Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2006

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Comparison

Pretty dramatic difference. Sorry if the quality of the flood pic isn't that great as it is a scan of a none to carefully preserved 6x4

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In flood-comparison photos, don't they usually compare before-flood to after-flood? This is comparing during-flood to long-after-flood; it doesn't seem as useful, but others may disagree. I still like this comparison though. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:23
• Oppose Flood picture is fuzzy (as you say), right image has a severely manipulated sky, causing haloes around the trees. Also, not very encyclopedic - before/after would have been better. --Janke | Talk 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sky has not been manipulated. The second image is actually a HDR, which may make it look a little "fake". But it was the only way to capture the scene, without HDR it would have been impossible not to have burnt out areas or deep blacks. --Fir0002 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose they should be from closer times to give a better representation of the difference Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the longer time difference because it shows the amount of flora which has grown after the area was flattened by the floods. You can see that grove of medium size bushes was not there at all during the flood. --Fir0002 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying but i think to give a comparisson the pics should be from only a matter of weeks.--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't actually get what it's trying to say. "One day there was lots of water. 8 years later, the water had gone away"? It's fantastic that you found the exact same POV, but there's nothing particularly surprising or unusual about what's happened in 8 years. Immediately after a bushfire then 8 years later would be more interesting, or as mentioned, immediately before and after a flood. And more concretely, this image really brings very little to flood. You really couldn't say "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." Stevage 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't know what these guys are talking about... They show the moment of destruction and how nature rebounds. The image that would be useless would be the flood and then the ground there destroyed. The only thing I would say is it would be nice if you could work it into the Creek article (potentially with an expansion about the flood). Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see any "destruction" to speak of. There are some shrubs in the photo to the right, but you can't tell if there were any shrubs before the flood or not - all we know is that during the flood, there weren't any. Other than that, it's not particularly rare for an area to survive a flood with minimal damage, even after being buried under several metres of water for a couple of days. I'm seriously looking and I just don't see "destruction", but if anyone can point it out....Stevage 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. (edit confl.) Not a very good composition. Doesn't show much except half of two trees and some grass in the background. If this were a broader landscape it would be better. — Vildricianus 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. 8 years is just too big of a gap. say1988 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Blah blah blah this and that, the picture might not be the best but still beats most other featured pics, plus it forces people to think in the way other pics do not. Kokot.kokotisko 10:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Maybe it's not the most technically astounding photograph, but the concept is a unique feature that all other featured articles just don't have. This image shows time. The way the trees in the two photographs match up almost exactly even after eight years is quite nifty. --Cyde↔Weys 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the tendency of trees to uproot and walk great distances, I will have to agree! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 01:18

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Constitution

A photo of USS Constitution, the oldest commissioned warship afloat, underway for the first time in over century. There are two seperate version presented here: the first is the one that currently appears in the article, and the second is the High Resolution version I uploaded for the FPC run.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Version 1 is too small, and for now Version 2 is inelligable as it does not appear in an article. If the second one is added to an article. Even if those problems were fixed, I still oppose. The background is horrible. All those small boats just destroy the image. I haven't looked for other problems, but these are enough for me to oppose. say1988 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't appear in an article because I did not want to upload the the hi-res version over the one currently there. If the hi res one ends up promoted then the current image will be switched for that one. TomStar81 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I happen to be one of the dots in "those small boats". I found the whole event to be an amazing display of support for this grand dame of the sea, and the picture reflects that. If you check my user page, you'll see that I might be biased though.--J Clear 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Terrible quality, look at the strange green and purple colours among the rigging - Adrian Pingstone 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, I never noticed that before, and it seems to be in the USN original. I think you just ruined one of my favorite images for me.--J Clear 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to have been rather harsh in my "terrible" comment but FPC standards are very high - Adrian Pingstone 11:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were accurate, I just never noticed the artifacts before, now I can't miss them :-( --J Clear 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are only discolorations, and can be easily fixed. The main problem with the image is the blurriness / lack of detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:25
    • The discolourations are not "easily fixed", the green and purple blotches cover most of the rigging (below those two horizontal spars that seem to join up). It would take tens of hours to correct so is a valid reason why the pics are not acceptable as FP - Adrian Pingstone 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tens of hours? Maybe an hour to get it looking really nice. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-28 00:56
      • I beg to differ on the discolourations being hard to fix. True, fixing them wouldn't be a stroll in the park, but it wouldn't take "tens of hours". However, I don't see a lot of point in fixing them beacause of the blurriness, which would be extremely hard (more like impossible) to fix. --Pharaoh Hound 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There, I've done an edit to remove the purple and green discolourations. (by the way, it took me less than 30 minutes, not "tens of hours") --Pharaoh Hound 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Humble aplogies, I'll try to keep my mouth shut on subjects I'm not familiar with in future (like retouching) - Adrian Pingstone 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do I detect the absence of an emoticon in the previous? Thanks Pharaoh, I'll be updating my background image at work in the AM, even if it doesn't qualify as FP. For those interested, my roughly reverse image here http://www.hazegray.org/features/sail200/sail57.jpg (not nearly as good quality, alas).--J Clear 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor quality and not big enough Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Comments: There is some historical uniqueness to this shot, so give it some credit there. She hadn't sailed in over a hundred years, and may not again. I'm pretty sure the sailor who took it was in a helo, which is not the best camera platform. There is an 1124 px wide version available to meet the size requirement. I even dropped the Constitution's PAO an e-mail today to see if they can come up with an image without the green and purple artifacts (not holding my breath).--J Clear 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all versions - not sharp. --P199 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppose you're on a Navy helicopter with a circa 1997, Navy issue digital camera. IIRC, there is supposed to be some quality "leeway" given to photos of historical significance. --J Clear 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The historical significance of this image is low. Yes, it is of the boat's "first" voyage, but I'm sure everyone on those boats behind it were also taking pictures of it. Now, if this were an image of a one time event that there are few images of, like it's re-christening (it must've had one, right?) then the historical significance would be high. ~MDD4696 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the historical signifigance is quite high. I would suggest/recommend that you read the article before passing judgment on the photo, since the article does a much better job of explaining the rarity of the photo. TomStar81 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've been on that boat dozens of times and the photo doesn't do it justice. Morganfitzp 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anvil Shaped Cumulus

Amazing cloud, and surprising that the stitching worked out ok - it was moving fast!

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 11:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is excellent! Good quality and resolution, nice subject. Mikeo 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality and what an amazing pic.--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have not seen clouds like that in several monthes, although monsoon season is set to begin soon... TomStar81 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow! - Adrian Pingstone 21:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You're darn right wow! --Nebular110 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Woooow!!! Froggydarb 03:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No need for my support, is there? --Janke | Talk 08:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great encyclopaedic image, although the image seems a bit suspect as the blending between the sky and landscape seems a bit false and lacking contrast, with haloes on the horizon. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking if I dubbed the sky on I can say that I most certainly did not and I'm a little disapointed that you would insinuate that. The only time I uploaded a photo with a dubbed on sky I made very clear what it was. --Fir0002 12:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my thoughts were more that it was the result of bracketed exposures that were not blended as well as they could be, I didn't insinuate that the sky was dubbed on. My other thought is that it could be the result of the shadow/highlight PS tool with a large radius, as this can leave haloes in areas of high contrast. Can you explain the haloes on the horizon? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure how it looks to you, but they're not really that visible on my monitor. Yes they could be a result of shadow highlight as I applied that, but not much, not what I'd expect to have a high impact. The shots were not an exposure bracket. Only other explanation is either sharpening or compression. Sorry if it is bothering you. --Fir0002 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Vertical perspective makes one feel trapt like an ant under foot, great contrasting landscape underfoot. Joe I 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great picture! Interesting shape with the clouds, too. G.He 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are there compression artifacts in the blue part of the sky? Mainly the top right section. --liquidGhoul 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see them too, but they're not strong enough to be distracting, IMO. --Janke | Talk 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with a comment. A great image, but I don't think it belongs in the
  cumulonimbus or cumulonimbus incus articles. Those cloud types are characterized by flat tops, giving the cloud an anvil-like appearance. This one has towers and a cauliflower-shaped top, which is characteristic of a cumulus cloud. I'm not a cloud expert, but the descriptions in the articles are pretty specific. -- moondigger 20:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support The anvil shape is there... Check out the 2nd pic at stormwiki - Ravedave 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, the link you provided doesn't look anything like Fir's pic to me. Check this picture, which clearly shows the anvil shape: [4]. Fir's image is excellent, but I really think it's in the wrong articles. -- moondigger 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Awesome work, Fir0002; love your cloud pics. -- GarrettRock 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Cool cloud and a great pic :D. -- Darwinek 21:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow. Kokot.kokotisko 10:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry Fir, but I agree with Diliff about the haloes around mountains and trees - looks like classic over-use of the shadow-highlight tool which, while it has certainly added to the 'wow' factor, has also lent the sky a false look and introduced those haloes. I'm sure you've got the original so I'd prefer to see another attempt with less 'shopping. --Yummifruitbat 22:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ah, good old cumulonimbus capillatus incus, my favourite type of cumulonimbus capillatus. Wowlookitsjoe 20:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is a very nice photograph.--
  5 02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. What a great picture! -- Underneath-it-All 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Three thumbs up. Froggydarb 11:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and congratulate the photographer - What a cool picture! Great work, Fir0002. Andrew (My talk · World Cup) 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Anvil shaped cumulus panorama edit crop.jpg Raven4x4x 07:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny sky made with photoshop

I made this image with Photoshop, I didn't take a picture of the sky or anythign like that, just simple filters.

• Nominate and support. -
  Talk | _#info | ) 21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Not encyclopedic, unless a description is added of how it is done, what filters and settings are used - but that's an article, not a picture... --Janke | Talk 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This picture is used in the
    Talk | _#info | ) 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose. Unless it was created with some revolutionary new filters, this image is nothing notable. --Pharaoh Hound 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not FP material - Adrian Pingstone 07:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite odd. On the same day this nomination had been posted, an anonymous user signing as User:Cornell010 replaced the text of the nomination with their own nomination. After Janke's comment the anon then blanked the page, and nobody noticed until now because the blank page didn't show up on the FPC main page. I'll archive it now with the anon's text copied below. Raven4x4x 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Pictures

• These are some pictures from Cornell University. I was just wondering if any of these pictures are featured worthy.User:Cornell010 09:17, 19 June 2006

• Nominate and support.
• Comment You've put this in the wrong place. They should be in Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review, not here. If you ask me, no, they're not FPC stuff. --Janke | Talk 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the explanation above. I assume that blanking the page was the anon's way of withdrawing the nomination.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama of Porto

This image appears in the article Porto. It was created by Olegivvit.

Those who haven't put a preference for an image please do so.Froggydarb 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Olegivvit 17:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although the shadows on the boats on the left are a problem, the building-covered hills in the background easily make up for that. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:54
• Wholehearted support for edit 2. I'm a big fan of well executed panoramas and this is one of the best I've seen on wikipedia. Very nice framing (aside from the unfortunate cropping of the oars) and a beautiful city. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Making panoramas with moving water is tough, and this one is very nice -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support for edit 1 Image appears somewhat blurry to me. I suppose this could just be me though considering that no one else has mentioned this. --Nebular110 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the thumbnail does look blurry (problem with MediaWiki's downscaling method), but the actual image is perfectly sharp. What a downer. Stevage 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't think it look blurry. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either, with preference for my edit. --Fir0002 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to use the "Edit <x>" format, you should refer to it by that number in your support too... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great shot, slight preference for the version without the pink poles, but don't think it's worth getting excited over. Stevage 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Subtle enhancement of the original. Very good shot, well-balanced and detailed. — Vildricianus 10:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Pan-tastic! --Janke | Talk 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2- great panorama you cant even see the pink pole at normal size so leave it.
• Support Edit 2 - TomStar81 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original (or if that doesn't get support, Diliff's edit. There's no need to remove items from the photograph which are there in real life. They don't hurt the image at all. I also don't see the need to edit it to begin with. Shadows are supposed to be dark. Why lighten them? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thats true, but shadows have a habit of appearing as a chunk of black in a photo due to the camera's inherent lack of dynamic range compared to the human eye. The goal of photography, particularly encylclopaedic photography, is to portray the subject as accurately as possible. Thats why I'm happy to support changes such as saturation and shadow enhancement but not removal or otherwise changes to the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2. Great panorama shot. Now all I need is a widescreen monitor! :P G.He 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original first, then edit 2 - I was going to nominate this picture! Nice work! Afonso Silva 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Wonderful city and also this photo. - Darwinek 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Edit 2 Amazing panorama. Beautiful. Sotakeit 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Porto3flat-cc-contr-oliv1002_edit2.jpg Raven4x4x 07:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Buffalo Proof

I wasn't sure which side to pick, although both would be best :)

This picture(the reverse, specifically) is featured on Template:Did you know. Joe I 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Joe I 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great detail. --Pharaoh Hound 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edits 2 and 4. --Pharaoh Hound 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Few images perfectly capture the past mistakes of the U.S. After all, we killed off the reverse to starve the obverse, to get access to the mineral that constitutes the coin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 14:01

lol, oh my, very realistic you are :) Joe I 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sharp images. Either or both would be great featured pics. perhaps a montage of them side by side as one image? Support ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've wanted to combine them, but I lack the computer technology. Can ya'll point me to someone who could. An example is here, but with alittle to much overlap I think. Joe I 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, I've done a quick edit and here's a combination of the two. I wasn't sure if the obverse should go on the left or not, or if they should be stacked vertically, if either (or both) of those is the case I can fix it too. --Pharaoh Hound 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. :) I actually think it would be nice to have them stacked vertically so that they display bigger as a thumbnail, though. Its worth adding to the nomination and we can vote which orientation we prefer. It looks like it will sail through and its just a matter of which version we like the best. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Pharaoh Hound 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another edit. Joe I requested it on my talk page. --Pharaoh Hound 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 71.199.123.24 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it, but Per Lar with the combining idea (just for easier access, so they're grouped together). I don't think they should be split; keep them grouped because they're equally important. Tewy 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both They should each be featured, as both sides of the coin are equally important. TomStar81 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ammending my vote to Support Fir0002’s edit. Of the present versions his, IMO, looks best. TomStar81 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support each of the two separate images. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Image:United States penny, obverse, 2002.jpg is the only current featured coin picture that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what standard we use for coins and how it applies here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, according to the mints site "The United States Mint may own copyright by assignment, as permitted by 17 U.S.C. §105. In fact, the United States Mint owns copyright in several commemorative and circulating coin designs." What research has been done to determine if this design is acutally copyright free?--
  Peta 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The original designs (on the Buffalo Nickel) were made before 1923. These are just copies of those original designs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 02:28
• Support edit 2 Anonymous__Anonymous 21:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for edit 2. Would have been nicer to have them a bit closer together though. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either Edit 2 or Edit 4 --Fir0002 12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose its a coin--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a valid rationale. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:58
  • This is a coin, and its still featured. -- TomStar81 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These coins are brillent, superb pictures, iconic, and elevate thier articles, and are extremely pleasing to the eyes. Criteria - met. Joe I 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • in my opinion i dont believe it meets criteria 3., be wikipedia's best work to me its a shiny coin and is not an example of wikipedias best photo.--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • These photos are very well executed, very pleasing to the eye, illustrate their article in a way that no other images could, and are free-lisensed. How can this not be some of Wikipedia's best work? --Pharaoh Hound 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personnally, I support edit 3 most, and edit 4, second...either way. I can also redo the captions to reflect the engravers, buffalo nickel, or bullion coins as ya'll see fit.Joe I 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeThe face of the buffalo just doesn't look sharp to me.--J Clear 03:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring more input. There's certainly support for it but I really can't decide which version is more popular. I'll move it here for a while. Raven4x4x 07:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support version 3 although it seems version 4 is most popular Joe I 09:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 4. --Randy Johnston (‽) 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 4. It doesn't overlay (as opposed to 3). --Tewy 00:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 4 per Tewy. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with the dullness of the buffalo face. And what's up with that dark patch on the left? Morganfitzp 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg Raven4x4x 07:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrified Forest log

I took this picture while vacationing with my family last summer. It appears in Petrified Forest National Park, and a cropped version appears in Fossil. It's a good image to show the results of the permineralization process, though Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article specifically on permineralization. Somebody on Commons liked it enough that he made it the Commons POTD for July 31, and nominated it for featured status there (which it attained). It has also been picked up for use in the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia in the article Fósil.

• Self-nominate and support. - moondigger 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest cropping the image in order to eliminate the sky. It certainly provides for an interesting background but is rather unnecessary and does not enhance the object of focus. 67.37.183.142 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The cropped version you suggest already exists -- it's the version in the Fossil article. However I think the full frame version with the sky is more useful and aesthetically pleasing in the Petrified Forest National Park article. (It demonstrates both the primary attraction in the park and the scenery.) -- moondigger 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - leave the background in, thats why that pic works in Petrified Forest National Park, because it shows the log and the park in one pic. -Ravedave 21:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, leave the background in. I think it does add to the picture. --Nebular110 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yes, leave the background in. That way it also illustrates the park article instead of just the log and it adds to the aesthetically pleasing-ness. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice job...and precedence for support as well due to that status already attained at commons.--MONGO 07:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is already one picture of petrified wood in FP. Olegivvit 11:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely beautiful. I went to a petrified forest which had been blown over by a volcano, but it was nothing compared to this. Wow. I no problem with having two featured pics of petrified wood, it becomes a problem when there is four or five. --liquidGhoul 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great shot. No EXIF info? What was the focal length? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 10mm, on a camera with a 1.6X crop factor = 16mm equivalent. It lacks EXIF data because Photoshop's "save for web" command strips out all non-image data (including metadata) to minimize file size and allow for faster downloads. -- moondigger 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very fine - the sky adds colour harmony and contrast, plus sky cloud and stone/wood texture. Great colour! - Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.25.247 (talk • contribs)
• Support The park inclusion makes the background worthwhile, though the clouds are a bit dark for my taste. The subject is fantastic, however. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cool passes in my book--Childzy _talk ^contribs 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support exactly as it is, that makes an amazing addition to the article. --Cyde↔Weys 02:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great picture. I love the sky in the background. -- Underneath-it-All 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice pic, better than the existing image: Image:Petrified wood closeup 2.jpg which I think should be delisted as it has been superceded. --Fir0002 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i see what you are saying but to be honest i think they should both be kept as Image:Petrified wood closeup 2.jpg shows the tree in immense detail, whereas the pic here is good for seeing the complete effects.--Childzy _talk ^contribs 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support That's awesome. Barnas 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Petrified_forest_log_1_md.jpg Raven4x4x 07:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scheme ant worker anatomy-en.svg

The image is one of the best i have done. so i believe it deserves it. the image is also already featured on commons; it apears on the artice Ant, and I, LadyofHats created the image.

• Nominate- LadyofHats 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Integrated Key version. Excellent diagram, but I'm wondering what the purpose of the white box and orange text are. I suggest eliminating the white box and making all the text black, unless there's some particular reason why it can't be done that way. -- moondigger 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the reason for the white box is to join elements together, the orange text, is the title and the black text inside the box are the different elements of the "metapleural gland" LadyofHats 19:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just figured that out. Maybe there's a different way to convey the same information? I don't like that the metapleural gland text is the same color as the body segment titles, and still find the white box a bit distracting. -- moondigger 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other suggestion, which probably borders on being too nitpicky: The background color for the HEAD and GASTER sections should be different from each other, and the color for PETIOLE should be something a bit easier to distinguish from the color backing ALITRUNK. I realize they are different hues, but they are close enough that they don't contrast well. I suggest a pastel blue for one of the sections and a pastel green for another. Maybe HEAD and PETIOLE could retain their current colors, and make ALITRUNK and GASTER blue and green respectively. Apologies if I'm being a pain... I think these suggestions would improve the diagram. -- moondigger 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with integrated key. This is an excellent example of wikipedia's finest work in illustrating, in this case, ant anatomy. The one nitpick I have is the white box--it's too attention grabbing and looks like a legend. Could you replace it with a dashed line box around the two items, so that they're not so prominent? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, but will change to full support if the graphic design is slightly improved: Some of the labels are bunched too tightly together for comfort, there's room to spread them out a bit. Also, something should be done about that white box, looks too crammed-in. Also, change one of the yellow bars to a different color, and the different height of the bars seems unlogical (the lower edge should be either straight, or regularly descending towards the right, conforming to the outline of the ant). The best work of Wikipedia needs to look better than good, too! --Janke | Talk 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment i have changed the image, removed the white box and spread the labels ( even when there is not that much space as one would think, since the lines tend to cross quite easily. and making too long lines makes a diagram harder to read). On the other hand i have to disagree on the color change. the bloks on the back are there to mark diferent segments of the ant, the diferent segments are now apart from each other, noone that has seen the image has confused the head with the gaster, not thought they are one and the same part.The blocks are also there to compensate the composition of the image. without the blocks the image would tend to the right. that the first and last block are from the same color "encloses" the image. so that there is balance even when the ant form is so unbalanced. and Yet Another reason why i do not change it, is because the color scheme of the image. Having too many colors is as bad as having too few. the image is made in grey and warm "orange-like" colors so that making one blue and another green as Moondigger suggested would not only include 2 colors more ( without adding meaning or making the diagram simpler) but also move the whole scheme to the cold colors....I hope you can understand my reasons, and apologise my lousy English LadyofHats 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Support edit 1. Highly informative and encyclopedic -- Samir धर्म 08:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Very encylopadic, detailed and interesting diagram. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Great work, we need more diagrams like this. --liquidGhoul 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a support for edit 1. --liquidGhoul 00:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 Wonderful -Ravedave 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This picture does not have the value it seems to have. Latin names of the exoskeleton segments can perhaps put laymen in awe, but convey zero information on the ant biology. Thus, the only possible value of the picture is either artistic, inciting the (fake) feeling of complexity through the many lines and unfamiliar words, or demonstrative value, demonstrating existence of a particular kind of images if they are underrepresented in WP featured pictures. In that case, this picture is not even the best in its category. To be more constructive, I would replace it with a picture of an ant carrying some information on their biology, such as leaf cutter ants with their leves, or floating nest of fire ants, or queen laying eggs, or scheme of ant development stages or something like that. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Kokot.kokotisko (talk • contribs
  ) .

An unusual opinion, I have to say. Would you like the full text of an article in the picture perhaps? -Ravedave 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram shows the morphology of an ant naming its elements. the names were taken from scientific references a myrmercologist would use and recomend.

LadyofHats 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objection is not only unusual, but completely invalid. The image's purpose is not to provide information about ant biology, but to give names for the various components of the exoskeletons—something that is near impossible to do using a text-only description. [5] doesn't give any details about how a computer works, it is nonetheless a good diagram because it allows "laymen", as the objector calls them, to learn exactly how the different components are named. As such, it is a perfect companion to an article in which specific jargon is used. FP on Wikipedia should be an "add value" to the corresponding article; this diagram is; the objection is ludicrous. Phils 10:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1. --Randy Johnston (‽) 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for clean-up - Would someone mind cleaning these up in the edit:
• making the coloured bars all the same height
• it's a pity that in the rendered version (ie, on the image preview page) the labels are pretty messy - often the red lines overlap the legend text.
• doing something about this 3 sided red box around the "Metapleural gland".
• there seems to be missing a Petiole (I)? There's a II, III...VII...shouldn't there be a I?
• "anepisternum" isn't capitalised. Should it also perhaps be "antepisternum"? "sting" also needs a capital.
• I don't like the way that "tibial spurs" points to two of them, while "tibia" and "femur" only point to one each. It's not clear from the diagram whether all the legs have tibias and femurs. By contrast, it seems redundant to point to *both* "scapes" - one can safely assume that symmetrical parts of the body share the same name.
• If any of these terms have common English names, they should be included, perhaps in brackets. Like, maybe the "occiput" is also just referred to as the "cranium" or something.
• Can't really tell what "scutellum" is pointing to
• It would be good if pairs of labels could be somehow brought together to show the contrast better. Eg metanotum/mesonotum, mesothoracic/metathoracic spiracle. Stevage 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i will not chnage the height of the bars becouse of how i already said they are there to balance the ant.

i just noticed the problem with the rendering. i will change the text into vectors to fix it

the tree sided box is there to substitute the white box.

The petiole can have one or 2 segments depending on the ant specie. [here] there is an example. the numbers on the Gaster remain the same always.

i checked the book again and Anepisterum is right. I jus Capitalised it together with Sting

Tibia, femur, tibia spurs all point two. only tarsus points just one, and that is becouse of space. i can not point all legs without having more lines than diagram. "i honestly dont get how do you understand that every scape should have the same name and not that every leg has the same segments. -one can safely assume that symmetrical parts of the body share the same name...look at the diagram you will realise all legs have the same amount of segments."

there are pointed lines on the diagram dividing the segments. scutellum is the segment just after the hole "Metanotum". why does this piece has a name in special.. I have no idea... Why do i place it on the diagram ?. Becouse it was marked in the book. is there a simpler name in english for it? must probably, but i will not change them until someone shows me a real source for them. the ones i used were taken from the must specialized book i could find.

if you find a way of making pairs of names without crossing lines, please let me know.

other changes have been made.

LadyofHats 10:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Support - Great illustration, adds very good value to the article. --
  vineeth 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted Image:Ant worker morphology corrected.svg Raven4x4x 07:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Plovdiv

Perfectly captures the atmosphere and characteristic architecture of the city's old town part. The street in the photo is one of the main streets in Old Plovdiv that is often frequented by tourists on their way to St. Constantine and Helena church. I believe the colours and the framing are great, and while resolution could've been better, the current one is good enough. Photo taken and uploaded by Jeroen Kransen and used in several articles, including Plovdiv, Bulgaria and Bulgarian National Revival.

• Nominate and support. - Todor→Bozhinov 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I just don't feel that the framing is interesting. I'm also not getting a really good sense of the buildings' architecture. Zepheus 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Zepheus.
  Alr 17:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Plovdiv is way more interesting than this. Can't see much here, can't see the gate clearly, nor the houses, nor the street itself. — Vildricianus 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not all that interesting. --Geoffrey Gibson 22:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice, but "artsy" as opposed to "encyclopedic". Try FPC at Commons. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support Agree with Todor Bozhinov--Givern 07:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I just don't think it's that interesting (though I've never been to the city in question). It's just a picture of a street. Is the gate tilted somewhat, or am I being very stupid (the drainpipe looks fine)? -Salur 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Cemetery, Queens, New York

High quality picture, of high resolution, in the public domain, visually striking. Nice composition with the city of the dead in the foreground and the city of the living in the background, under a golden sky. Appears in the article

The image was created and uploaded by User:Plowboylifestyle.

• Nominate and support. - Nunh-huh 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. At thumbnail size, the original looks okay, but at full resolution it looks veiled. Since fog is not evident in the image, I adjusted noise and contrast. At full resolution I think it is a noticeable improvement. -- moondigger 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1, encyclopaedic, quite artistic, and a lot better than many of the images nominated lately...The composition and colours don't totally grab me, and the yellow grass(?) is a bit odd. Would support further colour corrections. Stevage 09:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Interesting colors Brighter than original. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Encyclopedic, attractive, and interesting. --Pharaoh Hound 12:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. as above--Childzy _talk ^contribs 12:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 LadyofHats 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. I'm in two minds. Is it me or are the scycrapers slightly inclining to the right? Also, the tombstones in the front are too close. I may change my mind but right now something's not right about this picture. I don't really have a good view on the graveyard. — Vildricianus 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Reasons stated above--Geoffrey Gibson 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blah! This photo is ugly! And all I know about this cemetary now is that you can see the NYC skyline from it... what's the encyclopedic value here? ~MDD4696 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Support edit 1. Cab02 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I question the encyclopedic value of this image, although I admit the composition is compelling. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The encyclopedic value seems obvious to me. There is an article about Calvary Cemetery. This is a picture of that cemetery. It doesn't get more basic than that. And the information in the image is good for two reasons; it not only shows us the cemetery, it also gives us an idea of where it's located, within sight of the famous Manhattan skyline. -- moondigger 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it shows us a "portion" of the cemetary, yes... My point is that I'm not sure this is the most encyclopedic way that the shot that could be taken. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's possible that a picture more thoroughly representative of the cemetery might be taken, perhaps from a crane or other aerial view. For that matter, it's possible that more representative images could be taken than most of the current featured pictures. But what we have right now is this one -- and it's pretty good, IMO. If another picture of Calvary Cemetery comes available that's superior than this one, we could promote it and consider whether this one should be delisted then. -- moondigger 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Excellent photo. On a personal note, it was really freaking riding a bus past this massive cemetry as the sun was setting a few weeks after 9/11. Because at a distance the skyscrapers started blending in with the tombstones. Bwithh 02:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tres evocative. Prefer edit 1.
• Oppose I actually find the image too cluttered. A single carefully picked tombstone I think would have been more effective. --Fir0002 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Very nice. Morgan695 02:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueens_edit.jpg Raven4x4x 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Panorama

Beautiful image taken from that masterplanned town of Adelaide, Australia. Quite striking.

• Nominate and Support. Political Mind 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While the first page of media.southaustralia.com says the images are 'copyright-free', their terms say otherwise, with things like "The SATC has provided a selection of copyright-free images for use, at no charge. These images are to be used solely for the positive general promotion of South Australia as a destination. They cannot be used for commercial, business or corporate purposes or for paid advertising without the written authority of the SATC." The image's copyright status is dubious, very dubious.
  Kevin_b_er 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Just like to point out that it is not being used for commercial, business or corporate purposes. Political Mind 02:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it is. Wikipedia and Commons are commercial uses, and require free commercial licensing. This image should be deleted. -- moondigger 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just point you to the
  non-profit organization, and a charity, therefore it is not commercial. Aside from that, the picture is WAY too small, positively tiny for a panorama, so you have an Oppose from me. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Here is a good explanation of why we don't accept non-commercial licences. This photo is not elligible for FP. --liquidGhoul 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Wikipedia print editions are considered commercial use, even if the online version isn't. Regardless, all images used on Wikipedia and Commons are required to have free commercial licenses, with the exception of those that meet certain requirements and fall under fair use. This doesn't meet those requirements. -- moondigger 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not big enough either --Childzy _talk ^contribs 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Way too small. Aperent copyright issues. --Pharaoh Hound 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and delete. Even if Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, re-users are allowed to use Wikipedia content commercially. The image's copyright is not compatible with the GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, incompatible with GFDL - and why so small? --Cyde↔Weys 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A very attractive and well composed image. Unfortunately, Adelaide comes across as nothing special. --Philopedia 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - removed as this is ineligible for promotion. Raven4x4x 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock, Paper, Scissors

This image struck me in its effective presentation of the basic concept behind the game Rock, Paper, Scissors.This diagram's circular geometry juxtaposed with the asymmetry or the icons, depicted both in their manual and iconographic forms, conveys an almost tactile sensation. Looking at this picture one can imagine the dense weight and rough texture of the rock in contrast to the lightness and flexibility of the paper, threatened by the cold sharpness and mechanical action of the scissors. Many of us are already familiar with this popular game whose rules and equipment are almost universal, and most of us can configure our hands into the three simple gestures representative of these common objects in less than the time it takes to finish this sentence. The picture appears in the article Rock, Paper, Scissors, and seems to have been crafted by Horst Frank

• Nominate and support. - Morganfitzp 06:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just a note, the size is only 500x400. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too small. In fact it is just half of the requirement. Even if that is fixed I see nothing special about this image.say1988
• Oppose A nice image, and thanks to whoever created it. However, not special or striking enough for FP (IMHO). I don't think the size matters much in a diagram so I would not think that alone should rule it out -Adrian Pingstone 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the diagram is nicely done, but I think it's too simplistic to be a featured picture. Andrew (My talk · World Cup) 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, someone could make an interesting diagram on it, even though it's just a cycle as such. Resolution is too low here. Phoenix2 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice but no Childzy _talk ^contribs 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice, but just not enough to reach featured status. G.He 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like the diagram, although it is quite boring... Cab02 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. With a universe of phenomena to chose from, you focus on rock, scissors and paper?? Of possible use a a marketing gimmick ("hey! i konw what that is!"), I suppose. but we really ought to aim higher. --Philopedia 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset HDR

A beautiful image which illustrates HDR page well.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think this picture would illustrate HDR better if it had the picture with standard exposure aswell as this picture side by side (like your flood pic). Froggydarb 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Weak oppose - Neutral. I find most HDR images unnatural looking when converted for display, as this one is. (Technically speaking, that means this is not an HDR image, but a 'normal' image derived from HDR imaging techniques. A true HDR image cannot be displayed as such on a computer monitor.) So while I recognize the time and effort that went into making this image, I don't think it does a good job of demonstrating HDR imaging in the article. This is not meant as a knock against your work, Fir0002; it's a limitation of what can be captured in HDR images vs. what can be displayed. No image displayed on a computer display can accurately represent what HDR is supposed to do. -- moondigger 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your opposing because your monitor can't handle the image, that doesn't make any sense. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm opposing because NO monitor can display a true HDR image, and this is not a true HDR image. It is normal image that is composed of three exposures tone-mapped into a dynamic range that can be handled by computer monitors. Such images do not demonstrate HDR; they demonstrate tone-mapping or dynamic range compression. This isn't Fir0002's fault... it's a nice enough sunset. But illustrating HDR in an article viewed on a computer screen is nearly impossible. The more range-compressed images people see in an article that's supposed to be explaining HDR, the more likely people are to make the wrong association.-- moondigger 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hang on, I'm confused now. If a HDR image can never be displayed correctly, what's the point in making them in the first place? I've read the article but I still don't fully understand the point your making moondigger; it seems strange to me that a whole imaging technique would exist if the images can never ever be displayed correctly, or am I misunderstanding you? Is there any way that they can be displayed properly? Raven4x4x 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we're getting outside the scope of the discussion of this image. A good explanation would take some time to compose, and when I do it I plan on integrating it into the article text. The very short version is that HDR means high dynamic range. i.e., more dynamic range than our capture media (film, CCD, or CMOS sensor) can handle in a single frame, and often more dynamic range than our output devices (computer monitor, printer) can display in a single frame. This is a limitation of the technology we're working with. (Also, due to the nature of digital capture technology, information in the highlight areas is more accurately described than information in the dark shadow areas.) So when we're presented with a scene that exceeds the number of stops of luminance that we can capture in a single frame, we have to make multiple exposures, each one adjusted to capture the maximum detail. Photoshop then allows us to combine each of these exposures into a single file that accurately describes the full range of the scene. The problem is that no monitor can display it all, accurately, at one time. What HDR techniques have done for us is that we've accurately captured and stored all the information in a scene. That doesn't mean we can display it or produce output that matches what we've captured. Now if we want to produce output, we must change all the tonal values from their original, accurate values to new values that fit within the capabilities of our output device by doing tone-mapping or dynamic range compression. When you do that, the result is no longer HDR. Sometimes this process will result in something that seems natural to the eye; more often, it will result in something that doesn't resemble reality as we normally perceive it. This "HDR sunset" falls into the latter category for me; the original base exposure looks like something I might actually see in the real world, while the tone-mapped version, however interesting it might be, appears unnatural. Ditto with the HDR church interior we saw here a few weeks ago (also in the HDR article).

Look, I'll withdraw my opposition to this image. When I have the time, I'll write up a longer article, complete with sample images, and integrate it into the existing article. -- moondigger 14:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nit, your statement "information in the highlight areas is more accurately described than information in the dark shadow areas" is factually inaccurate. While brighter content suffers less competition from noise it suffers much more quantization noise because of the perceptual compression (gamma 2.2 curve) applied by LDR capture and inverted by our monitors. Also, most sensors go somewhat non-linear as their photon wells fill up. See Steve Mann's work on comparametrics [6], his work demonstrates that maximum information content is actually found in the mid-tones. "Expose to the right" makes sense for a lot of reasons, but the claims that it maximizes the recorded information with a normal photography process do not stand up to scientific analysis. --Gmaxwell 01:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read Steve Mann's work, so thanks for the link. However, my statement is not factually inaccurate. Information in the highlight areas is more accurately described than information in the dark shadow areas - at least during capture, which is what I was talking about. The quantization noise doesn't come into it until we actually do something with the captured data later on when we manipulate it for output. But the whole point of HDR is to take multiple exposures and combine them prior to doing any perceptual compression; Photoshop HDR works with RAW files that have no perceptual compression applied. At this stage all we're doing is capturing data in multiple stepped exposures so Photoshop's HDR routines can pull the maximum information from each file for a given set of tones in the image. For that purpose, exposing to the right makes even more sense. (BTW, if I'm missing some obvious point here, please correct me.)-- moondigger 05:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – beautiful! Morganfitzp 03:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice image. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What's HDR about it? Looks like its just two seperate exposures for foreground and sky. Rather boring and not particularly illustrative of either sunset or HDR. --Dschwen 06:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HDR is a method whereby you take seperate exposures and combine them to produce an image without blown higlights or underexposed areas. --Fir0002 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no, you are describing exposure blending. --Dschwen 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support comparison- I have to agree with Dschwen, it is a beatiful image although I don't think it demonstrates HDR very well. I look at this image and see a sunset, if there was another image with a standard exposure next to it I would change to full Support (or even better, the three images you used to create this image and the standard exposure image). Froggydarb 11:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Fir0002 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand me (or I didn't explain myself properly). I meant: have the two pictures together, like the before and after flood picture you put up on FPC a week or so ago. This way it doesn't just look like a sunset, because you have something to compare the HDR picture with. If someone that didn't know what HDR was looked at the image they might think it's just a sunset, even if it had a caption noting that is a HDR image. Froggydarb 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK how about that? --Fir0002 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's good. Froggydarb 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There is much more to featured pictures than just being a pretty photograph or diagram. You cannot apply criteria that one would use to judge whether or not one would hang a picture up in one's own house to judge candidacy for featured pictures. In terms of composition, the subject matter is uninteresting, there is nothing being done by taking a photograph of random clouds in a sky that is approaching dusk and labeling it as a 'sunset.' If someone looks at the image the immediately cannot recognize what the purpose is (which is not always a bad thing, but in this case it makes the feel lacking in composition). This image just do not lend itself to improving the HDR article, especially when the other pictures in the article are much more dynamic and have more dimensions, depth, and illustration of what HDR photography is. Sudachi 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Groovy photo man! Keep on truckin’! TomStar81 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with moondigger. We need something else to illustrate HDR. All the examples (except perhaps the Grand Canyon one) result in a low contrast, murky image. If there are bright highligts in a scene, I want them bright on my screen, and I want the shadows dark, but with detail! So, I'll probably never get what I really want... --Janke | Talk 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of my photographs are tonemapped HDR, since I usually shoot on a tripod it doesn't take me any more work to capture that way, and I've setup scripts to automate my processing. When it is done right they just look normal and natural to the eye (and a lot like the scene actually looked). The advantage of doing HDR photography and tonemapping is that you can capture difficult scenes without being unrealistic (I don't know about you, but I can see shadow detail fine without highlights clipping), this is possible because your instantaneous perceptual dynamic range is not that huge, so with the right compression an LDR image can look a lot like the HDR scene. In any case... --Gmaxwell 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think the scene is especially informative on the subject.. The classic "bare lightbulb in a desklamp" picture would be better. Perhaps an image of a desk with a bright light on top and a candle underneath. :)--Gmaxwell 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrofluid in magnetic field

Alternative images (By GMaxwell, currently unused):

• Ferrofluid would rather not form the big spikes, so if it's given enough surface area, it will spread out and make a huge mess.
• However, by carefully controlling the shape of the magnetic field (using iron rods in my case) and using a thin barrier it is possible to get the spikes and the magnet in the same picture.
• But you get much larger spikes with the magnet further away, so that the field gradient is steeper, pusing the spikes into a smaller space.
• As you move further away, it forms fewer and fewer spikes.
• Ultimately, it may just be more informative to show the fluid aligned with the north and south poles of the magnet], even though you won't get impressive spikes that way.

A superparamagnetic fluid, otherwise known as a ferrofluid, in a dish over a neodymium magnet. The image acts as a very good illustration of the peculiar way that such liquids react to magnetic fields. Original uncropped image is located at Image:Ferrofluid in magnetic field original.jpg if anyone wants to get more creative. Image created by Steve Jurvetson, uploaded by myself.

• Nominate and support. - GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Oppose. This is a very interesting concept, but the quality of the photo is lacking. A large portion of the fluid is featureless black (basically, the opposite of being blown out -- and conveys equally little information). The lighting for this image should have been very different, to better show the shapes that the fluid takes on. The metadata indicates the image was taken with a point&shoot. Any chance somebody with a camera that has full manual control over lighting and exposure could re-take the picture? -- moondigger 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have ferrofluid, rare earth magnets, and considerable camera gear. I've previously taken pictures which I think are somewhat better than this, but none that I really this do the subject justice. The stuff is *black* and if you do bathe it in too much light it will get ugly specular dots even with a large light source. Oh, and it has infinite mess making potential, it's hard to get off of anything it touches. .. Shooting it again has been on my todo list, but I want to build a jig to hold and move my magnets in fixed steps so that I can make a nice animation. --Gmaxwell 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need diffuse lighting to avoid the blown highlights, preferably positioned a couple feet above the 'peaks' of the ferrofluid. Maybe a second diffuse light source behind and to the right or left, to backlight the peaks a bit, give them some dimension. I'd want to play with the lights to find what works best, which means hotlights would be preferred over flashes. Then meter from a gray card, and overexpose by 1/2 to 1 stop. Take one frame with the gray card in the shot to use for manual white balancing in post processing. Check the histogram for each exposure to make sure you're not totally blowing the highlights. It's okay if it just touches the right side, as long as it's not too much and as long as you shoot RAW. With that kind of RAW file the post-processing could bring everything in line. Another advantage of hotlights is that you could use the same setup for video. -- moondigger 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be very interested to see the effect with top-down diffuse lighting, South-East position diffuse lighting, and a spotlight from below. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Snazzy. Iolakana|^T 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 04:28
• Support I've seen similar images before, and this is just as cool and HQ. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as ridiculously awesome. Alphachimp ^talk 07:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Cool picture. Also, that may be a silly question, but can we add color to the fluid? Maybe a liquid that is lighter than the fluid and will "float" on top of it? But anyway, Support. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although the cropping could have been done a little better...--James 10:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I provided a link to the original photograph. I cropped the image as large as I could while keeping it fairly symmetrical and without catching whitespace on the corners from the dish itself. If you can find a way to crop it better, it'd be very much appreciated. :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Supportooooh wow--Childzy _talk ^contribs 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting! Cab02 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, while the concept of a ferrofluid seems interesting, this picture doesn't convey it to the full extent. The caption states there is a magnet hidden somewhere. A setup where the magnet is above a pool of FF with some FF on the magnet would be much more illustrative. You'd have the skikey pattern on the FF on the magnet, and at the same time the attraction of the FF below would be visible. Furthermore the dirty plate background is just plain unappealing. Reshoot! --Dschwen 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So I've got better pictures, there are actually about 200 in my collection. But I'm not sure if I'm going to release them under a free license and upload them, because I'm getting pretty tired of MediaWiki thumbnailing

making my images look like crap... especially on the image pages. I've thrown up some small sized examples on the right, Cheers. --Gmaxwell 06:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have seen better photos of ferrofluids. This is rather ugly... --Janke | Talk 17:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I actually think having a magnet visible would distract from the cool part. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Samir धर्म 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Even though the picture is ugly, it shows the intresting property of ferro fluids. The image would appear better if the container is a clean one and if the peaks stand out clearly.

  Note that it's pretty difficult to get a clean container with these fluids, as the effect demonstrated tends to push some of the liquid across the surface, resulting in the brown streaks you can see on this photograph. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Not difficult, just takes time... I used a cotton swab with solvent on it to clean up the glass after moving it around in my pictures linked above. Although if you drip it straight on there is no initial mess and it's fun to watch the fluid jump out of the pipet. :) --Gmaxwell 15:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Most interesting phenomenon. If you don't get it in this time, try renominating under the heading 'blueberry pie'. --Philopedia 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The background is distracting. Gmaxwell's photos show the spikes better. --Pharaoh Hound 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support needs to be a bigger pic on Ferrofluid Joe I 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the dirty plate. Would support the last alternative image, though, as the background isn't blank but isn't dirty either, and the ferrofluid aligning at the poles is perfectly illustrative.

Me. Damn. Suntiger 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Poor quality image, and I doubt it will be used in the article after someone gets around to putting the replacements I made in... --Gmaxwell 01:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose So close, but it has some quality problems. -Ravedave 03:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I really like the image and think that for images of this kind the technical quality is less important that it may otherwise be. However, the reason I am only showing weak support is because the darkness of the image and the perspective used does not portray the ferrofluid as clearly as it could be. --Newton2 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have a number of new images, see Talk:Ferrofluid. I hope you find those more informative. --Gmaxwell 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Although this was very close. Even counting the nominator there were 14 supporters and 8 opposers, which just isn't enough of a majority to call it consensus. The existance of Gmaxwell's images is another factor. Once they've been added to the article I'll nominate them myself if noone gets there first. Raven4x4x 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsman Spider

Good sharpness, reasonable DOF, and I like the white bg. Really hard for me to pick from the different versions. Please have a look at these: Image:Huntsman spider white bg04.jpg, Image:Huntsman spider white bg02.jpg and see if one of those looks better to you.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't like the unnatural white or grey background. Froggydarb 08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Was it shot against seamless background paper, or has the spider been pasted there? --Pharaoh Hound 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer The spider was on my window (probably hunting flies attracted to my light. So I got my brother to hold up a A2 piece of paper as a good backdrop (much better than the inside of my room!) went outside and took the photo with a flash. Turned out well IMO. --Fir0002 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question weird looking, it looks 2D and strange
• Comment. It looks a little strange with the background being bright white. I don't know... Cab02 16:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Why do you let these monsters near your room?! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 04:30
• Oppose Unfortunately, the burned-out background makes this look like a cut-out. --Janke | Talk 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)7[reply]
• Oppose. The white background is unnatural. Cab02 19:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A good enough picture, but not really featured picture material in my opinion. Agree with above comment about the white backround. Cfslattery1 23:39, 7 July 2006 (GMT)
• Oppose indeed we have this white-backgrounded snail as a FP, but the above out-of-nothing spider is far more unnatural.--K.C. Tang 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Week Support IMO the change of color in the backround improved the pick a lot. I would like it to be a bit darker though.Nnfolz 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, using the "darken" layer style in Photoshop. --Fir0002 08:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]