F5.0, Exposure -1" #1
• 
  "F5.0, Exposure -1" #2
• 
  "F5.6, Exposure -1" #1
• 
  "F5.6, Exposure -1" #2

Also I've just realised these new one's are just as "zoomed-out" as the last re-shoot, I really have wasted my time here ay? Well aside from the framing, and the shadows, were the pictures at least taken with the right settings? ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, apart from the new problems its pretty right, I'd go with -1 and F5.0 when the conditions are right. These are quite a lot sharper than the originals. Sorry for the delay in response, I was away. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I appreciate you taking the time to stick with this. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems late in the day and you can even see the shadows changing position between the different sets. The light changes very fast then making it hard to tell which exposure is the "right" one, but Noodle snacks' choice seems like a good one. Fletcher (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We actually took this set earlier than usual, I didn't realise but after checking the meta data on the previous sets, seems we unintentionally took them both around the same time. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I thought the lighting looked pretty different. Fletcher (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't archive this review, a third re-shoot is planned.

Update: Sorry, I am still planning another re-shoot, possibly next weekend. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I had nominated this at FPC last month but there were a few distortion problems, so I withdrew. I would like feedback on its quality now. IMO it has EV but that too was questioned at FPC. Individual images 1, 2 and 3

Creator

Muhammad

Nominated by

Muhammad(talk) 11:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• If you look amidships near the waterline, there is a light brown stripe that is jagged - a stitch error? And to me it seems to bend inward at the center as with pincushion distortion. Fletcher (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Muhammad(talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Caption

Tanzanians protesting the 2008-2009 Gaza bombardment by Israel

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Good quality, tons of EV. I am not sure which one to nominate and would appreciate help in choosing the best.

Creator

Muhammad

Articles appears in

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Nominated by

Muhammad(talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• First of all the caption, I think it should mention the exact location (presumably Dar es Salaam) and perhaps that the protestors are mostly Muslims (I'd assume this is the case). As far as to which images to pick. You could try for a {{FeaturedPictureSet}} I think that 1 and 4 are probably the best individual images as far as conveying some sense of scale goes. I think 10 is a great image, but not really FPC material since one can't see anything but a sign. Hope that narrows it down a bit. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking time to review these images, I know it must have taken a long time. I had to choose from over 150 :) I am not familiar with the featured set nomination. How exactly are the images nominated? --Muhammad(talk) 21:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a look at File:Mandel zoom 00 mandelbrot set.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mandelbrot set 2, I'm unsure has to how succesfull such a nomination will be with photographs Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC by Muhammad. --jjron (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some advise

Creator

sh1019

Nominated by

Sh1019 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I think it is an interesting angle artistically, but I doubt it is informative enough about the temple to be a featured picture. Fletcher (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

High quality panoramic image of South Beach in Miami. Again, looking for reviews on what I should/shouldn't be doing to get a higher quality product. Again using PTGui for stitching.

Creator

wadester16

Nominated by

ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Discussion about former version

I think that this image has potential, but it needs a restitch. For a start all the buildings are falling over and the horizon is 5-10 degrees from level. Scroll down in this article to "Levelling the panorama with the help of horizontal and vertical control points:". It should allow you to get the whole thing geometrically correct. I'm not sure if you did or didn't, but make sure your camera is set to manual for a consistent exposure across the frame. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] That's a huge help - thanks for the resource. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Let us know when you upload the restitch, I don't see a need to take the shots again. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not that I can anyway - that was on vacation. It'll take me some time to perfect. Thanks again. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I uploaded a new version today which straightens the buildings. Two buildings were set to vertical and the horizon on the right was set to horizontal. Let me know what you think of the update. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was still a slight bit of tilt. I fixed it in the edit with a mild bit of perspective correction. I also sharpened it and did a levels adjustment. I'd nominate it and see how you go. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Some of the highlights look close to blown, lighting is uneven (likely a cloud passing overhead in the foreground), but all in all a very nice picture, should be worth a nom. Needs more women, though. ;-) Fletcher (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, excellent point. Next time I'll do my best but no guarantees they won't be any better than the one at center-bottom of this image. Thanks for the laugh! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]