Arachnis Picta

Painted Arachnis (Arachnis picta) found near Crestone, Colorad

It seems to me an image of a high quality. My only concern is the out of focus forelegs in the foreground and background. Is it worth putting it for nomination in spite of this obvious flaw?

Nominated by

Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• On encyclopedic terms this picture is quite good to show the subjects and has substantial detail that's welcome in a macro. I do guarantee you that people will oppose the background for being white but to what degree I cannot say... I would probably try this at PFC to see if people enjoy it enough. About the leg being out of focus that's probably fine it's a minuscule part of the photograph compared to the part that is in focus. victorrocha (talk) 21:24, 2 july 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, nominated. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Japanese Car Accident

A car accident in Japan

High Quality, Nice Angle, etc.

Nominated by

Rj1020 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's an aesthetically interesting image, with the lines of the crosswalks framing the scene, and the angle of the two cars seeming to mirror that of the crosswalks above. I also like the way the apparent calmness of the scene juxtaposes against the violent moment that must have preceded. Yet despite what's interesting about it, it really just depicts the boring aftermath of a routine accident; thus it has some, but not a lot, of encyclopedic value. On the technical side, there's a white blur on the bottom right, and the man's face seems to have some noise or compression artifacts (unless that's his complexion?). Not quite sure what I'm seeing. And not sure what others will think. Fletcher (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the crossing markings would also (rightly, in my opinion) be criticised as distracting from, rather than adding to the car accident. It is a striking image, but not FP quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point; it may benefit from a crop, evenly cutting out some of the crosswalk and getting rid of the white blur. Fletcher (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts I think its worthy of a nomination, although might benefit from a mild crop that gets rid of the blur. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Without judging the picture for FPC readyness or encyclopedic value at all, I must say that the crosswalks are what make the picture an interesting photograph. They frame, draw the viewer to the subject, and act as an interesting contrast with the angles of the cars juxtaposed on them. Cropping it really would destroy the composition. The white blur shouldn't be hard to fix; I'll upload an edit when I get the chance. Thegreenj 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted to Candidate Rj1020 (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Agapanthus Prebloom

An Agapanthus flower bulb before the flowers have bloomed.

Any suggestions for making the picture better? Is this example better than the one below?

Nominated by

Victorrocha (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I find this the more appealing of the two. The other might do with a crop. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I also enjoy this one more. The alternative has a large left side to add to the encyclopedic value of the image by providing a view of the leaves of the plant.victorrocha (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC by victorrocha. --jjron (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agapanthus Postbloom

An agapanthus flower bulb after most of the flowers have bloomed.

An alternate picture to the first.

I need opinions to see if I can improve this picture technically and if it is FP worthy. The review above is before the flowers bloomed. Which of the two is better?

Nominated by

Victorrocha (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC by victorrocha. --jjron (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Glider (Conway's Game of Life)

Animation of a "glider" (a pattern in Conway's Game of Life). The "game" consists of creating an initial configuration by filling certain cells on an infinite grid of square cells, then observing how the configuration evolves under the game's rules. The "glider" is an example of a "spaceship": a configuration that translates iself across the grid.

One depiction of the glider has been proposed as a hacker emblem.

Simple but explanatory. This may be one of the best-known Game of Life patterns.

Nominated by

Spikebrennan (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Geez Spike, 84x84 pixels? I mean you could argue that it 'serves its purpose', but honestly, at that size? Maybe at say 250x250 you could consider selling people on, but at this size I reckon you'd be taking a real long shot. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure why the size adversely impacts the quality in this case. consider other animations of mathematical concepts. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know animations can get through at 'under' the standard size requirements, but if you look at those you've linked to they all come around that size I suggested above. What concerns me is that this so tiny - even at fullsize it literally looks like a thumbnail. I was actually wondering why you'd made the thumb so small for the nom, far smaller than standard thumbnail use in articles, and then saw that that's actually its fullsize. What I thought when I first saw it was that I'd prefer to see more 'board', so that instead of the animation panning with the glider, you'd actually see the glider moving across the stationary board; I believe that's a more conventional way to illustrate these. That would be easy to accomplish with added resolution. --jjron (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC by Spikebrennan. --jjron (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hanauma Bay, O'ahu

Hanauma Bay, O'ahu, in early June.

Edit 1. Hanauma Bay, O'ahu, in early June.

Edit 2. Hanauma Bay, O'ahu, in early June.

While I'm submitting photos for peer review, I thought I'd also see what people thought of this one. Its a six-photo stitch of Hanauma Bay in Hawai'i done in Hugin, and cleaned up in Windows Live Photo Gallery. In particular, I think the coral and water came out spectacularly.

Nominated by

Tigerhawkvok (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It certainly has some nice elements, but even just looking at the thumbnail, it's got a nasty tilt to it - look at the horizon. This could be an artefact of the stitching, because the actual beach area looks OK, but I'd suggest fixing the tilt up if possible before trying to take this any further. --jjron (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Jjron's got it right, but if you clean that up, you'll be in the clear. The only thing that worries me are the tiny people on the beach, which just bother me a little; don't know why though. Everything else is very good-looking. Elephantissimo (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• I just rotated the source file, and made sure the ocean horizon was lined up to a test horizontal line -- but now I'm not sure if I'm bothered by the branches in the upper-left, and I'm generally pretty lousy at airbrushing those things out. Is it OK with that, or does anyone want to take a crack at removing the branches? Tigerhawkvok (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I also added a second crop with a slightly different color balance, downsized, and slightly sharpened. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Graves at Arlington on Memorial Day

The gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery are graced by U.S. flags each Memorial Day.

I think it is a good picture of a notable place (Arlington National Cemetary) and the yearly decoration of the gravestones on memorial day (but I am a little bias being the photographer). Plus, I just wanted to get some feedback on what makes a FP.

Nominated by

Remember (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Welcome to the Picture peer review! Let me start by saying that I fell a little stuck on this picture. I feel that the composition is kind of odd. The only part really in focus is the front-most grave. As you get further back, they are progressively more blurred. This normally wouldn't be a problem, but a large part of the picture consists of them. The subject matter is definitely compelling though. Keep going with what you're doing because this is a good picture.

Also, for what makes an FP, go here. Thanks for your contribution. Elephantissimo (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I actually did the narrow depth of field on purpose because I thought the composition was more impressive that way, but I can see how others may not care for it. Any other comments or reasons why this couldn't be a FP? Remember (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I think you're good otherwise. Elephantissimo (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• This type of picture is emotionally compelling, so there is much potential, but I too have comments on the composition. If I could rearrange things at whim: the frontmost grave would not be obsured so much by a flag, making the inscription more legible (but maybe you don't want to do that -- I'm not sure); the lighting would be softer and not have the odd transition from shady to sunny; the tree in the background wouldn't be there; I'd crop out the flag and greenery on the right border that's cut off. I'm not sure of the best answer re depth of field; I think I like what you did. Fletcher (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Part of me likes the idea that the front of the grave is obscured (so it is anonymous) but part of me thinks it might be better with a clear namename (I keep debating about this). It was largely irrelevant since I couldn't move the flag anyway. I agree that the shady to sunny issue is not what I would have wanted, but you work with what you have. Feel free to edit the photo if you think you can make a better version. I have other different compositions that I may post when I have time. Remember (talk)

• Would tend to agree with Fletcher. I don't think the DOF is an issue, you've handled that well. It just seems that this was probably not captured at the best time of day due to the harsh contrast between shadows and sunny areas. Composition could probably be a little stronger, I'd second most of Fletcher's concerns and possibly add a couple more (even that twig/leaves I think it is in front of the "Agnes" headstone would probably raise some grumbles, with the suggestion that it should have been moved before the photo was taken). Sorry, I don't mean to be overly critical, but people at FPC are pretty fussy. --jjron (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Staging the photograph would have been somewhat disrespectful given the fact that you aren't suppose to walk on the graves so there are a number of issues that I just had to work with. Remember (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's easier to shoot graveyards in dusk or dawn light, with your camera on a tripod, and a long exposure. You can try for the shallow depth of field effect, also, but I think even the front grave is not quite in focus. You might try shooting them straight on, also. In my area, the Scouts and Legion put the flags up the night before, so shooting right at dawn is possible, if you want the flags. I shoot military graveyards from the roads. I shoot at dawn and dusk, so I can shoot differently lit graves, and I shoot from level with the tombstones on the road, to slight above and below, depending upon the lay of the land. I think this image could have enough encyclopedic value that it would be worth reshooting. I prefer a landscape format. I think the color is excellent in spite of the bright sunlight. --Blechnic (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the input. In the future I may try to shoot this again with your suggestions in mind. Remember (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Question - Should I even try and run this by FP for more comments and possible promotion or would that be a burden on FP review. Remember (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the focus issue puts it out of range as a FP. In addition, this is the page for getting feedback, FPC is for pictures that you think meet all of the FP criteria already. --Blechnic (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it being a 'burden' on the FP process, but I would be 99% sure of the result. In effect, if you would like more feedback on the picture then you could look at the FPC process to provide that, but honestly don't go in expecting a promotion. And the feedback is likely to be less informative and more brutal than that given here, so I'm not sure what you'd be gaining. However, if you actually feel it has a chance, even if only slim, then I always say don't die wondering :-). --jjron (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I find the transition from shade to sun to be distracting, which is basically the same problem that I had with this former FPC candidate. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

F-35 Lightning II

The image appears to be of a very high technical quality: zooming reveals no noise or editing artefacts or colour issues. The resolution is very high and the composition seems good to me with only a very small part of the wing of another aircraft at the very bottom of the image. The license is public domain (as a work of the US military or Department of Defense). In my opinion the image adds significant value to the article by giving a very detailed image which clearly shows the main features of the aircraft rather than specific parts (which are present but give little idea as to the overall scale of the aircraft) The image is presumably accurate since it is a work by one of the defence agencies building/designing the aircraft and there has been no unnecessary image manipulation (if any at all). The caption I made up could probably be improved though.

Nominated by

Hydraton31 (talk) _{{Contributions}} 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It is a very large and very sharp image and it is interesting as well. I added the link to the gallery it resides in on the military site to the image information because I had a difficult time finding where some other military images come from. This thing seems to have nothing to do with requirements for a Featured Picture though. To improve the image, consider a crop at the top and bottom. A little bit of the aircraft which I assume the photographer was riding in is at the bottom of the image and there is this law of thirds for pictures of all sorts that seems to be a good one, that the image should have three mostly equal areas -- so a little off the top and the bottom would probably help. After the crop, it just might make it through the FP review. It lands vertical eh? That would be very interesting to see. -- carol (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• How's this crop?
  Image:F35test edit.jpg

  Edit 1
  Elephantissimo (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's the frame that seems to work. I have no idea what they like in FP but this image now has none of the things they don't like. -- carol (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC by Elephantissimo. --jjron (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Willie wagtail in flight

in flight

Rhipidura leucophrys or Willie Wagtail is a bird of approximately 20cm in length its an extremely active bird to have captured a still photograph of it flight is quite remarkable, and that alone is worthy of FP consideration but the question is whether the photos technical characteristics are sufficient to for a nomination. For a quick reference to understand the birds size this image has one near a tea pot.

Nominated by

Gnangarra 07:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Great capture, but poor technical quality. The poor thing is riddled with jpeg, noise reduction, and oversharpening artifacts. I doubt it would pass because of those, but it's great at thumbnail size for use in articles. Thegreenj 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Moth wing scales

Scales on the eye spot of a male Luna moth

This is a high resolution image taken under a dissecting microscope. I have several images of different areas of the eye spot under different magnification but this one is probably the best. The iridescent color of the scales is visible.

Nominated by

Peter Z.^Talk 05:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I know this is probably a hard shot to come by, but it seems grainy. Elephantissimo (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the grain is the actual texture of the scales, although I am not sure if all of it is. Peter Z.^Talk 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what makes an image good enough for the approval here and other places (so take this with a grain of salt -- and it would be interesting to know how that looks at this scale even), but as a reviewer, I would have liked it more if the image page offered more of a description. Suggestions for that might include downloading a photograph of the whole moth and circling the area that this image is supposed to be of. The "Other versions" attribute in the information template is a nice place to add such things. Since the reported scale of this image is so extremely different from what regular unaided eyes can see, that might need to be considered when circling the area in another image. To me, with a simple 90 degree rotation this looks like the big brushes in an automated car wash. -- carol (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a stereomicrograph image this picture is simply too out of focus, there isn't any area that is sharply in focus across the field of view. In addition it's too low dpi. However, the image would be a stunning and excellent image to the article on micrographs if you have time to orient the wing properly so that you have a level field in view, with the very tips of the scales in focus. This would superbly illustrate the limitations of a stereo microscope while simultaneously offering an excellent micrograph that shows the limitations don't interfere either with its importance as a tool or with the aesthetics of an image taken with one. I think this could be a simply stunning picture, if you worked it a bit, and it would be worth the effort. Wikipedia has some really bad micrographs, and it would be nice to have a really excellent one. This is the strongest potential I've seen so far. Also, it's a micrograph, you should include a calibrated magnification with it. --Blechnic (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• As awesome as it is such a large image of such a small thing, at full size it is extremely noisy and not sharp. Will you attempt this kind of photograph again? It could be one of those really great images.... -- carol (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you really seconding this nomination, or did you just put this comment in the wrong place? Sorry, but the comment doesn't really sound like a secondment. --jjron (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • More than likely I don't understand what "Seconder" means here. One problem with my understanding is that it would take more than a few people looking at the images here and reviewing them consistently for it to make sense without a huge review of the process. Should it be stricken from the nomination? -- carol (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • "Seconder" as in parlimentary procedure: you second putting this up for Featured Picture Candidate. That's what this section is for, otherwise just post in comments. --Blechnic (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I apologize for my confusion -- I was tempted to move things away from here. In the days that past since I first looked at this image, I have found myself wondering if it has been upscaled. Upscaled scales, even. -- carol (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I'd generally advise not apologizing for confusion, it will require all of your time, and those funky trees will be abandoned to their slopes in Africa. --Blechnic (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Long-eared owl

A long eared owl in Bulgaria

It has good quality,the target is in the center and the target is watching the camera.It is taken with a FinePix S5700 S700.

Nominated by

Pavlen (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm pretty sure that the quality isn't FP quality. The composition is pretty good, but because of how it looks at full zoom and even about half-zoom, I don't think this will make it. The picture is just very noisy. Elephantissimo (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Nice shot, but one of the big things working against this would be that the bird is behind a number of branches of the tree. Sure they're only small and you can still see the bird quite clearly, but it is that sort of thing that makes the difference between a good picture and a Featured Picture :-). It also looks to me that the focus is towards the bottom of the tail feathers, or perhaps on one of those small branches, leaving the face slightly outside the optimum focal plane; ideally it would be the other way around (though I've only viewed at image page size so could be wrong on this). --jjron (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Hurricane Dennis (1999) GOES

Hurricane Dennis on August 28 while off the coast of Florida.

Hurricane Dennis on August 28 while off the coast of Florida.

To be honest, I'm a little fond of this picture. While I'm not 100% certain of this picture as a FP, I'd like to get other opinions of it as well before making a decision. It should probably be noted that a second image, Hurricane Cindy (1999) GOES.JPG, is cropped from the same image that Dennis is, but the whole version of the picture has not been uploaded. Comments, as always, are requested and much appreciated.

Nominated by

Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Hurricane pics aren't exactly flavour of the month at FPC after what I'd best describe as a hurricane image 'spamming' of the page a few months back. Size would certainly be an issue - it does meet requirements, but for an image like this, more would be expected. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• A nice, clear image, but I wish it wasn't cropped so close. If I didn't read the caption, I'd have no idea where, or even in which basin the hurricane's in. It would also be nice if it was larger both directions. A goog image, no doubt, but I'm not sure it would pass FPC. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

After seeing size being the main point of contention, I've uploaded a larger area shot of the hurricane. Now you can make out Florida and Cuba, and you have an idea as to what basin it's in. By the way, for anyone wondering, the reason this one is a PNG while the other is JPG is because I had a fickle time getting an image upload on Commons as a JPG. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra Bridge

The Alexandra Bridge crossing the Ottawa River with Gatineau, Quebec in the background. Taken from Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada

One of the only things I haven't accomplished in my time on Wikipedia is a featured picture. Going through my contributions, I feel this is one of my best. It's a clear picture that well illustrates the subject, and I think it's a well composed shot with the greenery adding a nice border along the bottom. Do others feel this might be FPC worthy? One problem is that there was enough haze that day to make the buildings in the distance not as clear as they could be.

Nominated by

SimonP (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Well, I'm no expert, but I figure some comments are better than none: I think it's a very nice framing of the bridge. The lighting is only average, however; and as you note it's hazy in the background. A circular polarizing filter would bring out the blue in the sky. It seems a little noisy at the higher resolution. Taken during the Golden hour you might get better lighting and interesting reflections. As for composition, while I like the church spire in the background, the high rise buildings are boring and ubiquitious. A nighttime shot (if the bridge is well lit) or a foggy day might reduce the plainness of the background. I'm ambivalent about the greenery in the foreground; it makes the image different, yes, but it's fairly plain greenery. If it were flowers blooming it might be amazing. I think I'm bothered by the stalks being cut off... maybe if it were just a bit more lush. The nice lines of the trusses are polluted somewhat by the white boats in the behind them; I'm not sure how I would avoid that at this angle, and it's a good angle. I do think it's a promising bridge to photograph.--Fletcher (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Cesarian the moment of birth

A team of obstetricians perform a caesarean section in a modern hospital. The image shows the very first moment the mother glimpses her new-born child.

Edit1

I think this is an incredible pic for a few reasons. First, its the first moment of life, how cool is that? Second, I like how the lighting is just on the baby, really gives a focal point to the picture. I think there is room for some contrast edit work to it though, before it receives nomination.

Nominated by

smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The picture is very good in respects to composition with the baby clearly being the subject of the picture. I tried cleaning the noise on the image but a few layers of noise reduction have to be applied. I created an edit that is downsized if you would like to take a look at it. The largest problem with this picture is that during the exposure there was some camera shake which is impossible for me to correct. Sorry to say but this would be very hard to get through FPC. --victorrocha (talk) 3:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you post the edit? I'd def like to see what improvement(s) you made. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

With the edit I did a few layers of noise reduction to take care of the noise resulting from the ISO at 500. I downsized it to get the picture sharp. I tried changing the white balance of the picture but I decided to keep that at the original level. Lastly I would like to say that I was playing around with the brightness of the picture but that would be up to you to do (I did not see a huge difference in the composition of the picture changing brightness, but there was some). --victorrocha (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Support Victorroacha's edit. With the noise reduction it has lost some sharpness, most notable when viewed at full resolution. But still, to my mind the Wow-factor of this image compensates for the imperfect image quality. The FP as I'm writing this is just a boring picture of an anorexic supermodel on a catwalk. M'eh. This pic is far more beautiful and inspiring, and not nearly so easy to replicate. ("Um, excuse me, doctor? Could you put her back in the womb for just a moment? I need to lower my ISO.") Fletcher (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha to your ISO comment. I guess thats the nature of photography however. I like the edit as well. I was experimenting with the various levels of brightness, but I was never satisfied with any of the changes. I will nominate victorrocha's edit. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Crotalus cerastes

Crotalus cerastes at Mesquite Springs, CA (Mojave Desert)

Edit 1

I think the picture is sharp, large, and clear enough to warrant being called an exceptional picture of the animal, along the lines of other animal FP's. However, I'd like opinions on how to improve the image, or, if it is suitable for an FP nomination at all, as I am biased by my own work!

Nominated by

Tigerhawkvok (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not sure how it will go over with others, but I say this is a cool picture and it's worth a shot. The only thing that worries me is the amount of focus at full-size and the fact that the lighting blows potions of the snake's head. Wait for what other people say, but if nothing comes of it, go for it. Elephantissimo (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Likely to attract a lot of opposes. The lighting at the midday time of the shot is far too bright so the snake is overexposed and the shadows are harsh. See this one of the same snake for better lighting. The Depth of field is also too shallow - not all of the snake is clear and in-focus. I have the same camera and these issues result from leaving the wheel set to Auto. For this shot (though the lighting is too harsh and a few hours earlier would be better), I'd set to aperture priority - F 6.8, -2 stops exposure compensation and change the shot angle to get rid of the shadow in the top right if possible. I like the pose, shot angle and framing though - Peripitus (Talk) 11:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hm, I actually prefer the harsher contrast, I think it makes the snake much clearer than in the other photo, making the features much easier to identify (from a herpetological perspective). Well, one for one against here ... I'll see what a few other opinions are either way. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Just as a brief opinion, since requested, I'd tend to side with Peripitus. The harsh lighting has led to some fairly blown out areas of the snake, that shadow in the top corner is a bit unfortunate, DOF does seem a bit shallow, and I'm not really a fan of that background, it looks like a road or path, but it takes away from the 'natural' look that most animal FPs have. On the plus side I do like the composition/pose of the snake, so kudos for that. Could I also suggest that you add more detail to your image page descriptions though, e.g., where it was taken, common name as well as species name, etc, and also put the date in a more 'accepted' format. --jjron (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edit posted as an FPC. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• The edit includes darkening, selective darkening of blown out areas and lightening of the background. The was a layer of light sharpening applied followed by a slight downsize to sharpen the picture. The WB was also adjusted very slighty. --victorrocha (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Diving Emperor Penguins

An Emperor Penguin can hold its breath anywhere up to 20 minutes, and dive over 550 meters (1,800 feet) deep.

It is of good quality, the object as at the centre. It is in the public domain. It is an intriguing picture with a caption that provides interesting information (has a "wow I didn't know that") quality. There are not major obstructions to the subject, it's all in good focus aside from the snow background. One thought may be to lighten it slightly, I noticed it looks better slightly lighter in the lower resolution. It's full resolution is over 1,000 in both directions. New to the FPC thing but wanted to give it a crack. SGGH ^speak! 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

SGGH ^speak! 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The focus on the front is pretty good, but the tail seems to be out of focus. What you should try to do is darken the background a little, because for me, it's a little distracting. Elephantissimo (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd give this one a go at FPC without any adjustments; dark snow is just, well, strange. But change the caption—it should describe the picture rather than be trivia about the subject. It's much better as on the image describtion page because the trivia is tied into the photo itself. Thegreenj 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean I should use "A Emperor Penguin dives into the water somewhere in the Antarctic. Emperor Penguins can dive as deep as 550 meters, with 20 minutes of air in a single breath."? I shall give it a go. SGGH ^speak! 12:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have given it a go at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Diving Penguin

Seconder

hockey bugs

my E.tiaratum

for people to see the wonder and amasment in these cool creatures that are never the star to a show or a main character in some kids show but are used for some cruel game shows........

Nominated by

B jacob (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

people who think spiny leaf insects are dumb are dumbst

Comments

• Tells a story, this picture, and tells it nice. Better than many that captures the subject sitting pretty, merely capturing its likeness. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• nice BJinsect (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Urban Explorer, Hobart, Tasmania

Seems to meet the technical standard, high resolution, free license, accurate, adds value to an article (urban exploration) and clearly illustrates the subject. There is a little color fringing (visible at 100%) on the top left hand side, I am wondering if the image should be resized such to eliminate this (but maintain resolution requirements), or if the extra detail in the rest of the frame would be more important. There many also be some image manipulation possible to reduce the distortion. Any other input would be good too

Nominated by

Noodle snacks (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I really like this. In my mind it would have a good chance at FPC, but you can't predict what will appeal to voters (some may for example say that this is an easily reproducible shot and complain about minor technical details like the slightly blown highlights at the top or the shadows at top right and off to the left). I can't comment on all the technical details because the 5MB filesize discourages me from looking at it fullsize, but at image page size I can't spot many other obvious flaws.

OK, what do I like about it? I think it's a very good capture for this topic showing the explorer in slightly 'scary' garb suitable to his cause about to disappear into the tunnel (now some voters may complain that he doesn't look animated enough). He is framed by the copious yet interesting graffiti and the running water at his feet, even including some detritus on the tunnel floor. Re the shadows and lighting I mentioned above, as I said some voters may complain, but I find the lighting very atmospheric for the photo, with the daylight pushing in from the top and the picture disappearing off into inky blackness in other places, showing what the explorer is heading into. OK, so to me, very good work and worth a try at FPC.

Some suggested improvements first though. I think it could do with more detail in the description on the image page (e.g., where 'under' Hobart is this...). I think it could it go to a more prominent place in its article, as it is superior to the other pictures. It could also probably be a slightly bigger size at thumbnail in the article as we rather lose the explorer at that size. I wonder if it may also be useful in any other articles, for example is there any relation to this explorer and the Cave Clan?

Good contribution and good luck. --jjron (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I could only provide approximate location underground; It is hard to give the location when you have been walking without known landmarks in sight for a kilometer or two. I'll have a look at some satellite photos later and see if i can pin point the location. There is no direct relationship with this explorer and the Cave Clan, however there is plenty of cave clan tagging where this picture was taken. Animated explorer was not really too practical for this shot, as the longer exposure was required to get a good balance of natural light. I could have pushed the ISO considerably but this would have increased the noise etc. If you look at the full print the explorer is holding a flashlight. The highlights at the top left are not blown due to over exposure (take a look at a histogram) I think its actually some lens distortion (common on my 17-85 IS USM). Either way, I have done some editing to remove the Chromatic aberration on the top left hand side, now it looks good at 100%. The edited picture is attached on the right, let me know if you think its an improvement. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, with the opening to the street above I thought it may have been possible to pinpoint where this was, having said which I have been to Hobart and realise that there are lots of these openings to the rivulet from the streets. Yeah, I figured it was probably a long shutter speed, I was just identifying the fairly casual explorer as something some may complain about. This camera could have handled ISO400 quite successfully (I have the same camera), having said which there appears to be some noise already, more than I would have expected. Looking at the fullsize, you're right, there are some weird things going on up at the top where the light is coming in, even in the edit. There are some blown areas at the top, I don't think it's anything to kill the nomination, but they are definitely there. With those problems I don't know how easy they would be to fix as they're a little unusual, but it does come up a lot better in downsized form; a 50% downsize really covers those problems, and still comes in well above requirements at 1944 x 1296px. Will leave it with you. --jjron (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well I think this image is just captivating... if it weren't interesting enough it's got a mini-waterfall thrown in for good measure! The overexposure in the top left seems like the main issue. And from this angle the smaller side tunnel's circumference is clipped. I don't have a problem with the explorer's appearance... he looks weird, as any underground explorer should look. His flashlight is not easily discernible until viewed at the high resolution. I don't have enough experience here to say whether it's a viable FP, but hey, I like it. It looks cool in B&W, too. Fletcher (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Nominated at FPC by Noodle snacks. --jjron (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S. flag folding animation

Folding the flag of the United States

Very accurate and detailed animation on the proper way to fold the U.S. flag. Although the image is not of very high resolution, the image should be able to be easily recreated in a larger format if necessary, which would be suitable as a featured picture.

Nominated by

–Dream out loud (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's definitely informative, but I think it should be slowed just a tad. Elephantissimo (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Elephantissimo; it goes by too fast to really make sense of what's happening. Have the line come up right away if you wish, but increase the time between it appearing and the fold, by at least 100%. Matt Deres (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Personally I like the image (although I agree it should be slowed down) but I'm not a massive fan of the grey colour that dominates the for most of the animation. What would people think about replacing it with just an outline to represent the initial size of the flag? Guest9999 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea to me. Elephantissimo (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• I slowed down the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hi, I created this version of the animation; thanks for providing that warm fuzzy feeling of knowledge that it is appreciated. At the time of creation I wasn't really aware that Wikipedia could resize animations or that there would be any use for a high-res one. However, I did construct it at 800px wide; unfortunately I no longer have the software to read the source. If someone does have Fireworks, I have uploaded the source to http://willhirsch.co.uk/stuff/usflag_fold_source.png . I recommend changing the grey background to a transparent channel in light of other conventions that I have since become aware of. In light of yet another, I'm very tempted to rewrite the image as a procedural animation in SVG, so might have an even higher-res, and much more versatile, version for you some time soon. By the way, the Commons has an image with the same name which is an old revision of this one. The newer one should probably be uploaded there and this one speedied. BigBlueFish (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think a transparent background should be used because MediaWiki doesn't render transparent GIFs very well. I found this out when I came across Image:727db.gif, which had very hard edges with a transparent background. Once it was changed to an opaque white background, it appeared much smoother. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Looming Death

Scaled model of flattend Hiroshima city after atomic bomb explosion. The red ball represents the point of explosion. Picture taken at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

This picture dipicts the scale of the damage the city sustained from the atomic bomb explosion in Hiroshima.

Nominated by

Rabin (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I like the information conveyed by this image, but as far as FPC is concerned it would not stand a chance. For starters it is only 800 x 600px, but requirements are a minimum of 1000px. For an image like this that is presumably quite reproducible (a photo of a museum display) more would be expected, and it would not be granted any favours. I expect there would be other concerns too, including the shadowy lighting, but the size would finish it before it ever had a chance. It's a worthwhile contribution though. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

TriMet city center transit

Current downtown area transit service

I have a created a number of maps/diagrams that depict transit service through the downtown Portland, Oregon area, including on the Portland Mall. They are all in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon. This is my most recent one and, I believe, the most useful. It shows current service (while buses are removed from the Portland Mall for construction) and is closest to reality in that, unlike Image:TriMet CityCenter.svg or some of the older diagrams, routes are separated into two different lines when they actually travel on two different streets in a couplet (one in each direction).

Moreover, unlike the official map, routes are colored using different colors and not just gray so you can follow individual routes through the area. Nor is there a bombardment of boxes like on ones that were placed on-street in bus shelters (close-up here without map) and on bus stop sign posts (close-up here)

As for the FP criteria I believe that:

• Regarding #1, it's in SVG and the code is clean and very small
• Regarding #2, it's set for low resolution, but since its SVG, it can be enlarged with no problems
• Regarding #3, it's probably among the most detailed diagrams on Wikipedia and is the only one in its subject
• 4's OK
• Regarding #5, I'm not sure how useful a transit map of a specific area is in an encyclopedia
• Regarding #6, it's mostly based on the linked official map
• 7's OK

And for another example of a featured transportation diagram, see Image:Chicago top down view.png

Lastly, I would upload this at Wikimedia Commons, however I do not have an account there. If someone else wants to move them there, I would be OK with that as long as they can still be visible in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon.

Nominated by

Jason McHuff (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• First of all let me congratulate you on the great job you appear to have done. I think my main areas of concern would focus on two areas. One would be what you've mentioned above Re Criteria 5. I'm not entirely sure of its value - personally I don't find it particularly interesting or useful for me, however if I was going to Portland or happened to live there, then I may have quite a different opinion. My other main issue would be verifying its accuracy; since you have linked to a reference presumably it can be verified, but for me (and I'd suspect a lot of voters at FPC) I'm not interested enough to go and check it out, in which case I wouldn't vote on it. Finally can I just make a few suggestions.

• I realise that size isn't an issue for SVG, but at this size I find the text hard to read - if you uploaded at a slightly bigger size (say 1000 to 1200px wide) would it display big enough to read without downloading it and opening it in an external editor? If so, that would make it more useful.
• I'm not entirely sure about the transparent background - personally I prefer a fill colour, I believe there is some sort of recommendation for bg colours on Wikipedia but I don't have enough to do with them to know for sure.
• Can you check the alignment of the text. Most of it looks quite good, but other parts look to be a bit random, for example down the bottom with the "Mill, Montgomery, etc" stuff.
• Another point is that I have no idea what all those terms refer to - Davis, Couch, etc, etc. Are they streets, suburbs, what? And why do some have < and > in front of them? --jjron (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

James H. Clark Center at night HDR

HDR image of Stanford's James H. Clark Center at night

Interesting view of one of Stanford's newest buildings. Difficult to capture without HDR (compare to this version).

Nominated by

Starwiz (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Looks great: good contrast; symmetrically balanced; low noise. Seems like a great candidate -- _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 23:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• An interesting photo. Pretty cool, really. Now for the "buts". The article James H. Clark Center is barely even a stub -- if you want the photo to have a chance as a FPC, I'd suggest fleshing it out, with such info as who Mr. Clark is/was, who the architect was, and what's going on inside the building.

Second -- was this an off night at the labs? The right side is much brighter, giving the photo an unbalanced feel. Reprocess to brighten left up? Definitely dim the right, which has some blown highlights, especially on the first floor. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The labs on the left side have shades on the windows, while the labs on the right don't--you can see it best on the third floor, where the shades are pulled down only two-thirds of the way. (The top floor on the right side of the building also has its shades pulled down, incidentally.) I'm not sure I'm Photoshop ninja enough to make it look more symmetrical, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the comments! --Starwiz (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Alternative version nominated at FPC as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/James H. Clark Center at night HDR-2 by Starwiz. --jjron (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

USNS Mercy and Rainbow

The U.S. Military Sealift Command (MSC) Hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19), anchored off of the coast of Jolo City. Since its arrival, Mercy's staff has assisted thousands of local citizens with medical and dental care. During its stay, this care was provided by a portion of Mercy's staff working side by side with their Filipino counterparts at several medical centers in the city, as well as patients being given care on the ship itself. Mercy is on a five-month humanitarian deployment to South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Islands. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer's Mate Edward G. Martens (RELEASED)

I have enjoyed seeing this photo every time I look at this article. I had a little free time and found out I could nominate photos to be featured. This is the one I always think of as the best on Wikipedia (that I have seen mind you), and I thought I would nominate it for at least peer review to get input.

Nominated by

Nicolaususry (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Cool photo -- could probably be improved with some judicious cropping, especially of the blank water in foreground. Maybe try centering the rainbow? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the shoreline really follow that parabola shape? Also, the sky is grainy. MER-C 07:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I compensated for the lens distortion