Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Winter in Český Těšín

Photo taken by me on December 30 in my hometown Český Těšín during the worst snowstorm in years (see). I don't think it's a great photo, but it is at least nice, so I've tried to nominate it. Note: At the time of taking this photo, it was still snow falling and I was frozen to bone and covered with solid amount of snow.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:Geneva mechanism 6spoke animation old.gif

An incredibly clear animation showing the workings of the Geneva drive found in movie projectors.

I obviously support the new version, just chuck the old one, who would want to keep it? --Dschwen 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, keep at this speed.--Urthogie 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Geneva mechanism 6spoke animation.gif Raven4x4x 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A green geckoCarolina Anole in Eastern Texas.

A high-res, clear shot of a green gecko Carolina Anole for the gecko article.

  • I'd consider supporting a version with the tail included, even if it is out of focus due to shallow DOF. Not the current version with the tail chopped off though. 84.9.223.82
Strongly Oppose. You are right, I removed this pic in the gecko article, where it was just recently inserted by the photographer, and put back the old (real) gecko image. As of now the nominated pic is not used in any article. I did not add it to the Carolina Anole article since it already resembles a gallery. Hence oppose.--Dschwen 09:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, but I really don't see reasoning *not* to put it in the Carolina Anole article. It's still large and illustrative, and even if there are minor flaws to get all pissy about in an FPC debate, it's still a nice image. Putting it in the gallery. drumguy8800 - speak? 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All pissy? Anyway, at least it's in the correct article now. But this somehow shows a bigger problem with FPC. I've just seen it too often recently that people upload a new picture, slam it into whatever article it might fit, and nomitate it for FPC. The quality of nominations would benefit if those pictures would spend a little time in the articles and get a chance to be peer reviewed by article contributors. Whats the big deal about Featured Picture status anyway that some people want to bag FPs by the dozen? The focus should lie on illustrating the articles with the best pictures possible. --Dschwen 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with Dschwen above. FPC is not a photo competition. --Janke | Talk 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Charlotte Corday by Paul Jacques Aimé Baudry (1858)

From commons and used in Charlotte Corday and Jean-Paul Marat, this painting by Paul Jacques Aimé Baudry depicts wonderfully the event of Marat's death. The story is intriguing and the painting is beautiful. Wikipedia is lucky to have such a piece of art.

  • Nominate and support. - LV (Dark Mark) 19:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should as well upload (it might be already done) and nominate "Marat Assassiné" by David. Ericd 02:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This? --LV (Dark Mark) 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Love the pic and I agree it's a happy thing we have it. But do we know whether the artist knew what they looked like in real life (i.e. worked from a contemporary picture or description), or made an effort to get the details of the room right, etc? To be an encyclopaedic contribution to Charlotte Corday and Jean-Paul Marat, I think the description should specify the details were right. ~ VeledanTalk 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I don't know a ton about the painting itself, so I can't be positive. My guess is Marat is probably accurate (judging by the other paintings of him... close enough to be correct), but don't really know about Corday herself, or the details of the room. I would say "poetic license" may have taken, but like I said before, am unsure. I think the story depicted is more important than getting every detail absolutely correct. If there were on article based solely on the Death of Jean-Paul Marat, this would illustrate it perfectly, and since that is all Corday is really notable for, this painting depicts her wonderfully (IMO). --LV (Dark Mark) 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read the article you linked and it implies that amongst all the paintings of this scene, this one is the odd one out in being sympathetic to Corday! Even so, I suppose it's every bit as encyclopaedic as an artist's impression of space or a deep sea scene and I don't think I'd hesitate to support one of them that repaid inspection like this painting. ~ VeledanTalk 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Well its a good scan or something, but wouldn't this really be more of a comment on the actual artwork..? The only thing positive I can say about the scan is that its clear and fairly high-res. I do have a major problem with the fact that it might be violating copyright laws to exist here in such high-res form. Nevermind that, I see from the page that the death of the artist has placed it in the public domain. I'm so used to commenting on a picture for its merits as a work of art that its difficult for me to support an image that *wasnt* created by a user and whose only purpose is to convey *another piece of art*. Thus, I cannot support, but remain neutral... drumguy8800 - speak? 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sorry, I now see that it is portraying an actual event and its purpose is not only to show a piece of art. I support, then. drumguy8800 - speak? 04:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Argh!!! Sorry about that. I had tried to type in and tell you that it was Public Domain, but got an edit conflict. Then I had tried to type in to tell you it was portraying the murder of Marat, and IIRC, murder is not generally considered an artform, but got an edit conflict. Hopefully this goes through. I'm a slow typist, I guess. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum... you may also want to read this website (or perhaps just starting with the paragrapgh that reads, "While Antoinette’s iconography during the Revolution..."). It gives a little more depth to the story of Corday and her portrayal in paintings. Happy reading. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK --Surgeonsmate 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Charlotte Corday.jpg Raven4x4x 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cumulus clouds panorama. Taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria

Lovely countryside, nice panorama and great cumulus clouds.

This is because the image is not on Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons, and it is already a featured picture there. Glaurung 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuivienen 03:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cumulus clouds panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New version of the first chapter of Genesis, or B'reshit, written on an egg, in the Jerusalem museum.
Cropped to just show subject

Self-nom; I took the picture last summer in Jerusalem. It's used in the Genesis and B'reishit articles; this is the cropped version; there's also a larger one.

So special is what we're calling weird now? ;-) Sadly the picture is a little on the small side (especially the subject in the center). Can you comment on the colors? Bad whitebalance or was it really orange-yellow?--Dschwen 07:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New version still does not address the question of color temperature. And the egg still has a low pixel count.--Dschwen 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were generally when the standards were lower, or you had to restrict image size because of server limitations. I have not seen one this size get through since I have been here. --liquidGhoul 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the background. Otherwise it's just a boring egg. Zarniwoot 06:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, why are you supporting a background? --liquidGhoul 07:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have against backgrounds? :-) I think it add some kind of peace to the picture. The motive looks isolated and small, which I think is the point, but also somehow more important. If the picture was in the Writing very small letters on eggs article, i would prefer your edit. Zarniwoot 12:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So all we have to do to a small picture, is to add an overly large background, and it will get featured? --liquidGhoul 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was not what I said. I usually prefer when all unnecessary objects are croppet out, but every picture should be considered individually. Maybe we can just agree that we disagree on this one? Zarniwoot 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that mistake--Jonthecheet 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Slab of turquoise in matrix showing a large variety of different colouration

Self-nomination: I think that having a picture of a single piece of turquoise that shows such a great variation in color is valuable to the turquoise article. This shows every color that turquoise can be, all in one specimen.

Neutral, for large version. --Janke | Talk 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pancake with strawberries

I think this is a very mouthwatering picture, and is an excellent photograph of a pancake. It is in the Pancake article, and it was created by Joshua.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kremlevskaya Naberezhnaya and Moscow skyline.

Beautiful image taken which shows landmarks and roads of Moscow. It was created by Wikimedia Commons user, Azov.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrates shortly after take-off.

If you were born before 1982, this image needs no explanation. It is a high-quality (albeit a bit dark and a little fuzzy) picture taken shortly after the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated during lift-off. I couldn't believe this image wasn't listed at Category:Memorable photographs, or anywhere on Wikipedia or Commons, so I uploaded it from the ironically-named Great Images in NASA page.

Say again? NASA photograph everything, for documentation and technical research. --Janke | Talk 08:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My original photo was going to be Neil Armstrong's stool before he landed on the Moon. :) Palm_Dogg 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken with a motion picture camera. NASA used several motion picture cameras to image launches. The Public Affairs Officers then go in an grab the *best* frames. That other famous image of Challenger's launch with the birds in the foreground was taken the same way. 216.134.171.20 06:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Challenger explosion.jpg Raven4x4x 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A panorama photo of the castle Blankenhain and its pond (near Crimmitschau, Germany). It has been stiched together using two single images.

Sheer beauty, great resolution and sharpness. Appears in the Crimmitschau article and is featured on the Wikimedia Commons. License is Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5.

Comment: "Some square buildings, some flat water, some faded trees, and a muted sky". That's exotic for me! deeptrivia (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! There's no need for a featured picture to be exotic - that is, by the very nature of the word, inconsistent. What's exotic to some people is trivial to others, and vice versa. A FP shouldn't necessarily be exotic, but it should necessarily be striking. And this picture is anything but, particularly in relation to the general norm of nominated pictures. Zafiroblue05 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Castle Blankenhain panorama (aka).jpg Raven4x4x 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thurston Lava Tube, Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, Island of Hawai'i, USA

Interesting colors and textures, excellent depth, and shows dripstone well on lower right wall. It has good resolution considering that it is illuminated only by the lights installed in the tube. This lighting contributes to the quality of the image, in my view. It appears in the article Lava tube. Michael Oswald created the image. License is Commons PD-self.

  • Nominate and support. - Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you get a higher res version? This one is too small to have a chance of being an FP. Also, I appreciate that lighting may have been a challenge but I have to say I don't think there's much to distinguish this visually from any old cave pic, and I've seen far more beautiful cave pics. Is there no perspective a lava tube coud be photographed from that would bring its more singular qualities to the fore? I think the close-up you uploaded tells me more about lava tubes but that isn't FP quality either ~ VeledanTalk 20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. 568x426 is not FP-ready. Interesting subject though. --Dschwen 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New version hardly shows any additional detail. I fail to see what sets this tube apart from any other ordinary tunnel/cave. --Dschwen 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_picture point 5. Sadly the wording leaves room for interpretation, but if you look at previous nominations you'll find a good consensus that anything <800px will be kicked out.--Dschwen 10:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tracking down that link for me. Still think you're being too strict, though. BTW, did I miss that link, or isn't it in the lead of FPC anymore? - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to get a sharp picture with a tripod and manual focus, noise could be reduced as well with a longer exposure time. A G3 can do better. --Dschwen 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Thurston Lava Tube.jpg Raven4x4x 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thumb| Mr. Eko and the smoke.

Appears in Episodes of Lost (Season 2). Nice pic, shows Mr. Eko as the black smoke goes through his past.

Removed - ineligible licence. Raven4x4x 09:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Conch shell.
Edit 1

An adult queen conch shell; a gift to me several years ago.

Probably won't be used in articles about the animal? Samsara contrib talk 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a very interesting item, central to many traditional and modern tropical island and beach cultures and economies. Also a status symbol in historic (e.g. Victorian) and contemporary Western cultures. Maybe put one on top of some bathroom item, e.g. sink/toilet if a photogenic one is at hand. I suppose that would be its "natural habitat" and resolve the size concerns. - Samsara contrib talk 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is just the kind of picture I was looking for--thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymetime (talkcontribs) 13:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Nice collage, useful in article Perfume. Visually pleasing; Created by User:Palladian

? 08:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Earthshine

The phenomenon known as Earthshine or reflected Earthlight visible on the Moon's night side; Created by Nasa in the article Earthshine.

  • Nominate and support. - Dbalderzak 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's just an overexposed pic of the moon, and grainy too. Yeah, I get it, you can see the part not lit by the sun, but I'm just not stunned. This is visible with the naked eye on a clear night.--Dschwen 23:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if I looked outside on the right day, I would see these, and if I went to the right part of Texas, this, or to the store three blocks away, this, or into my basement, these. These things are visibile to the naked eye as well (and I've never seen Earthshine, because there's too much light pollution where I am). The guidelines say that a FPC should "add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." If this image doesn't illustrate the article content well, then I don't know what else can. I oppose this picture as well, because I don't think the article to which it links is that good, but I think you were too brash. - JPM | 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Doesn't wow me either. enochlau (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose informative, but visually - nothing particularry appealing. Eyesclosed 08:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't mind this picture, but it doesn't illustrate what Earthshine looks like to the naked eye. I would rather see a less overexposed picture that shows the lit crescent with just a faint hint of Earthshine, as we see from Earth. The Singing Badger 16:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all the reasons already given Calderwood 16:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Alr 02:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of the Feral Rock Dove, also known as feral pigeon.
A cropped version.
DOF Edit.

Photo taken by Andrew Dunn, or Solipsist, showing pigeons of various plumages fluffing their feathers in the winter to stay warm. Uploaded a cropped version as well. Appears in a few articles, namely the Rock Dove one.

Not promoted ~ VeledanTalk 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Cuttlefish interacting at the Georgia Aquarium.

This is a photo I took recently at the Georgia Aquarium. I'm expecting a tougher crowd on this one as it is a subject that is difficult to capture. Overall, I'm pretty happy with it though, as it shows two cuttlefish with very different 'personalities' - one has its tentacles drawn in and is swimming along, while the other is playing the role of (friendly? mating? I'm not sure!) aggressor and is visibly using its agile tentacles to hold the other. Considering this was shot through glass, I was happy with the lack of optical dispersion and it doesn't appear to have lost much sharpness. I think that although the environment could be a bit prettier, it is a good example of cuttlefish in action. Compare to the previous image for the cuttlefish article here[1]. Your thoughts?

ε 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC) KILO-LIMA 16:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are wondering, I supported Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gecko Revision even though the tail was cut because I feel the tail of a lizard is pretty uninteresting and when included can make the lizard's head/body too small. Obviously tail would have been preferable, but I think it didn't detract as much in the instance. The cuttlefish however isn't long like a lizard and therefore the addition of it's rear end would make the photo much better IMO --Fir0002 22:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Georgia Aquarium - Cuttlefish Jan 2006.jpg ~ VeledanTalk 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Lake Champlain

An amazingly detailed picture of USS Lake Champlain, a United States Navy Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser. Photo is used on the page Cruiser (warship).

Not promoted Alr 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An adult bald eagle

Part of a series of pictures I took during my vacation at Disney's Animal Kingdom. I do believe this is my favorite of the lot.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A Komodo dragon

Part of a series of pictures I took during my vacation at Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A great Egret

Part of a series of pictures I took during my vacation at Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The flag is lowered as the Zuikaku sinks.

A picture is worth a thousand words and this one has always been a powerful one. It was taken onboard a sinking Japanese carrier in 1944. I have always been impressed with the poise and order seen in the picture. Even though the ship is obviously foundering (and would sink fourteen minutes later), the crew are not panicking or scrambling about, but have found a moment of quiet tranquility as they salute the lowering of their flag. If you examine the page for the photo, you'll also notice that out of all the photographs on the Battle of Leyte Gulf, this one was chosen to be displayed on the Main Page.

Promoted Image:Lowering the flag on Zuikaku.jpg Raven4x4x 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The panoramaic view from Connors Hill, near Swifts Creek, Victoria showing typical bushland on the hills and cleared pasture for cattle grazing

Lovely view from Connors Hill. For those that are interested, this is the view Barry Heard talks about in his book "Well Done Those Men".

I really can't see what you mean by "movie look"? As to strange colors, you can hardly make a generalization like that - it was just very unusual lighting. Pretty interesting comment though when compared to yours on the commons --Fir0002 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It is a stunning picture, and as such I respect it when voting on commons. But en:FPC is not commons:FPC, it has different standards. So it should be no surprise to you when I question the factual accuracy of the picture on this page. Or when I highly doubt its encyclopedic value for that matter... --Dschwen 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:View from connors hill panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dragon Khan roller coaster in Spain

The Dragon Khan roller coaster in Port Aventura, Spain can be seen clearly in any part of the park. It is one of the park's most intense roller coasters. This image shows some of the roller coaster and reminds us of the intensity and happiness of it.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Created by User:Morrisjm, uploaded to Commons. Rmhermen 16:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The pair of lemons
New version

Created by Fir0002; showing a pair of two lemons. I think it shows great detail toward the lemon because its very close up.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A color plate illustration of "Actiniae" from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur of 1899, showing various sea anemones
Edit as per request

I scanned this image from the book (the original image is 11 inches tall), and placed it in Actiniidae. It's one of the most impressive examples of scientific illustration I've come across (along with Image:Haeckel_Orchidae.jpg, Image:Haeckel Nepenthaceae.jpg, Image:Haeckel Stephoidea.jpg, and Image:Haeckel Trochilidae.jpg), especially considering its age.

*Oppose for the moment -- the image looks like it could do with some help from a descreen filter. chowells 14:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

It looks great. I would have rather had it without the descreening (which masks the lithographic character of it), but the contrast and brightness adjustments are a definite improvement. Thanks!--ragesoss 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ragesoss, the descreening isn't an improvement. Also, I'd leave the resolution high... we can see the detail in the paper at that level, and understand that the limitations in sharpness are inherent in the original. Good contrast and brightness changes though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. - Samsara contrib talk 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Descreening is not an improvement; always use highest possible resolution. Otherwise a definitive support. Mstroeck 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the original is at Image:Haeckel Actiniae.png, if anyone else wants a crack at it.--ragesoss 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've replaced the originally proposed file with one that is closer to Janke's edit, but without the descreening and size reduction; the palette is a little cooler, and the shadows are stronger.--ragesoss 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Haeckel Actiniae.jpg No-one seems to have commented on the non-descreened edit, so I'll promote the original. Raven4x4x 08:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Loch Lomond in Scotland

Created by Abubakr.h. A stunning view of Loch Lomond which is regarded by many as the most beautiful lake in the world. Appears in the article Loch Lomond.

Promoted Image:View of loch lomond.JPG Raven4x4x 06:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The end of a rainbow
Sharpened

Striking, most of all in scale. Appears in Rainbow.

Its not trivial to photograph a whole rainbow. You typically need a fisheye lens, or a composite panorarma as explained in the article. --
You need a strong wide-angle lens.It can be a fisheye, but since the needed angle of 84° is far from 180°, it doesn't have to. --Ikar.us 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solipsist 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:WhereRainbowRises.jpg Raven4x4x 06:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:Sunshine village.jpg
Sunshine Village ski area at dawn. Alberta, Canada

Shows the natural beauty of the area.

Comment. Can not see anything but the image place holder, image is not displayed.--Dakota ~ ε 06:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worked for me just then. enochlau (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, when I said "doesn't work for me", I meant that in the sense of "I don't like it". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to Dakota's comment. enochlau (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A view of Mission San Juan Capistrano in April, 2005. At left is the façade of the first adobe church with its added espadaña. Behind the campanario, or "bell wall" is the Mission's "Sacred Garden." The Mission has earned a reputation as the "Loveliest of the Franciscan Ruins."

Not promoted ; withdrawn by nominator.--Lordkinbote 06:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heliotaurus ruficollis (Coleoptera, Alleculidae). Barrio de Peñagrande, Madrid.

Beetles, although making up 80% of all animal species, are much underfeatured on wikipedia. This is a deft shot of a beetle feeding on and pollinating a flower - very child friendly and educational: many species other than bees pollinate plants! The flower featured is a compound flower (inflorescence); specifically, the inflorescence is a capitulum, and the plant a member of the Asteraceae (old name Compositae) - I'm sure someone here can identify the species, too! So lots of interesting things can be said about the picture.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Types of carbon nanotubes. Vote on this one, please.
Chart on Carbon Nanotube Naming Scheme.
3D model of the view inside a carbon nanotube

A model I created for the carbon nanotube article. I think it illustrates the structure of nanotubes quite well. Update: I made another image according to Dschwen's comments, please vote on the newer one.

  • Support and self-nominate. Mstroeck 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too thrilled. Whats the encyclopedic value? What do the colors mean? Are atomic radii physically motivated? The interesting thing about carbon nanotubes is the roll-up vector and how it influences the properties. It is missing in the image caption. What type of NT are we looking at? --Dschwen 17:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, I was a bit quick in nominating this... A created a new picture that probably has more encyclpedic value. As an alternative to the new one, one could also crop it to just the two tubes. What do you think? Regarding coloring and atom size: Physical accuracy sometimes has to take the back seat. If you make nanotubes in one color and with bigger atoms, you can't see the structure at all. "Rainbow" like coloring is more or less the only way to really make the structure easy to understand, IMO. Mstroeck 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New picture is nice, the only problem I have now is the text. It is not readable in thumbnail size, and not language neutral. Is there any way you can relayout the pic, keeping all three illustrations but moving the text to the caption? --Dschwen 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strike the language comment, I was on commons with my mind :-) --Dschwen 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the new one, but could you add it to the article and you might want to get rid of the text (replace it with a zig-zag one?) and put the text in the article caption and on the Image page. Did that make any sense? BrokenSegue 20:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to have a zig-zag one too, but unfortunately I have been unable to find the data (in any format, pdbh ,ib, xyz, whatever) of a zig-zag one and frankly don't have the energy and knowledge to build one from the ground up myself. I'll keep searching...
    • Nevermind, I just found the data I needed. I also added small line-drawing schematics to make the structure more obvious. I also added it to the article. Mstroeck 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the new edit. One little tweak would make it even better: The legend under zig-zag is almost touching the armchair version. A little more space, if you please... (Also, isn't it common practise to have the nearer parts red, the parts further away blue, to give a more intuitive feeling of depth? Just curious...) --Janke | Talk 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I shuffled things around a bit, everything is more evenly spaced now. About the coloring: To be honest, I really don't know what's customary, I have close to no experience with modeling molecules... I cannot really remember why I put the blue end first :-) Mstroeck 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because I think it illustrates the topic well and has pretty colours :-) Wikizwerg 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Impressive looking, informative, clear. Layout could be played around with more, but as long as it's of comparable quality, I'll support it.--ragesoss 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support does an excelent job at showing what a carbon nanotube looks like, and it looks nice.--Lewk_of_Serthic 02:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support... but reluctantly. I wish this could show, or at least have a caption about how they all have to be benzene and sp2 hybridized. Right now it just seems to be a lot of cyclohexanes, which would be impossible because of the curvature. - JPM | 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any ideas on how I might work that in? I don't want to obscure the very basic information what nanotubes are all about by adding stuff that 98% of readers won't even attempt to understand. An unobstrusive, clear way would be nice, though. Mstroeck 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's a way to show it graphically without ruining the picture, and explaining it thoroughly would be a bad idea as you said, but it might be important to note somewhere (it can be a very small note) that they are actually benzene and not cyclohexane, for encyclopedic value. - JPM | 06:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.Looks nicePschemp | Talk 07:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yes yes yes!--Deglr6328 07:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This has become an excellent illustration now. --Dschwen 07:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( + ) Support --Fir0002 07:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It illustrates the article well.--Ali K 11:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide a reference for the image? That'd be great. Support even if you don't. BrokenSegue 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Definitely. enochlau (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I think, white background would be more elegant Eteru 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • While most of the text labels are nicely antialiased, those in the diagram in the top left look strange when viewed full-size. It looks either like an artifact of interpolated scaling or the application of a filter (perhaps a blur) post text rendering. It would be nice if this could be fixed.
      • Unfortunately, I don't have the time to fix this right now. I just took a picture from the article, inverted it, scaled it up and put it in there. I'd have to redo that part of the drawing... Please feel free to go ahead and do it yourself, though, if you can. I'd really appreciate it. At least, it's only apparent if you look at it at full resolution, which is way beyond what fits on 99% of screens out there.
    • The spelling of "zigzag" isn't consistent - in the topright diagram it's spelled "zig-zag" with a hyphen, in the top left without one.
      • Damn, I was hoping I could still slip that change in without anybody noticing :-) I have the original of the picture on a different PC, but will correct that before voting ends.
    • The use of text labels in a diagram such as this is unavoidable, but that still leaves problems changing it for use in other languages. I'm assuming uploading a source document (like an SVG) isn't possible? I'll support if you upload an alternate version to commons (linked from the image page of the current image) with all the text labels (including the math labels in the top left diagram) removed, to allow easier translation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's true. I will upload an uncaptioned version to Commons. Unfortunately, the original is a rather sloppy Photoshop composition, not an SVG, so I can't upload it. However, I specifically didn't use any fancy backgrounds or gradients because you can just take the eraser or a black pen-tool and get rid of the captions in less than a minute. Not ideal, but since we can't upload .PSDs... Mstroeck 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Wikimol 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't like the black background; it should be white instead. And even if you like the black, why is there a transparent bar on the left side? Finally, the image is not at the Commons, so it is less useful to other Wikimedia projects. dbenbenn | talk 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png Raven4x4x 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Animation of an accelerating particle travelling along its worldline. The dots on the line are spaced at regular proper time intervals. The diagonal lines show the particle's light cone at that time. The other dots are random events.

This animation by User:Cyp is just an amazing addition to special relativity, where it has a much more complete caption. It illustrates very well how the proper time of an accelerating observer changes with velocity. Several people have praised this image on Talk:Special relativity so I definitely feel it fits the useful to the article criterion.

Promoted Image:Lorentz transform of world line.gif Raven4x4x 05:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Storm.ogv

Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral at dusk
File:Small-Liverpool Metro rect.jpg
Rectified perspective - note, this is only a small example - see Janke's comment.
Somewhat reduced grain by using Rawshooter rather than Photoshop CS2 to "develop" the RAW files -- see comment
Think this is the best version :) Fairly low grain, corrected perspective in PTGui. Please vote on this image.
brian0918's attempt to give the image more 'life'

I'm not religious in the slightest, but I think this picture is quite pretty. The architecture is fairly unusual, particularly for a cathedral, and at night the building is well lit-up. It's about five minutes walk from where I live.

  • Self-nom and support. - chowells 22:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I really like this picture and think the lighting is great. Sotakeit 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's way too grainy. - JPM | 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Didn't think anyone would want to edit it down in size; bigger is better seems to be a crux around here. I support an edited version that makes it less grainy. - JPM | 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair comment, it is a bit grainy. Thankfully the grain seems to be caused solely by Photoshop CS2 -- its RAW converter does not seem to have done a very good job of "developing" the RAW .cr2 files into TIFFs. I tried using RawShooter Premium instead and the grain appears to be MUCH reduced/not present. I will upload the reduced grain version in a moment. chowells 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lighting is interesting. I'd read the article. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Like Sotakeit, I really like the lighting, my only problem with it, is the building in the background is tilted. It is not very prominent though. --Lewk_of_Serthic 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Interesting. Alr 00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good illustration of the building. The sky helped as well. enochlau (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great composition. Be fair, sure it's grainy... at 5666x3096 pixels... if its really a problem, reduce it by HALF and it's STILL big. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fantastic. Dylan 05:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (4th version). Nice exposure. So what, if it's grainy at 17 megapixels? Also, it's entirely possible to rectify the slanted perspective (and the foreshortening of the tower caused by tilting the camera using a wide-angle lens), see the example. Note: The example is only 800 px wide. If consensus favors rectifying, I volunteer to do it on the large image, too. --Janke | Talk 07:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Hopefully the grain issues are resolved with the new version I have just added. As for perspective correction, good point. I have tried doing this by specifying vertical lines in PTGui when stitching the image together but I seem not to be very successful. For creating the image I went RAW->uncompressed TIFF, so ideally the perspective correction should be done on this TIFF rather than the JPEG. chowells 14:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually you probably shouldn't do any perspective control on the TIFFs as it will need to be done perfectly or you will have alignment issues when you try to stitch it ;) Better to let PTGui do it. When aligning it as the final step before rendering, you can use the 'set center point' option (on the bottom of the panorama editor window, near the left corner). You can do basic perspective control with that. I recommend you set the center point somewhat near the bottom, this should give you a more natural looking image. You may find that that results in it being slightly warped at the top but that is unfortunately what happens with perspective controls. ;) See an example here[3] (this is the exterior of the Notre Dame basilica in Montreal, the one I created the mosaic of the interior of). This pic is a pretty good example of how not to make a panorama :). It was just too wide an angle to try to stich and attempt to keep linear, but there was no other way to do it unfortunately, as there are too many things in the way if you attempt to photograph it from further back. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah sorry, I was referring to doing the perspective correction on my final master TIFF, rather than the 1st JPEG, which was created from the TIFF. I actually love that photo of Note Dame outside, lovely colours. Setting the centre point near the bottom seemed to be essential, since PTGui otherwise ignored my vertical control lines, not quite sure why. Taking this photo took many attempts -- I originally tried using my 50mm f/1.8 but that was way too narrow and taking enough photos to include the sky was impossible :) I was slightly worried about barrel distortion at the short end of the 17-85 so I zoomed it in slightly, so I think that finally got it ok. chowells 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right to worry about zooming in too far. Up to a point, the more detail, the better, but when you're making a panorama with a lot of sky in it, if you don't include a substantial amount of foreground information, its impossible to accurately stitch the sky with the sky, since the only visible things are clouds that move between shots. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. In fact, you can easily do the perspective correction yourself, since you have Photoshop. Do a "select all", choose the "distort" command, and pull the top corner handles horizontally outward. This is better than the "perspective" command, which tends to distort the height/width ratio. When you're satisfied, you can delete all the other examples and leave just your edit... --Janke | Talk 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Slightly unencyclopedic. Why not a daytime shot?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafiroblue05 (talkcontribs) 06:58, 9 February 2006

    • Comment A daytime shot would probably not be as interesting. The artful lighting of architecture often brings out features not seen in daylight. --Janke | Talk 09:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh what? What about it being at dusk makes it unencyclopaedic? The building doesn't just disappear at night time y'know. I see no reason why how it looks at night should not be documented, in fact, in my opinion the building looks it best at night whilst illuminated. It is afterall the only time to enjoy the stained glass window at its best due to the fact that it's illuminiated from inside, and as you can see from the other photos on Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral during the day it looks fairly dull, grey and un-colourful. I'd be greatful if you could explain your "unencylopaedic" reasoning. chowells 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the point of the photo is to illustrate the stained glass, do so from the inside. We can barely see any of the stained glass here. (Which, of course, you have already done, though people are opposing it.) If the point of the photo is to illustrate the building, however, do so during the day. Sure, we could document what it looks like at night, but we could also document what it looks like at 7:30 am on the winter solstice as opposed to 7:31 am on the day after the winter solstice. In short, what's the point? There are already more than enough images on the page. Basically, it seems to me you just wanted to take a picture of some pretty blue clouds. Fair enough. But as a sunset picture, this one is distinctly uninteresting. Other remarks - it's not sharp, it's fairly grainy, and it has artifacts. Zafiroblue05 08:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point of the picture is to illustrate what the cathedral looks like at night. The logic in the rest of your argument makes no sense whatsoever. chowells 10:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Last time I checked, the best way to answer an argument is not by calling it stupid. Whenever I do that, at least, it just makes me look the same. And I don't know why I'm feeding you, but my point is that there's no reason to illustrate what the cathedral looks like at night - we already see what it looks like during the day. Should we set up a 24 hour live webcam on the cathedral - hell, on every location mentioned on Wikipedia - so we can see what it looks at all times? That's the logical extension of showing this picture. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of images. Finally, I don't understand why you need to attack a two-bit critiquer like myself. Your photo is passing through FPC with flying colors, and nothing I say will change that. I would just like to speak my mind: I don't think it's a particularly striking, interesting, or even technically accomplished photo. That, of course, is not a personal judgement, and shouldn't be taken as one. Why are you attacking me? Zafiroblue05 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did not use the word stupid or any of its various synonyms so I do not understand how you read that meaning. I'm sorry that you consider me finding your argument to be illogical a personal attack, but there is not a great deal I can do about that. I, and seemingly quite a few people (considering there are books on the subject [4]) find the art of night and low light photography to be fascinating and extremely interesting and as I think I have already said, I think the cathedral looks significantly nicer at night time than during day. I note that you didn't oppose User:Diliff's photo of Tower Bridge on the grounds that it should not be FPC because it was taken at night. Is there something, that I am missing, which makes makes your argument of "If the point of the photo is to illustrate the building, however, do so during the day" apply just to this image, but not Diliff's? chowells 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If "your argument makes no sense whatsoever" without explaining why doesn't mean "your argument is stupid," then I apologize. It seemed pretty harsh to me. As to Diliff's Tower Bridge photo, I didn't support it, either; it has other problems. Similarly, your photo has other problems: grain and artifacts, to name two. If one problem is enough to make me oppose it, I don't bother listing all the faults I find in it. As a side note, there are pictures that can be better at night - see Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg, also by Diliff. I wasn't present when originally it was listed here (and you were, I note), but I would unequivocably support it - it is jaw-dropping. It has a natural grandeur to it - it is a work of art. Not to compare your photo to such high company, but, well, it doesn't compare. The dusk setting for the cathedral adds very little to it. The architecture is interesting, but in this photo - where is the grandeur? Where is the art? I don't see it. Again, of course, it doesn't matter - only one other person agrees with me. The strong consensus favors your photo - congratulations. :) Zafiroblue05 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, calling your argument stupid was never my intention in the slightest. If someone doesn't like the image that's fine by me since we are all different, but I couldn't get my head around your argument at all. Thanks for the explanation, I understand your position better now. Yes, I could have explained why I thought your argument made no sense, though you also didn't explain why you felt it was unencyclopaedic in the first place ;) cheers. 84.9.223.82 01:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (though I'd really prefer to look at a picture of Liverpool Anglican cathedral than Frederick Gibberd's wigwam). David | Talk 10:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any Kessa Ligerro 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral at dusk (reduced grain), corrected perspective.jpg. The fourth version seems the most popular. Raven4x4x 06:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dawn at Swifts Creek, Victoria

Shows dawn quite well - the sun inching it's way up, a bit of morning mist not yet burnt off, all in the beautiful setting of rural Australia.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I happened to be re-reading the article I wrote ages ago about the Kreutz Sungrazers, some of the most spectacular comets in history, and I was struck by how nice I thought my family tree diagram looked and how clearly it shows how many of the brightest comets of the last two centuries came to exist. So, I thought I'd nominate the diagram here and see if others agree.


Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Head cliffs, located on the island of Martha's Vineyard.

This image is nominated because of the wonderful elements it portrays, and the beautiful contrast between the water and the land.


Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but the concensus said support...?


Field of Hay bales. "Curves" in field made by baler

My last photos of hay failed in its nomination, perhaps this one is better.

Because I was using a circular polariser and when I moved the camera panning, the polarizing effect of the sky was diminished --Fir0002 07:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats usually a no-no with wide angle lenses or panoramas. Probably shouldn't have been used in this case. It doesn't look good and takes away somewhat from the realism of the scene. A polariser CAN help to make a scene more balanced (to avoid a washed out sky) but only when it is even across the scene. Just my two cents. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Tecnically well stitched, great resolution, but - hey, it doesn't show the hay too well. Furthermore, I suspect the "curves" are more than somewhat exaggerated by the panoramic technique... My favorite pic on the hay page is the first: Bales_of_hay.jpg. If that one was of better quality, I might support a nomination of it. --Janke | Talk 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Cute, but I'm not entirely sure that it is the best picture to illustrate hay. enochlau (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it does, because it shows the bales, but more importantly it shows the recently mowed field and the edge of the field without mowing (thus showing what hay looks prior to being rolled into the bale) --Fir0002 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't believe that this picture is best for illustrating "hay", per se, but I do think that it is a wonderful panorama and it deserves to be acknowledged, maybe just not as the icon for hay.Jared 13:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't 'deserve to be acknowledged'. According to the FP-Criteria, a featured picture must be 'Useful: Adds value to an article and helps complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.' I don't see how this picture illustrates hay so particularly well. I agree it's a very nice photograph, but other criteria than technical quality and motive have to be considered when making something a featured picture. Mstroeck 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral. I guess that's true. I didn't realize that at the time. It is still a nice picture, though—even though it isn't the best—so I hereby change my vote. —Jared 14:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above --Fir0002 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how those factors would affect the representation of "hay". They seem pretty much irrelevant to that. The strange "tilt" in the horizon is what's known as hills. --Fir0002 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't even have to affect the representation of hay at all. Featured pictures should be 'pleasing to the eye' and to me the entire picture is a turn-off. I'll change my vote to neutral if you at least fix the sky, but as it stands it's just a long way from your other pictures and most other FPs. BTW, I realize that it's a hill, but it still doesn't look good at all. It looks like lens distortion, especially in combination with the sky. Mstroeck 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever have four distinct articles on those topics, I hope somebody will be bold enough to merge them ;-) It's a nice picture technically, but the GIF-animation on baler for example is way more relevant than this.Mstroeck 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Distortion in Panoramic photography.
  • Question for Fir, re. the caption of this photo: "Curves" in field made by baler - is that really so? To me, they look just like the curves you get with panoramic techniques (both rotary lens cameras, as well as stitching) - see this image. The horizon also bends typically. Is this hayfield on a hill? Please clarify if the field was actually as curved as seen in your panorama, or if the stitching has exaggerated the curving & hill. This is an encyclopedia, we should be very precise... --Janke | Talk 08:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The curves were originally there due to the fact that it is a hill, and thus the contours cause the cutting to be down in a curved fashion, this probably was enhanced by the stitching, but it is not unrealistic. --Fir0002 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rödberget fort, seen from the north. The moat and the armored turrets are clearly visible, as well as the magnificent view one has from the fort.
File:Rodberget38edit.jpg
Reduced size edit (1524 px), sharper, less grain.

A beautiful picture on how a modern (20th century) fort may look, in this case Rödberget Fort, part of Boden Fortress, which is the article it appears in. The scenery around the fort itself adds to the image in a great way.

Comment. The graininess is only seen at maximum zoom, so how about sizing down the image? Is that a way to go? The current article is being completely rewritten and expanded here, while not nearly complete, it might give you a hint at what the photo is supposed to show, that is, not only how the forts look, but also how they were placed in the terrain, with a great line of sight. And that leads to why the landscape is still there. -- Elisson Talk 19:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... It looks terrible at full size, looks bad at thumbnail and the size it is in the article. But go here, and all of a sudden one makes out the trees radiating outwards, and the fort acquires a sort of grandeur, like it stands up on its bluff and looks down imperiously on its kingdom. Where is this picture taken from? I assume it's from a hill or mountain, but it looks like it's from a helicopter or something. I'm going to weak oppose, however. The telephone wires at the bottom are annoying me the more and more I look at it. Zafiroblue05 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been at the location (did my military service in Boden, spending a lot of time on the firing range on the far left ;) ), so I know how the terrain looks, and the fort is at the absolute peak of the mountain, so the picture must have been taken from a helicopter (or plane, but I doubt that). -- Elisson Talk 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the reduced-size image I just uploaded. The sharpness is vastly improved, and the graininess is substantially reduced in the edit. An intriguing shape for a fort! And those telephone lines do belong there (G.I. phone home ;-)... --Janke | Talk 09:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big Oops! Looked at the page given as a source for the image. It has a copyright notice, Copyright © FÄSTNINGSGUIDEN 2001-2005. This means this picture is ineligible for FP, and even for the entire Wilkipedia! You stated GFDL upon upload, but did you take this picture? Please clarify. --Janke | Talk 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have noticed, this specific image cannot be found at Rodbergsfortet.com (Fästningsguiden). I emailed them to see if they had a larger version of a picture they showed on the site, and I asked if I could use it under a free license, they answered by sending me this wonderful picture and the only demand for me to use it freely was that the source of the picture was stated. Their email in Swedish for those who understand it:
Hej
Bifogar en bild som du kan använda under en förutsättning samt ett önskemål.
1. Ange att bilden har Fotograf/källa: Fästningsguiden Boden
2. Vore kul att se vad du skriver när bilden används meila detta till: xxx@xxx.xxx

Rough translation: Hi, attaching a picture you can use under one condition and one wish: 1. mention that the picture has photographer/source: Fästningsguiden Boden, 2. would be fun to see what you write when the picture is used, mail it to: xxx@xxx.xxx Hope this clears a few things up. -- Elisson Talk 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, that clarifies it. I'd suggest you upload this to Commons instead, and use the CC-BY-SA license. You can add a line with the source there, that has to be included wherever the image is used. I'm not quite sure GDFL can specify that - if someone else can clarify that, please? If the pic is left in the Wikipedia space, please copy that permission, and the translation to the image page. BTW: I added this picture to the fortification article, too!--Janke | Talk 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do that. Should I upload the full-size image or the reduced one? While the full size is a bit grainy, isn't it better to have it available instead of a smaller modified version? Thanks for the advice (and the support vote!). -- Elisson Talk 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is good enough to be used for the article, but there is too much landscape and graininess to be a featured picture. - Pureblade | Θ 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Great pic for the article/encylopedia and full kudos to you for asking and obtaining permission like that, but I find the composition a bit unexciting for FP. And it doesn't illustrate the fact that the fortress is made up of several of these, not one. ~ VeledanTalk 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a bit hard to get all five forts to fit in one picture. ;) -- Elisson Talk 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The copyright is somewhat iffy. The email exchange quoted above doesn't say anything about the GFDL, or about commercial reuse and modification. The email reply only says that we can use the picture, as long as we credit them. That sounds a lot like {{permission}}, which would make it a CSD. dbenbenn | talk 08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I asked for a free license picture and they sent me this one, under the condition that the source be mentioned. I take that as the picture not being a "copyright with permission" picture. Most people don't know about "licenses" more than copyrighted and not copyrighted, and they probably belong to that group, so I myself added a license (GFDL) that I knew about. CC-BY-SA might be better though, as Janke mentioned further up. -- Elisson Talk 19:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Eight allotropes of carbon:a) Diamond, b) Graphite, c) Lonsdaleite, d) Buckminsterfullerene (C70), e) C540, f) Fullerene (C70), g) Amorphous carbon, h) single-walled carbon nanotube
Old version.

With some of the data I gathered when I made the carbon nanotube image I nominated below, I created an overview of the variety of molecular structures that can be built out of carbon. It's currently used in the carbon and Allotropes of carbon articles and is quite useful there. UPDATE: I created a new image according to suggestions.

Thank you for the feedback! I wanted to upload this to Commons, so I left out English language captions for now... What do other people think? Mstroeck 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put text in the image, makes it harder to reuse in other wikipedias. But you might label with numbers which you can refer to in the caption. --Dschwen 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added labels and a more detailed caption. Mstroeck 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the diamond phase would profit from a reduction of atom count, magnification and a slight change of angle. Also you have three fullerenes in the picture which I think overrepresents them. Have you thought about Lonsdaleite and amorphous carbon? --Dschwen 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added them. I kept the fullerenes though, I really like them :-) Mstroeck 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it, Janke. I'll upload in a day or two. Mstroeck 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd rather not use colors just for the sake of being colorful. If you have any ideas how we could make good use of colors, tell me. I think of this as a collaborative process ;-) Mstroeck 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but the pic now is way too grey for me. And colors could do two things (1) make it more colorful so I can say it is pretty and (2) make the structure more clear. Now g for example is a complete mess - a hairy grey spot without form (I understand it might be the whole purpose). Also it takes some time to figure out a. Renata 03:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a) is messy, I'm working on that. g) is indeed meant to be 'without a clearly defined shape or form', which is after all the dictionary definition of 'amorphous'. I'll try to upload a picture with some color, just for comparison. Mstroeck 03:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you show us where having uploaded the picture to commons is mentioned as a voting criteria for en:WP:FPC ? --Dschwen 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What is a featured picture lists a few general criteria, among them that an image should be useful. Images uploaded here can only be used here; images at the Commons are more useful in that they can be used by any Wikimedia project. dbenbenn | talk 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's quite a stretch! After all this is en.wp and the image is useful here. And besides it is not property of the image itself, if you want to use it on any other wikipedia you are free to upload it to commons yourself. Who stops you? It's a wiki after all ;-) --Dschwen 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the criteria for FPs before voting. I have no problem with opposing votes on grounds of picture quality, but this is just weird. Your vote is invalid anyway, but rest assured that I will upload it to Commons after I've made the changes that other users have suggested. Mstroeck 12:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eight_Allotropes_of_Carbon.png Raven4x4x 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dirt on an old baking plate

Used in the article Dirt.

Burnt-in grease is dirt since it is a pollutant from outside the object. Roger McLassus 09:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A busy Hong Kong Street
File:BUSY.JPG
The 2nd uploaded image
Overhead shot

Shows how dense a steet can be with many people and adverts. Apears in the Crowd article.

Comment after two people have suggested that the people close make the photo blury, I have uploaded a photo facing the otherway on the street using a smaller camera.
Out of the three options, I prefer the first, because it has the densest crowd. Also love the Chinese banners - something different! - Samsara contrib talk 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone support this image and/or think I should replace the first image on the crowd page? --HamedogTalk|@ 10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have uploaded a photo on the same street taken over head. Again there are people in the foreground, but this can be edited out if need be.--HamedogTalk|@ 12:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately the people in the foreground are still out of focus. A smaller aperture (larger f number) would be preferable if you can still keep the shutter speeds up to an acceptable level. chowells 19:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could, but I was on holiday there --HamedogTalk|@ 09:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Petty apartheid": sign on Durban beach in English, Afrikaans and Zulu

This picture is very clear and speaks by itself. The composition is great. This image was taken in 1989 and donated by [|John Mullen]. It appears in the article "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" and shows one of the worst atrocities the human being can ever do... (and not many years ago!)

"Petty apartheid was the general term for the more apparently trivial aspects of apartheid. It was usually held to mean those measures short of directly affecting employment, residence or voting rights" (Definition taken from the Petty apartheid article).

Support The more I think of this, the technical limitations seem less ans less important. My first vote was explained above, but I do have the right to change it... so, support, on grounds of historical significance. --Janke | Talk 09:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although it is an extremely important picture and I'm very glad we have it. Quality isn't up to FP standard, unfortunately... Mstroeck 17:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget it, I'll support anyway.Mstroeck 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We need a mechanism for singling out (on the front page or wherever) historically relevant but low quality pictures like this one -- without making them run the gauntlet here. The pictures that now typically hit the front page are pretty, but let's face it: Everybody already knows what a sunset or some critter looks like...Mstroeck 17:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what featured articles are for. I'd like to see this on the front page, too, but as the lead picture to the article. On its own, especially as a thumbnail, it's just a sign in a small image with a tilted horizon. --Janke | Talk 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Important to have. Thankfully, not the most artsy of photos, which is its strong point. It's not huge, but it's plenty big enough. Zafiroblue05 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Agree with Zafiroblue05; perhaps put it in White supremacy as there are no images on this article? KILO-LIMA 13:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Featured article or no, this image is so chock full of significance that it ought to be a FP. The kid in the background is the kicker.--ragesoss 18:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, powerful image, which more than overcomes technical limitations. Put it on the Main Page soon. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, Faked IMO, or at least heavely enhanced. Ericd 19:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think that? chowells 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no indication of manipulation. What I see are compression artifacts, and the same pincushion distortion in the sign edges as in the horizon (I suspect this was shot with a cheap tele-zoom lens, which often has this type of distortion). The distortion in both background and sign is a clear indication to me that the image is not faked. --Janke | Talk 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speaking of which, perhaps we should try to get rid of the distortion? Mstroeck 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not unless we can get a hi-res version. Modifying this will worsen the artifacts. --Janke | Talk 06:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's something wrong in the deep of field. The panel is sharp while everything else is out of focus. Ericd 10:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Err, that's a photographic technique called bokeh which is caused by a large aperture and shallow depth of field. I really can't see how you could contrive that it has been manipulated. chowells 12:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks I know it FYI I started the article Bokeh. What is wrong is that the panel is sharp while the piece of wood that hold the panel is unsharp. One inch doesnt create such a difference in sharpness. I took some time to understand what kind of manipulation can lead to such a result. Let's be clear that I don't think yet the photo was faked. However, I am somewhat sensitive to some effects that don't look as the normal result of a "straight" photographic process. Here is probably how this pic was done. This was shot at a focal length around 300mm for a 135 camera. The lens was not of the best one, maybe cheap zoom or a 135mm with a 2x teleconverter. The film used was probably not very fast (100 ISO or less). As a result of the poor performance of the optics and maybe a bit of motion blur the next was not that sharp thus it was sharpnened in Photoshop or PSP or any other software, added to heavy jpeg compression that create a lot of artefacts this doesn't look natural to me. To sum up the photo looks "wrong" to me but is not faked IMO. Certainly not of FP quality in this version. Ericd 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks for the explanation. You did specifically use the word "faked" in your initial oppose however which to me suggests you think some malicious trickery is going on. I can understand your technical critiscism of the image, it isn't the greatest, but I don't believe the FPC criteria state that an image must be 100% technically perfect. I can understand your opposition though. I believe the historical significance far outweigh the technical problems. chowells
  • Oppose, the image isn't at the Commons. (Please strike this vote if / when the picture gets uploaded in the right place.) dbenbenn | talk 08:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop doing this. Read the criteria for Wikipedia FPs before you vote. If you think that pictures should be uploaded to Commons before we can feature them, propose it on some talk page, but not here. Mstroeck 12:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote struck out, see below. Raven4x4x 03:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg. I have uploaded the image to Commons here and so have struck out dbenbenn's vote per his request. Raven4x4x 03:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Albury Railway Station

This picture does illustrate the elments of the Italianate style of architecture clearly. As per the article: Key visual components of this style include: low-pitched or flat roof; large eave brackets under the roof; dramatic cornice structures; windows with one or two panes and heavy surrounds; tall, arched windows with hoods or "eyebrows"; paired windows, arched and curved windows; tall first floor windows; square or rectangular towers; cast-iron railings and facades; two or three stories (rarely one story) ...

As a gallery sized image, it shows clearly in Australian_architectural_styles#Victorian_Period_c._1840_-_c._1890 and typifies Australian architecture of the time. It also illustrates clearly a notable landmark of the city of Albury, New South Wales.

It was really when reviewing the Australian architectural styles page, it struck me how clear it was amongst a sea of gallery pictures. I thought it would be informative for me to get some comments about it from others - in part to help me to learn how to take better pictures. This is my first nomination for Featured picture.--A Y Arktos 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Metal spiral slinky

Used in the article Spiral Slinky.

Judging it as a Slinky, my vote still stands, on the grounds that it doesn't 'best illustrate' the subject. I agree with Veledan below - capture it in motion. Zaui 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article slinky contains the sentence "The shape is a simple spiral". Is this true or not? If not, it should be corrected. Roger McLassus 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, I'll correct it. These shapes are often referred to as spirals in colloquial English of course, but I agree an encyclopedia should use precise terminology. ~ VeledanTalk 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who killed it??? My, you are scrutinizing! ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


View from 3270m on Mt. Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Picture taken at sunrise from the Laban Rata hostel at 3272m on Mt. Kinabalu, the highest mountain in South East Asia.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Snow scene at Shipka Pass, Stara Planina, Bulgaria

A magnificent snow scene deep in the mountains of Bulgaria. Photo is by Psy guy and was taken this winter during his trip to the Balkans. Used in the Shipka Pass article, but might deserve a place in the Winter article as well, since it presents the season the clearest way possible. It's even better than the featured picture we have of winter in my opinion. Take a look at the full image, as the thumbnail seems to hide some of its beauty.

Promoted Image:Snow Scene at Shipka Pass 1.JPG Raven4x4x 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


West Mitten Butte Monument Valley.

I'll admit I've got a soft spot for the Monument valley article, being one of the first articles I wrote in order to provide a home for Image:MonumentValley 640px.jpg from PDphoto. More recently, we got this image from German user Huebi, which is simply excellent. I'd have been happier if it had captured both butes, but then the composition may not have worked.

Promoted Image:Monument Valley 2.jpg Raven4x4x 04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Liverpool Anglican Cathedral's west window. The uppermost window is the Bedicite window.
Perspective corrected and cropped.

One of the stained glass windows in Liverpool Cathedral. It's an extremely colourful window and I hope my photo has done justice to it. I especially like the coloured light on the left hand wall.

  • reduce noise in the dark regions (i.e. the chroma noise in the stonework)
  • correct perspective so that the windows are square and vertical
  • possibly adjust levels and crop?

If this were done, I would consider supporting. Also, does it need to be 10mb? Is it really ISO 200? –Joke 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure exactly how to reduce the noise. It's already had quite a lot of perspective correction done, though I like the way it is now -- I get the feeling I'm standing at the bottom of a massive window. If the consensus is that more perspective correction should be done that is possible. It's already been cropped, though I didn't crop it more tightly due to wanting to include the coloured light on the walls on the left. Cropping more tightly is of course possible. Adjusting levels needs more research since I don't know how to do that :) I tried smaller versions in photoshop but I felt that the extra quality was worth it. Also I don't really see what not -- Mediawiki handles smaller versions automatically and those that want the highest quality possible can have it. It was ISO 200. What makes you doubt that? chowells
  • Support I like the PC'ed/cropped #2 better, but I suppose it is a matter of opinion. I am surprised it is ISO 200, because the colors in the stonework are so blotchy in the upper right hand corner, but I guess it is quite dark in that region. Maybe it is something that came out in levels. Is there some way to reduce the chrominance noise there? I'm not really familiar with noise reduction tools. –Joke 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very nice pic. But not currently illusrating any article. ~ VeledanTalk 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original although I'd be happier seeing it making a more convincing contribution in another article. It's a pity Stained glass is such a gallery already. Super pic though. I disagree with Joke137. Given the resolution I find the small amount of noise perfectly acceptable. Don't play with the levels unless you think the pic truly misrepresents the scene. I'm guessing the stonework ought to be as dark as it looks and anyway the shadow detail looks just fine on my (calibrated) monitor. Using levels to lift the shadow falsely will not make the image look better ~ VeledanTalk 20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstood me. I was implying that the stonework may have been darker in the photo as it came out of the camera, and has been lightened so that it is possible to make out some detail. I agree that it is fine as it is, though. –Joke 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The camera was outputting RAW so it's exactly as the CCD (or is it a CMOS sensor?) saw it -- Rawshooter premium was then used to convert to 16 bit TIFFs (I understand RAW is 12bit so converting to 8bit tiff at that stage would lose some info I think...) with white balance temperature of 6100K and tint -10. The tiffs were then stitched together in PTGui. No other processing apart from converting the resulting 16bit tiff to 8bit in Photoshop CS2 and then saving as a JPEG. Cheers. chowells 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the second version would look better in an article. You need to see this image at something close to full resolution to really appreciate it, but as it is the first version looks poor as a thumbnail because a lot of the image is completely dead space, where it is impossible to make out detail or texture in the stonework. I don't know if this is something to take into consideration for featured pictures. Moreover, I think this image is better than any image currently in the stained glass article, and is as good an example as I've ever seen, so probably it ought to replace one of the more mundane images in the "gallery." –Joke 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Nice, although the Liverpool Cathedral article is already very nicely illustrated ;-) Stained glass can be tricky to get the exposure right and this does a good job when examined in full detail. But the overall composition is a little weak, largely because the stained glass itself is less than stellar, compared to say a Chagall [5], a Tiffany [6] or even a William Morris and Co.. Also we should really have a better image description, saying at least which window this is (it looks like the West window) and ideally identifying the subject and the artist. Oh and yes, Liverpool Cathedral is generally very dark and heavy. -- Solipsist 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support preferably original; it looks worse when it's small, but it's better in the close-up. It's not quite fair to compare it to Tiffany, etc.; it's a different style.--ragesoss 05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; upon returning to this image after looking at some other FP's, it's underwhelming.--ragesoss 05:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Detaching drop

Used in the article Drop (liquid). The picture demonstrates the details of a drop's detachment.

  • Nominate (self-nomination) and support Roger McLassus 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't like the stark shadows nor the mottled background. If you can make a better one, with a plain background (lit with a separate flash and/or reflector, to get rid of the shadows), I'll support that. Even better would be to have a series of three or four pictures - hey, why don't you make a GIF animation with, say 8 to 10 frames? I'm sure such an image would be almost unanimously supported... --Janke | Talk 09:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I like mine better :-) , just shot half an hour ago. --Dschwen 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Your background is better, but Roger's pics don't have ugly soap and lime stains on the faucet... ;-) Seriously, would either of you care to make a series of shots into an animated gif? (Not an .ogg, I don't think those will show in-line with the article text, and some people don't even have the right plug-ins...) You'd have to shoot quite a few pics to get a coherent, well spaced, series. That would be interesting, and an excellent addition to Wikipedia. --Janke | Talk 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is easier said than done. Both pictures (I believe) show not the images of the same drop detaching, but entirely different drops (correct me if I'm wrong Roger). To shoot an animation you'd need a camera with a framerate upwards of 100fps. I can ask at our non-linear dynamics lab... --Dschwen 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, you don't have to have a special camera! A repetitive phenomenon like this can be recorded "in motion" with a still camera! It's a bit tricky to get the exact timing for the different frames (yes, different drops, but they all look the same), but it is entirely possible - especially if you shoot a lot of them. I just thought I'd present you with the challenge ;-) --Janke | Talk 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, that's also how they capture 4d CTs of human hearts, but my faucet was dripping not too uniformly. I was thinking of getting a strobe light and pan the camera with the shutter open. Next week earliest. --Dschwen 21:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:MarinaBayAtNight.jpg
Singapore's Marina Bay

A photo taken by Jaron B. of Singapore's beautiful Marina Bay at night. This photo captures the elegant and relaxed atmosphere of the Marina Bay during the evening. The sleek metallic railing of the pedestrian bridge in the foreground is representative of Singapore's modernity and cleanliness. The couple walking along the bridge are far enough to not be a dominant aspect of the picture, however their leisurely pace of walking properly conveys the serene and romantic feel of the area. The raindrops on the railing add to the romantic and elegant atmosphere of the area.

The current article on Marina Bay does not contain an image of the area at night, when it is it's most brilliant.

  • Nominate and support. - Jaronb 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Too much noise Glaurung 07:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have been to Marina Bay, and must say that it is stunning at night. This picture just doesn't convey that though.--Ali K 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not stunning. --Janke | Talk 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I've seen far better night shots on this page. Here at first glance you only see handrails. --Dschwen 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exif suggests you took the photo was at f/2.8. You have no hope in hell of ensuring that everything is going to be in focus at such a narrow DOF (right from the front railings to the buildings in background). I'd get a tripod, stick the camera into aperture priority mode at about f/13 or f/16 or so, look what the camera's metering system suggests is necesscary to properly expose the image, then stick it into manual mode at at that aperture and the suggested shutter speed, and take a few images either side of that shutter speed to ensure that at least one is properly exposed. The image you uploaded looks somewhat under exposed and is very out of focus. There's also a dead pixel right in the middle. Additionally half of the image is obscured by the railing. Possibly taking another photo slightly to the right and stiching together with some panorama software would have solved the last problem. Gotta Opppose, sorry. chowells 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just looked at my old Canon Powershot A40 and it has a manual mode, but no aperture priority mode. If your camera is the same I'd suggest you set the aperture to around f/13 or so and try an exposure of 10 or 15 seconds at ISO 100 or 200. You most definitely need a tripod. chowells 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No licence; noisy; and not a match for our existing similarly-themed FPs. Diliff has spoilt us I'm afraid :-) Have you seen the competition? ~ VeledanTalk 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first Montreal one doesn't seem to have a file history displayed- is that a bug? - 86.138.87.64 21:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Montreal one is from commons. If you click the link to visit the commons version, you will see the file history. The one of the Sydney Harbour Bridge was uploaded to en.wiki directly. I only upload to commons these days. It just makes more sense. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Demonstration in Washington DC against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund

Great composition (I like the "reporter" on the right), very representative of the topic; appears in the article protest and is by User:SchuminWeb.

I did it for you Calderwood 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Stoney Creek Frog, in breeding male colouration
Alternative

I know many people here do not like flash photography, and usually for good reason. The reasons usually being: glare and colour accuracy. This photo, however has very little glare, and the colour is accurate. This is a very beautiful frog, and although common, is rarely seen or heard by most people, as they have no vocal sac, and are nocturnal. ; Appears in Stoney Creek Frog. --liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "harsh" suggests that the photo is overexposed and "unnatural" suggests that the colour accuracy is wrong, both of which are not true. So I just don't understand what you mean. --liquidGhoul 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not striking enough.--ragesoss 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Giant Tree Frog (also known as the White-lipped tree frog)
The reason for that is that a lot of work is going into frog at the moment (AID candidate for several weeks, now the top ranking candidate; "good article" as of last night; probably and hopefully FA before too long). - Samsara contrib talk 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bignoter said that he has a much larger photo, but cannot upload it until 25th of February. I think this candidature will go through before then. If I think it is good enough (I am a little worried about the fuzzy nose), then I will nominate it again. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright guys, a much larger version has been uploaded now; for those voting "No" because of the previously small size, please reconsider.

Not promoted . I'm afraid the larger version came too late, but it can always be re-nominated. Raven4x4x 10:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A plate illustrating the Spumellaria subclass of Radiolarians, from Ernst Haeckel's 1899 Kunstformen der Natur.

Although lacking the color of the Sea Anemone lithograph, I find this similarly captivating. It's currently in Polycystine, and I'm going to work on scanning all the plates of radiolarians from Kunstformen der Natur to create a gallery in Radiolarian as well, so it will be there too. As that article puts it, "German biologist Ernst Haeckel produced exquisite (and perhaps somewhat exaggerated) drawings of radiolaria, helping to popularize these protists among Victorian parlor microscopists", and this is one of the best.

Note: said gallery in radiolarian is now installed.--ragesoss 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually dust, it's abrasions to page. But, yes, some better cleanup would be nice.--ragesoss 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Haeckel Spumellaria.jpg Raven4x4x 10:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tower Bridge at dusk
Tower Bridge at dusk (earlier)

I created this image of Tower Bridge tonight. I think this may set another personal record for high res panoramas. This image was created from around fifty separate 12.8 megapixel images and stiched together with PTGui. I downsampled it substantially as I'm not sure it needs to be any bigger than it currently is (9462x4734)! Shows the Thames at a very low level due (apparently) to low rainfall this winter. It was unfortunate to have the barge in the shot but they are all over the river at the moment and it is basically impossible to avoid. You need to view at 100% to appreciate the level of detail in this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Panoramas normally make me feel jaded. Not this one. –Joke 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't like the car blur. At full resolution it's very impressive, but the overall composition of it when viewed at a normal size just isn't that striking.--ragesoss 05:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is unfortunate that the right bit is chopped off but the rest is so perfect...--Deglr6328 06:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Glaurung 07:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The sharpness at high resolution is magnificent, but apart from this the picture is not outstanding and would hardly get FP status. I think we should stop featuring expensive cameras and software instead of photographic skill and aestetic qualities. Calderwood 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO you're not quite right. After browsing through what imagery is avaliable on the topic on flickr, shutterstock and getty I think Diliff's photo is aestheticaly very good, when beeing 100% illustrative. From the "competition" it seems you can get more impressive "artsy" photo, but in most at the cost of illustrativeness.
    • IMO it's more about invested time and effort than about software. (Though 12.8 megapixel camera and fast computer helps - I envy :-) --Wikimol 00:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Calderwood's comment, but the real problem with this particular image is, as mentioned above, that the right portion is cut off. Oppose. Zafiroblue05 07:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looking at all the pics at Tower Bridge, including the huge gallery, this is visually and technically the best. (PS: Always include an article wikilink in the description. I added one.) --Janke | Talk 08:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, blocky artefacts in sky and right part of bridge cut off. - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Let's call it... innovative cropping! ;) - Samsara contrib talk 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. Though the left tower thingy isn't upright, it's tilted slightly clockwise. IMO it could do with some perspective correction by applying some vertical guides to the towers and other vertical bits in PTGui. chowells 14:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I think it is a perspective problem. I may go back some time and try again with a different angle with some of the feedback from here. I'm still not sure I could easily show both sides of the bridge though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind. Interested in how you took the photos -- was the camera in portrait format and you just shot moving the tripod horizontally? (if you see what I mean) chowells 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I took them in landscape format. I believe it was around 8 rows wide by 6 columns high, with a few extra segments here and there where necessary to make sure the whole scene was well covered. Its difficult to estimate exactly how many frames will be required as you are guestimating the amount of overlap required, plus there is the added complication of having large amounts of sky which made composing and stitching difficult. I had to make sure there were at least corners of the brige in every shot so that they could all be stitched. So I had to move the camera on the tripod across each row horizontally then move it up horizontally about 50-70% of the height of the row and photograph the next row. To give you an idea of the coverage of each frame in the image, see here[7]. This is a reduced-resolution image (halved in size from 13 megapixel) but contains the full frame of view. Diliff | (Talk)
          • Thanks for the excellent explanation. It must have taken you a long time! Very impressed with your technique, particularly that somehow you managed to get the sky matching up.chowells 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Contribs) 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I like the composition. But, dude, are you touring the world just to shoot pics for wikipedia?! Last month it was canada, before australia, now england. --Dschwen 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, didn't they tell you? I'm Wikipedia's official photographer! ;) Actually I'm Australian but I just spent the last 2 and a half months in the US/Canada, and now I'm living in London for the next 18 months. Unless I dig something up out of the archives, they'll be UK-related for the near future. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking forward to it. Just keep away from Liverpoool, that's mine :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chowells (talkcontribs) 16:43, 10 February 2006
  • Oppose - Agree with Calderwood. KILO-LIMA 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Alr 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight support. I am not bothered by the cut. The only flaw I see is the blurry car and the ugly white line through it. Could it be edited away? --Bernard Helmstetter 02:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In this case, I prefer an image under daylight conditions, because the object is simply not illuminated enough to be visually appealing at dusk. However, regarding the comment about expensive cameras: Diliff's work is exceptional not simply because he uses expensive equipment, but because he's an expert at stitching panoramas, because he is very thoughtful about the composition of his photos, and because he understands both his camera and the image editing software he uses very well. We should not feature photos because they were taken with expensive cameras, true, but we should not not feature them for that reason either. This is an excellent panorama, though we already have many photos of the Bridge, and I don't see a compelling enough reason to feature this one.--Eloquence* 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen regarding equipment. Expensive equipment does not make you a better photographer, certainly not. But a dSLR gives you a lot of nice advantages such as the ability to change lenses to something more suitable, much lower sensor noise which is invaluable on long exposures, aperture priority mode which is IMO essential for getting an idea how long an exposure needs to be (unless if you have a handheld meter), generally higher megapixel counts as well as lots of other things. We could have a "FPC for Masochists who use cheap cameras and 5 quid tripods" but I think I'd rather stick here. chowells 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. A very detailed and spectacular image. The only Minor Quibbles that I have are about the right hand side being chopped off, and that I don't like the barge in the foreground, but they're minor issues. enochlau (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. You can even recognize couples on the bridge, and people working in their offices in the back. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There may be a limit to how much this is a good thing - see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Geisha (in that case both people pictured apparently consented to having the picture taken). Another interesting and relevant example is mentioned here. Clearly, this Tower Bridge photo is not the same thing, but if, for example, either person in the geisha photo had not consented to the photo being taken, it probably should not have been featured. Similarly, if a photo with a resolution as high as this one happened to reveal an embarrassing personal detail, it might be a good idea not to feature it a) because the personal detail distracts from the rest of the photo or b) as a matter of simple courtesy and respect for other people's privacy. Basically, I find it a little unnerving that we can see into people's offices (even though the fact that the huge windows are left open and the light is left on means that the office holder is not against us being able to see in). zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --MattWright (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I like it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak ( − ) Oppose Great resolution etc, but as mentioned the side of the bridge is cut and the barge is a distraction. I don't know how to say this without offending, but I can't see how you can take 53 images (and presumably at least 8 on the bottom row) and have the barge only in one part of the image. I mean at 3.2 seconds of exposure, the barge traveling at a reasonable speed the barge should really be in most of the lower part of the image. And if the barge is moving slow, then that will allow you to have enough time to walk to a point where it isn't in the frame. Just a thought --Fir0002 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The barge in the foreground wasn't moving anywhere. :) It was completely stationary (apart from slight drifting due to the currents - It was anchored down semi-permanently). There really was no other angle that I could see that could avoid it. It seems like the majority of opposers are doing so mainly for compositional reasons but I have a slightly lower resolution (still rather high by any standard) version that I took with fewer segments about 10-15 minutes earlier. I wasn't sure which of the two I prefered to submit, but I guess I'll throw it onto the table for anyone who is interested[9]. The lighting is somewhat different as the sky was brighter and SEEMINGLY the incandescent lights were giving off a cooler spectrum of light (more yellow - perhaps they were still warming up) although this could be a white balance issue instead. I post-processed the two separately. For the record, when you are working with such a big panorama, you don't have a lot of time to wait for boats to pass by necessarily. If you wait, particularly around sunset/dusk, you run the risk of there being a big difference between frames (ie the sky gets darker). Same thing during the day with clouds as I'm sure you've had to grapple with at times. If not the clouds themselves, then the shadow they can cast on the landscape which can mess up the transition between segments. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like that you got all of the bridge in, but you originally submitted the clearly superior photo. This earlier-in-the-night photo loses the enchantment of the first submission. I know it's a lot to ask, but if you could get the lighting of the original submission and the composition of [10], I think it'd be brilliant... zafiroblue05 | Talk 10:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice pic and a great achievement. I don't think the cut is compositionally important and anyway getting both ends of the bridge in would mean taking it more side-on and that would be less interesting ~ VeledanTalk 18:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support'. The first one. ed g2stalk 17:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great looking Photo. 66.57.87.50 04:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to vote please register first --Fir0002 www 21:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to vote please register first --Fir0002 www 21:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg, although it was a close thing... Raven4x4x 10:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Explosions

Great picture, included in the explosion article. Downloaded from: [pdphoto.org].

10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added the new nomination date up the top here so the bot doesn't get confused.Raven4x4x 08:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Previously nominated, but never properly closed, so relisting now and

Answered on your talk page. Have fun! Mstroeck 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . This is in fact ready to archive; it isn't in the right section because the bot kept getting confused for some reason. Raven4x4x 10:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:NMtrip-05-042.jpg
Taos Pueblo today
alternate of above (posted here 2/12/06)

This is a photo of Taos Pueblo, right outside Taos, New Mexico. I was surprised that the photos of Taos Pueblo were drawings from many years ago and a close up. None really seemed to reflect the current majesty of the place in its surroundings (and why so many New Agers fell in love with the place). I took this photo on a trip last May, the photo was originally taken in a 3:2 ratio on my beat up Sony Cybershot. (I apologize for the non-descriptive file name, this was one of the first photos I uploaded and someone kindly told me about giving my files descriptive names a little later)

Ha ha ha... yeah, those damn Indians and their dull colors... why didn't they think ahead and consider WP:FP standards before they built their houses out of mud? That comment cracked me up, man; if I didn't think you were serious, I'd give you a humor barnstar. :P Kafziel 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. So this place is always overflowing with tourists? The picture does not reflect that. This is not only another photoshopped picture, this time the manipulation isn't even mentioned in the edit history. Disturbing. And apart from that it doesn't strike me as stunning either. --Dschwen 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the picture was filled with tourists, everyone would oppose on those grounds; that's why this picture is better than most. I've added a comment to the edit history summarizing the change. I've retouched so many photos, including dozens of featured pictures, that I don't understand the complaint about using Photoshop to fix problems with an image. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 17:28
Obviously you don't know about this discussion. I really don't want to repeat this all over again, but presenting digitally altered pictures with elements photoshopped out is not good encyclopedic style IMHO. At major newspapers journalists get fired for that stuff. --Dschwen 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And IMHO, removal of unimportant content in order to improve the appearance of an image is perfectly fine. We are not a newspaper. If you don't like the retouch, then vote based on the original image. I've read through your discussion, and don't believe you've presented much of a case. You confirm repeatedly your position, but do not really try to get others to consider it. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 17:49
Labeling it my discussion doesn't really do it justice... --Dschwen 18:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are you opposing both the original version and the modified version, or just the modified version? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:02
Apart from the manipulation I have other objections. It is a bit on the small side, the clutter in the foreground (hard to tell what it is from the angle) obstructs some buildings and I don't like the perspective. It is hard to make out the 3d structure of the pueblos. So I'll go with oppose all.--Dschwen 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the stuff in the foreground are carports. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:42
LOL :-) I wonder were all the El Caminos are..--Dschwen 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are not carports. they were "original" (for what, I've forgotten --it was 9 months ago). The building doesn't have any electricity or water, but it does have residents (based on volunteers from the Taos Pueblo Native Americans). The mountains in the background are the Sangre de Christos. If I'd known that having a person in less than 1% of the photo would've become an issue, I would've yelled at her to move ;-) ...and I kept telling the sky to be bluer but it didn't want to agree with me, don't even get me started about the earth/adobe. I mean, all they wanted to be was brown :-p Heh, sorry, couldn't help myself there. :-) Bobak 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know they originally served some other purpose, but I seem to recall them being used for carports. At least, I remember a car being parked under one of them. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 20:51
They are drying racks. pschemp | talk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Image appears out of focus and pixelated. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:40
    • Wait... are you the same person as the above comments? Or did you change your mind after digitally altering the photo? Bobak 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was fine with fixing up the photo, but I didn't think it was featured quality. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-12 20:51
  • Well, I can't help the pixelated part of it (I'm not a pro and I don't use film), but I did add an alternative photo above from the same article that shows the important creek in front and does not show anyone (naturally, uneditted). It was uploaded at the same time as the other photo. Bobak 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Know what? Until I noticed this comment,I though that was an altered pictured to make a point, because of the debate at the talk page over removing content from pictures. *headdesk* Circeus 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:Blurcat.jpg
Example of unfocused imagery

I noticed that Focus (optics) did not have an image to show imagery without focus so I uploaded this photo which I think does a good job of adding to the article.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Closeup of Mushroom backlit by Sun.

Didn't see any Mushroom picts, so I am submitting this one. I think it is reasonably clear, and illustrates the lamellae pretty well. This is my first upload to wikipedia, please tell me how it should be improved! This picture does not appear in any article yet (is this a requirement?).

Promoted Image:Backlit mushroom.jpg Raven4x4x 08:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Animated Engine

An excelent animation of an internal combustion engine, which I discovered accidentally while working on improving a different page. I think this is simply awesome. This originated on the commons.

The entire process illistrated here is explained in words in the article Four-stroke cycle. This should make the desccription of the animation easier. TomStar81 19:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, and it is also available as an animation! Image:FourStrokeCycle.mpg --Dschwen 17:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:4-Stroke-Engine.gif: there are exactly twice as many supporters as opposers, which is what I tend to use as my guideline. This was a very close result. Raven4x4x 07:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hi - I am UtzOnBike, the creator of this animation. Thanks to all supporters. But here some explanations: 1. This animation was done for the german wikipedia, where it is part of an explanation in text. 2. Of course, some arrows would help - but I do not like arrows in my animations. 3. This animation was done with Autodesk Inventor, a CAD programm. So it is all 3D, but the graphic is not optimized for animations (-> alising). 3. The compression is definitely not infinite! But in pixels, it looks like. 4. The spark itselfes is blue - but looks different (a thin line). 5. There are pistons in a lot of shapes. Some are flat on top, some are roof-shaped (as shown here), some have other shapes. It depends on valve angle, compression, position of spark plug, ... Thanks to all! UtzOnBike (--85.183.209.19 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]


A climbing party on Alpamayo, in the Peruvian Cordillera Blanca

I think this image has a fascinating composition, especially the way the rough lines at the top contrast with the soft snow layers.

  • Oppose License on the source page says SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS! as well as a number of other unacceptable terms. --Gmaxwell 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a gray area as noted here. I've had the same concern before. I believe that in most cases, if the photographer is contacted directly, they are happy to grant permission. Maybe that should be done in this case? --MattWright (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? I see "Restrictions: There are no usage restrictions for this photo" and "Usage: Royalty free, no restrictions." - JPM | 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is why it is a gray area. What you saw is what the photographer put as the restrictions when the file was uploaded (I believe). However, the site itself has a license which you can see by clicking the View License Agreement link that is directly under the picture itself. --MattWright (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you. The image is on commons, so it should be automatically available for use a featured picture as far as copyright is concerned. I also donotsee that sentencen either at the commons page({{CopyrightedFreeUse}}) not at the original page (On the contrary, I read "Royalty free, no restrictions" and "There are no usage restrictions for this photo.") Circeus 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Click on "View image license" just underneath the image on the source page and you will see that. Possibly the image shouldn't be on commons. 84.9.223.82 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit in capitals that says NO SELLING is the overall license for the website where people can upload and display their photos. The bit that says 'Free usage, no restrictions' is the photographer's own comment he placed when uploading it. This makes the license a bit ambiguous even though it's pretty sure the photographer's intention was to release it free. I've done a bit of digging and the same chap has published excellent photos on about 30 websites, some of which have completely free licences, so if no one has done it in the meantime, I'll mail him when I get home this evening and verify (1) we can have the photo and (2) which license he'd prefer ~ VeledanTalk 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. You may ignore license problems discussed above. The stock.xchng debate has been had a dealt with (see here). The user explicitly states the image is restriction and royalty free. GMaxwell: you may want to withdraw or change your vote as a result. ed g2stalk 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Licence In case anyone has any remaining doubts, the photographer has replied to my email and confirmed we can use the image without any restrictions whatsoever ~ VeledanTalk 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Use? But what about unlimited redistribution, derivative works, etc? We don't allow mere 'with permission' on Wikipedia outside of fair use. The word 'use' is often used by people who mean you can display this on your website. Did you send him one of our boilerplate permissions emails? --Gmaxwell 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No I didn't; I wasn't aware of them. Sorry for the ambiguity in my summation - the photographer confirmed that the picture is free of restrictions as opposed to just giving us permission. Anyway, see the link provided by ed g2s - it turns out my email asking for confirmation of the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} was unnecessary in any case ~ VeledanTalk 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Alpamayo.jpg Raven4x4x 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A full moon and 25 second exposure allowed sufficient light into this photo taken at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station during the long Antarctic night. The new station can be seen at far left, power plant in the center and the old mechanic's garage in the lower right.
An edit with noise reduction and hot pixel removal.

A stunning image of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, this photograph was taken using a 25 second exposure in order to gain enough light to take the picture. The red light is from the base, while the dazzling green is an aurora. The image illustrates both the articles Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and Antarctica and was uploaded to Commons by Jsymmetry.

Promoted Image:Amundsen-Scott marsstation ray h edit.jpg Raven4x4x 06:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]




Greenwich

Great photo, see also Exposure (photography)


Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]