Springe zu den aktuellen Kandidaten

Dies sind die Kandidaten für die exzellenten Bilder. Beachte, dass es sich hierbei nicht um das Bild des Tages handelt.

Bitte lies alle Leitsätze vor der Nominierung.

Dies ist eine Zusammenfassung von Kriterien, auf die du bei der Einreichung und Bewertung von Exzellenz-Kandidaten achten solltest:

• Auflösung – Fotografien mit einer Auflösung unter 2 Millionen Pixel werden in der Regel abgelehnt, außer unter „stark mildernden Umständen“. Beachte, dass ein 1600 x 1200 großes Foto 1,92 Megapixel hat und damit weniger als 2 Millionen.

Grafiken auf Commons können auch in anderen Weisen als zur Anzeige auf einen herkömmlichen Computerbildschirm verwendet werden. Sie können auch als Ausdruck oder zur Anzeige auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen verwendet werden. Man kann nicht vorhersagen, welche Geräte in Zukunft Anwendung finden, deshalb ist es wichtig, dass die nominierten Bilder die höchstmögliche Auflösung haben.

• Eingescannte Bilder – solange es keine offizielle Richtlinie gibt, findet man unter Help:Scannen für verschiedene Typen von Bildern Hinweise für die Vorbereitung, die hilfreich sein können.

• Fokus – jedes wichtige Objekt im Bild sollte normalerweise scharf sein.

• Vordergrund und Hintergrund – Objekte im Vorder- und Hintergrund können stören. Kontrolliere, ob etwas vor dem Motiv des Bildes wichtige Elemente verdeckt. Auch soll nichts im Hintergrund die Komposition verderben, zum Beispiel eine Straßenlampe, die über dem Kopf einer abgebildeten Person „steht“.

• Allgemeine Qualität – nominierte Bilder sollten von hoher technischer Qualität sein.

• Digitale Manipulationen betrügen nicht in jedem Fall den Betrachter. Digitale Nachbearbeitungen, um Fehler von Fotografien zu korrigieren, sind allgemein akzeptiert, vorausgesetzt, sie sind begrenzt und gut gemacht, ohne dabei betrügen zu wollen. Akzeptiert werden normalerweise Beschneiden, perspektivische Korrekturen, Schärfen und Verwischen sowie Farb- und Belichtungskorrekturen. Umfangreichere Korrekturen wie das Entfernen von störenden Hintergrundobjekten sollten in der Bildbeschreibung mit Hilfe der Vorlage {{Retouched picture}} klar beschrieben werden. Nicht oder falsch beschriebenen Manipulationen, die dazu führen, dass das Hauptmotiv falsch dargestellt wird, sind unter keinen Umständen akzeptabel.

• Wert – unser Hauptziel ist das Hervorheben der wertvollsten Bilder von allen anderen. Bilder sollten irgendwie etwas Besonderes sein. Darum sei dir bewusst, dass:
  • nahezu jeder Sonnenuntergang ästhetisch ansprechend ist und die meisten keinen wesentlichen Unterschied aufweisen zu anderen,
  • Nachtaufnahmen hübsch sind, aber dass man normalerweise mit Aufnahmen bei Tag mehr Details zeigen kann,
  • schön nicht immer wertvoll bedeuten muss.

Auf der fachlichen Seite gibt es die Belichtung, die Komposition, die Bewegungskontrolle und die Fokustiefe zu beachten.

• Belichtung bezieht sich auf die Verschluss-Blende-Kombination, die ein Bild mit einer Tonkurve wiedergibt. Idealerweise bildet diese Tonkurve in akzeptabler Genauigkeit Schatten- und Spitzlichtbereiche im Bild ab. Dies nennt man „Belichtungsspielraum“. Bilder können im niedrigen Teil der Tonkurve (unterer Bereich), im mittleren (mittlerer Bereich) oder hohen Teil (oberer Bereich) liegen. Digitale Kameras (oder Bilder) haben einen engeren Belichtungsspielraum als Fotofilme. Fehlende Genauigkeit im Schattenbereich ist nicht unbedingt ein Nachteil. Tatsächlich kann dies ein gewünschter Effekt sein. Eingebrannte Spitzenlichter sind dagegen ein störendes Element.

• Komposition bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Elemente im Bild selbst. Die „Drittel-Regel“ ist ein guter Grundsatz für die Komposition und ein Erbe der Gemäldemalerei. Die Idee ist, das Bild mit jeweils zwei horizontalen und zwei vertikalen Linien zu teilen. Dadurch wird das Bild in horizontale und vertikale Drittel geteilt. Das Motiv im Zentrum des Bildes zu platzieren, ist oft weniger interessant, als es auf einem der vier Schnittpunkte der horizontalen und vertikalen Schnittlinien zu platzieren. Der Horizont sollte eigentlich niemals in der Mitte des Bildes liegen, wo er das Bild in zwei Hälften „teilt“. Die obere oder untere horizontale Linie ist oft eine gute Wahl. Der Hauptgedanke ist, den Raum zu nutzen, um ein dynamisches Bild zu schaffen.

• Bewegungskontrolle bezieht sich auf die Weise, wie die Bewegung im Bild abgebildet wird. Die Bewegung kann stillstehend oder verschwommen sein. Weder das eine noch das andere ist besser; es kommt auf den Zweck der Aufnahme an. Bewegung ist relativ innerhalb der Objekte des Bildes. Zum Beispiel vermittelt uns das Fotografieren eines relativ zum Hintergrund stillstehenden Rennwagens kein Gefühl für das Tempo oder die Bewegung. Also zwingt uns die Fototechnik, das Motiv stillstehend vor verschwommenem Hintergrund abzubilden, wodurch ein Gefühl für die Bewegung entsteht. Dies nennt man „Schwenken“. Andererseits kann eine Aufnahme eines im Vergleich zur Umgebung stillstehenden Basketballspielers während eines hohen Sprunges das „Unnatürliche“ der Natur dieser Pose sichtbar machen.

• Fokustiefe (DOF – Depth Of Field) bezieht sich auf den Fokusbereich vor und hinter dem Hauptmotiv. Die Fokustiefe wird abhängig von den spezifischen Erfordernissen jedes Bildes gewählt. Große oder kleine Fokustiefe kann auf die eine oder andere Weise die Qualität der Aufnahme vergrößern oder schmälern. Geringe Fokustiefe kann die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Hauptmotiv des Bildes lenken, das Hauptmotiv erscheint dadurch von seiner Umgebung gelöst. Hohe Fokustiefe bringt Abstände zwischen Motiven zur Geltung. Objektive mit kurzer Brennweite (Weitwinkel) ergeben eine hohe Fokustiefe, umgekehrt haben Objektive mit langer Brennweite (Teleobjektive) eine flache Fokustiefe. Kleine Blendenöffnungen bringen große Fokustiefe, und umgekehrt große Blendenöffnungen bringen flache Fokustiefen.

Bei den grafischen Elementen gibt es Form, Volumen, Farbe, Struktur, Perspektive, Balance, Proportion, usw.

• Form bezieht sich auf den Umriss des Hauptmotivs.

• Volumen bezieht sich die dreidimensionale Qualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenlicht herausgebildet. Im Gegenteil zum allgemeinen Glauben ist Frontbeleuchtung nicht die beste Wahl. Frontbeleuchtung lässt das Motiv abflachen. Das beste Tageslicht hat man am frühen Morgen oder nachmittags.

• Farbe ist wichtig. Übersättigte Farben sind nicht gut.

• Struktur bezieht sich auf die Oberflächenqualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenbeleuchtung verbessert.

• Perspektive bezieht sich auf den „Grad“ zusammen mit Linien, die in einen Fluchtpunkt innerhalb oder außerhalb des Bildes enden.

• Balance bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Motive innerhalb des Bildes, die entweder das scheinbar gleiche Gewicht haben oder schwerer auf einer Seite erscheinen.

• Proportion bezieht sich auf die Größenunterschiede der Objekte im Bild. Normalerweise tendieren wir dazu, kleine Gegenstände klein im Vergleich zu anderen darzustellen. Eine gute Methode kann aber sein, kleine Objekte groß im Gegensatz zu wirklichen Größenverhältnissen abzubilden. Zum Beispiel: Eine kleine Blume überwiegt gegenüber einem großen Berg. Dies nennt man Maßstabsinversion.

Nicht alle Elemente müssen berücksichtigt werden. Einige Fotografien können anhand individueller Eigenschaften beurteilt werden. Für ein Bild kann die Farbe oder die Struktur wichtig sein, oder Farbe und Strukur, usw.

• Symbolische Aussage oder Relevanz…. Der Meinungskrieg kann hier beginnen…. Ein schlechtes Bild von einem sehr schwierigen Motiv ist ein besseres Bild als ein gutes Bild von einem gewöhnlichen Motiv. Ein gutes Bild von einem schwierigen Motiv ist ein außergewöhnliches Foto.

Bilder können kulturell beeinflusst sein durch den Fotografen und/oder den Betrachter. Die Bedeutung des Bildes sollte vor dem kulturellen Hintergrund des Bildes beurteilt werden, nicht durch den kulturellen Hintergrund des Betrachters. Ein Bild „spricht“ zu Menschen und hat die Möglichkeit, Emotionen auszulösen, wie zum Beispiel Zärtlichkeit, Zorn, Ablehnung, Heiterkeit, Traurigkeit usw. Gute Fotografen sind nicht darauf beschränkt, gefällige Emotionen zu provozieren.

Um die Chancen für einen Erfolg deiner Nominierung zu erhöhen, lies vor der Nominierung alle Leitsätze.

Wenn du glaubst, ein Bild mit passender Bildbeschreibung und Lizenz gefunden oder geschaffen zu haben, das als wertvoll erachtet werden könnte, folge der anschließenden Anleitung.

Schritt 1: Kopiere den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:), hinter den schon im Feld stehenden Text, zum Beispiel „Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG“. Danach klicke auf die Schaltfäche mit der Aufschrift „neue Nominierung aufstellen“.

Schritt 2: Folge den Anweisungen der geöffneten Seite, und sichere sie.

Schritt 3: Füge manuell einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Kandidatenliste ein: Hier klicken, und füge folgende Zeile OBEN bei der Nominierungslist ein:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG}}

Du kannst folgende Vorlagen benutzen:

• {{Support}} ( Support) (Stimme zur Unterstützung des Exzellenz-Status),
• {{Oppose}} ( Oppose) (Stimme gegen den Exzellenz-Status),
• {{Neutral}} ( Neutral) (neutrale Meinung, keine Stimme),
• {{Comment}} ( Comment) (es folgt ein Kommentar, keine Stimme),
• {{Info}} ( Info) (es folgen Informationen, keine Stimme),
• {{Question}} ( Question) (es folgt eine Frage, keine Stimme)

Du kannst angeben, dass das Bild keine Chance für eine erfogreiche Kandidatur hat. Benutze die Vorlage {{FPX|reason}}, wobei reason angibt, warum das nominierte Bild klar unakzeptabel für die exzellenten Bilder ist.

Weitere Vorlagen gibt es hier.

Bitte füge ein paar Worte an, warum dir das Bild gefällt oder nicht gefällt, insbesondere wenn du dagegen stimmst. Bitte denke auch daran, zu unterschreiben (~~~~). Anonyme Stimmen sind nicht zugelassen.

Mit der Zeit ändern sich die Standards für die Exzellenten Bilder. Es kann entschieden werden, dass Bilder, die vorher „gut genug“ für die Exzellenten waren, es nicht mehr sind. Dies ist zum Aufstellen eines Bildes, welches deiner Meinung nach es nicht mehr verdient, exzellent zu sein. Dazu wähle mit

• {{Keep}}  Keep (das Bild verdient es immer noch, als exzellent zu gelten) oder mit
• {{Delist}}  Delist (das Bild verdient es nicht mehr, als exzellent zu gelten).

Wenn du denkst, dass ein Bild nicht mehr den Exzellenz-Kriterien entspricht, kannst du es für die Abwahl nominieren, indem du den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:) hinter den bereits stehenden Text im Feld kopierst:

In der eben erstellten neuen Seite für die Nomination des Abwahlkandidaten solltest du einfügen:

• Informationen über den Ursprung des Bildes (Ersteller, Uploader),
• Einen Link zur originalen Exzellenz-Kandidatur-Seite (es erscheint unter „Links“ auf der Beschreibungsseite),
• Deine Begründung für die Nominierung und dein Benutzername.

Danach musst du einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Liste der Abwahlkandidaten manuell einfügen.

1. Nach dem Ende des Abstimmungs-Zeitraumes wird das Ergebnis am Tag 10 nach der Nominierung festgestellt (im Zeitplan weiter unten gezeigt). Also dauert der Abstimmungs-Zeitraum 9 Tage, plus die Stunden bis zum Ende von Tag 9. Stimmen, die an Tag 10 oder danach abgeben wurden, werden nicht gezählt.
2. Nominierungen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
3. Mitwirken bei Diskussionen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
4. Nur Nutzer mit einem commons-account, der mindestens 10 Tage alt ist und 50 Beiträge hat, können wählen. Ausnahme: Die eigene Nominierung kann gewählt werden, unabhängig von Alter und Beiträge.
5. Die Nominierung zählt nicht als Stimme. Unterstützung muss explizit angegeben werden.
6. Nominierungen können vom Einsteller jederzeit zurückgezogen werden. Dies geschieht einfach durch das Schreiben von „I withdraw my nomination“ (eng. Ich ziehe meine Nominierung zurück)
   oder durch Hinzufügen von {{withdraw}} ~~~~.
7. Denke daran, das Ziel von Wikimedia Commons ist es, einen zentralen Speicher für freie Bilder, genutzt von allen Wikimedia-Projekten, bereitzustellen, einschließlich für mögliche zukünftige Projekte. Dies ist nicht einfach ein Speicher für Wikipedia-Bilder, deshalb sollten hier die Bilder nicht danach beurteilt werden, ob sie zu diesem Projekt passen.
8. Bilder können vorzeitig am Tag 5 (fünfter Tag nach der Nominierung) von der Abstimmungsliste genommen werden („Regel des 5. Tages“):
   1. Wenn sie keine Unterstützung erhalten, die Einsteller nicht mitgezählt.
   2. Wenn sie 10 oder mehr Pro und kein Kontra erhalten haben.
9. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPX}} markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden, vorausgesetzt, das Bild hat außer von den Einstellern keine positiven Stimmen (Unterstützung) erhalten.
10. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPD}} (FP denied) markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden.
11. Es dürfen von einem Benutzer maximal 2 Nominierungen gleichzeitig platziert werden.

Ein Kandidat wird in die Galerie der exzellenten Bilder aufgenommen, wenn folgende Bedingungen erfüllt sind:

1. Passende Lizenz (selbstverständlich)
2. Mindestens 7 positive Stimmen (Pro-Stimmen)
3. Das Verhältnis von unterstützenden zu ablehnenden Stimmen ist mindestens 2/1 (eine Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit)
4. Zwei verschiedene Versionen desselben Bildes können nicht beide exzellent werden, sondern nur das mit der höheren Zahl an Stimmen.

Die Abwahl-Regeln sind dieselben wie zur Wahl der exzellenten Bilder bei gleichbleibenden Abstimmungs-Zeitraum. Die Regel des 5. Tages gilt für Abwahlkandidaten, die keine Stimme für die Aberkennung des Exzellenz-Status' bis zum Tag 5 erhalten haben, außer die des Antragstellers.

Ein erfahrener Nutzer kann die Anfrage beenden. Wie man eine Anfrage beendet, siehe unter Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun, wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

Bitte bedenke, dass das Bild, das du beurteilst, das wohlüberlegte Werk von jemandem ist. Vermeide Phrasen wie „it looks terrible“ (eng. sieht schrecklich aus) oder „I hate it“ (eng. Ich hasse es). Wenn du dagegen Stellung nehmen musst, tu dies bitte mit Rücksichtnahme. Bedenke außerdem, dass deine Englischkenntnisse nicht die gleichen sein müssen wie die eines anderen. Wähle deine Worte sorgfältig.

Viel Spaß beim Bewerten …, und denke daran: Alle Regeln können gebrochen werden.

• Zum Bearbeiten der Liste mit den Nominierungen klicke auf: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
• Eine chronologische Liste ist unter Commons:Featured pictures/chronological zu finden.
• Ein Archiv vergangener Nominierungen liegt unter Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log.
• Eine Anleitung, wie man Nominierungen beendet, findet sich unter Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun, wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

• Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder
• Kritiken von Fotografien

Seite erneut laden für neue Nominierungen: purge this page's cache

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 06:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 
  Three Coconut lorikeet are sleeping
• 
  Three Coconut lorikeet wake up

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 06:25:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 04:26:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae
•  Info Seed pod of a Telekia speciosa Focus stack of 20 photos.}}
  All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 00:25:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Literature
•  Info created by William Hatherell – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 21:03:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical devices
•  Info created by Henry Söderlund on Flickr – uploaded by Tm – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support High quality photo at high resolution. -- JayCubby (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I like the seeming simplicity. And the very small dashes of colour, that break the illusion of a black and white photo. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 19:24:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Liliaceae
•  Info all by Kritzolina – nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 19:03:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Germany
•  Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I don't know if others will think it has insufficient wow-factor but this interesting case study of a building being reclaimed by nature appeals to me. I enjoy the rich colours, the patterns cast by the shadows, and the branch that juts out to touch the roof of the old hut almost like the forest is claiming it as its own. Cmao20 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 16:18:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
•  Info created by US Navy, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
•  Info Admiral Chester Nimitz signs as Supreme Allied Commander during formal surrender ceremonies on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. September 2, 1945. Directly behind him are (left-to-right): General of the Army Douglas MacArthur; Admiral William Halsey, USN, and Rear Admiral Forrest Sherman, USN.
•  Support -- Yann (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Can be a featured picture just like the Japanese signature one. -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 13:58:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Objects
•  Info Just me, experimenting, again. We don't have many photos of camera flashes at the moment they fire (let alone mounted on a camera), so I gave it a try. See the description on the file page. I think the black & white works well here with this, my trusty old analogue film camera. All by, -- Cart (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Cart (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Arty. Black and white probably essential here else you'd probably get weird lens flares Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Excellent. High informational value as well as high artistic value. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Yann (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Impressive, and very cleverly done (see description page). – Aristeas (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Visually striking shot of a rarely captured moment, combining technical clarity with aesthetic composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 11:53:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Soldiers
•  Info Female soldier standing guard onboard mine countermeasures vessel M77 Ulvön, moored in Lysekil, Sweden. I know this is a small file, as you can see it's a crop from a larger photo. But since it's within the rules, I’m going to try it anyway, because I really like the "Accidental Renaissance" of it. The soldiers were kind enough and they gave me permission to take photos, but they were on the job, so I wasn’t going to pester them too much. The male soldier was stationary at the gangway, while the female was patrolling the deck. This was the only chance I had to photograph her in that position. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Cart (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support It is a bit small but it's a fine portrait with a careful composition. I would find it interesting hanging in an art gallery, so it should probably be FP.Cmao20 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Анастасия Львова^ru/en 16:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support The different shapes of the surroundings (rectangles, sharp diagonal, round window) make this photo special and very apt for the portrait of a soldier. – Aristeas (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support as per Cmao20 and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I've added a category (for the H&K G36). I would personally crop a few pixels at the top (but then again I like to crop things too tightly). JayCubby (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 11:45:54 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
•  Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Very scenic and beautiful view. The sky saturation looks a bit much but I'll take your word for it that it looked like this Cmao20 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Beautiful scenery and colours, high resolution. Hopefully, the WLE jury will appreciate this photo! – Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 08:08:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
•  Info Picture of the main entrance of the village church in Sanitz (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany), taken on Easter Sunday this year. The church is built of fieldstone and brick; the shadow of the tree adds depth to the composition. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Wow, one of the few times here that I've seen a shadow enhance a photo. Well spotted and perfect timing! --Cart (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support The bright blue door really 'pops' out of the plain wall Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Wow – the portal is really beautiful, and the characteristic shadow of the tree makes this a special image. As Cart said. – Aristeas (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Per Cart, this is really special! --Kritzolina (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 08:03:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
•  Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Nice composition and light Cmao20 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 18:14:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#France
•  Info English oak standing in the middle of a rapeseed field with the Jura Mountains background. Versonnex (Ain), France. Created, uploaded and nominated by ZarlokX -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I think its beter version. --Mile (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Like the previous nomination, it is overcategorised, though. As A.Savin says you need to read the guidelines and fix this. But the photo is great. Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done, I removed 3 overcategories. And thank you. ZarlokX (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Llez (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Wikisquack (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Convincing composition, beautiful interplay of the three colours (lush green, bright yellow, bluish background). – Aristeas (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Compelling overall composition and colors. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 15:49:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Slovenia
•  Info Tractor John Deere 6320 with front and rear mower cutting grass. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Cool idea and really great composition! Cmao20 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Cart (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Interesting, appealing composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support – Aristeas (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 11:50:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Ukraine
•  Info Top down view on castle in Zolochiv, Ukraine. Created, uploaded and nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Sorry — nice composition, but the image lacks the level of sharpness we usually expect for a FP. --Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 13:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Nice view and light. Quality is just about okay for a drone photo Cmao20 (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Wikisquack (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Excellent overview of the castle, beautiful light from the side. – Aristeas (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 20:19:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Agriculture#France
•  Info English oak standing in the middle of a rapeseed field with the Jura Mountains background. Versonnex (Ain), France. – created, uploaded and nominated by ZarlokX -- ZarlokX (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Overcategorization. Read guidelines and fix, please. --A.Savin 11:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did it for my new candidacy. ZarlokX (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ZarlokX: This should be self-evident for all pictures, not only for FP candidates, just to say that. --A.Savin 11:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment This could be very good, but crop to keep just tree and yellow. Bush should be out. At least as Alternative. --Mile (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done, I withdraw and candidate another picture I took of the same tree. ZarlokX (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination ZarlokX (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
•  Info Matanuska Glacier - Alaska. Сreated by Eric Kilby – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral A beautiful place indeed, but the photo is a little too dark. I'd expect more white in the snow since this is a pristine place. Probably a bit too much clarity. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Actually, this is ice, not snow, so it may not be completely white. --Yann (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Agree with Cart but the clarity doesn't bother me as much here because it doesn't look as oversaturated and it's just a more interesting/unique view than the other nomination Cmao20 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment The vignetting is distracting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support A very special place, stunning shapes of the ice. – Aristeas (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
•  Info Icebergs floating on Inner Lake George below Colony Glacier in Alaska. Сreated by Eric Kilby – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose This place and its light is very much like the fjords in my own backyard. This photo looks over-processed to me, too much clarity (a common mistake when editing arctic scenes) and saturation, especially in the blue spectrum. --Cart (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Weak oppose Beautiful composition but I agree that the colours and clarity look a bit too much and this makes me see it as a little clichéd, I'd prefer a more modest process of this image. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Since I really like the nature in this photo, I had a go at it. Sure enough, by "reverse engineering" some of the edits I was happy to find a very nice landscape underneath it all. Thankfully, not much of the colors and details had been lost in the original processing. Since glacier ice can be very blue, the glacier and ice floes retained their color even after some desaturation. Юрий Д.К, if you want to use the edited version as an 'Alternative', you'll find it at File:Glassy Glacial Lake (54441988747), edited.jpg. I would support it. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I will support this version if someone adds it as an alt Cmao20 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Weak support Agree that the editing has added a bit too much contrast/clarity, but nevertheless I cannot help to be impressed. Of course Cart’s version looks better to me, I would give full support to it if you could add it as an alternative version. – Aristeas (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Aristeas, Cmao20, Cart and ZarlokX. Alternative nomination is ready. Юрий Д.К 23:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support FP now Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support as I said above. – Aristeas (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 11:59:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
•  Info No FPs of this species. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Strong support Just wow Cmao20 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Yann (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- ERcheck (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Amazing moment, nice bckground. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 13:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per Rbrechko. – Aristeas (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Great capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Nice composition and bokeh -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 12:10:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Capitonidae (New World Barbets)
•  Info One FP of a female. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Very high resolution and quality, good composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Yann (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Cart (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Mile (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Eye-catching, fascinating colors, exemplary composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Beautiful colors and light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 11:06:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
•  Info Parapet of the organ gallery, parish church St. Genesius, Riedböhringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany; created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment While this picture is very good and high quality, I fear it may fall into the 'low wow' category for me. Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I think this is a beautiful image and section.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Very nice pars pro toto: an unpretentious and tasteful painting, well photographed. – Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 05:54:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
•  Info (c/u/n) -- Rudhra Varma (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Rudhra Varma (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Quite a nice portrait. Maybe a little bit small but still pretty great Cmao20 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• However, it is not currently categorised. Can you sort that out and add suitable cats? I know you're quite new to FPC but it shouldn't pass unless properly categorised. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Nice portrait and good-looking guy. I see that we have a couple of new photographers focusing on Indian actors. While we are thankful that these photographers are willing to donate good photos to Commons, I think we will have to take care of the categories since I doubt that sorting is their primary interest for participating. I have added categories to this photo. --Cart (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Good quality, natural posture -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Convincing, natural portrait. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 20:33:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Anthozoa
•  Info Sea anemone (Pachycerianthus delwynae), Anilao, Philippines. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Great underwater photography as usual (but did you forget to support your own image?) Cmao20 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Why not? I do like it, indeed :) Poco a poco (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support A bit dark, but nice compo. --Cart (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per Cart. I assume it was actually quite dark there? (If not, I would appreciate if you could try whether a brighter version looks better or not.) – Aristeas (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a night dive (I forgot to update the time) and the anemone was quite big, so to get it fully on the picture with my 100mm lens I had to keep some distance so that the light was not strong anymore. I've brightened it a bit and uploaded a new version. Poco a poco (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, both for the explanation and the brightening! IMHO the photo is very good now – making it even brighter would be exaggerated given that it was taken during a night dive. – Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Yann (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Underexposed in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I brightened it a bit more, I wouldn't go further Poco a poco (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 20:32:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#France
•  Info Image of the Black Madonna in the basilica of Our Lady of the Daurade, Toulouse, France. The first church in this location was established in 410 when Emperor Honorius allowed the conversion of pagan temples to Christianity. The original building of Notre-Dame de la Daurade was a temple dedicated to Apollo. During the 5th or 6th century another church was erected, decorated with golden mosaics; the current name derives from the antique name, (“Deaurata”, gold). It became a Benedictine monastery during the 9th century. After a period of decline starting in the 15th century, the basilica was demolished in 1761 to make way for the construction of Toulouse's riverside quays. The buildings were restored and a new church built, but the monastery was closed during the French Revolution, becoming a tobacco factory. The basilica had housed the shrine of a Black Madonna. The original icon was stolen in the fifteenth century, and its first replacement was burned by Revolutionaries in 1799 on the Place du Capitole. The icon presented today is an 1807 copy of the fifteenth century Madonna. Blackened by the hosts of candles, the second Madonna has been known since the sixteenth century as Notre Dame La Noire. The current edifice was built during the 19th century. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose for now I hope this is taken in the spirit of constructive criticism but I really am not convinced by your current processing algorithm. In this and your previous nomination, which you kindly corrected/improved at my request, the reprocessed version you have uploaded in 2025 has made the text on the signs in the church far less legible than it was in the original versions in the file history uploaded in 2022/2023. What is sharp and easily readable in the earlier versions is now blurry, smudged, and sometimes seems to contain characters that don't really even look like letters. It is obvious in this image if you zoom in to virtually any noticeboard, sign, or monument with lettering.

I wonder whether your processing software is applying some form of AI-based sharpening or noise reduction without you being aware. AI is a huge fad at the moment, and I notice that photo processing software is often jumping on that bandwagon, adding AI-based features that are sold to us as a great improvement while they are actually quite dubious. AI is notoriously bad at handling text, and its sharpening algorithms often work by interpolating textures, which can easily smooth out details like text where precise rendering of individual pixels is important.

I am keen to support this picture but on principle I won't support a version that's to my mind obviously worse than the 2023 version. I can see that the new version does have certain advantages - the altar is a little bit sharper - but for me these are far outweighed by the poor rendering of fine detail. One of the things I like about your church interiors is that, like David Iliff's and DXR's, they contain plenty of interesting detail to explore at full size. It would be a huge shame to lose this. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Cmao20, I addressed the issue. I hope this version looks much better. Poco a poco (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Yes, that's what I want it to look like Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Ermell (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Compo is not so good. I would avoid side painting and bilboards. Would crop just to main portal.--Mile (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I also have uploaded an image of what you ask for, see here. But I prefer the wider view / compo of this candidate. Let's see what others say. Poco a poco (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Юрий Д.К 21:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Impressive and beautiful. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support good enough to me. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 16:43:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Portraits
•  Info created by Hosseinronaghi – uploaded by Hosseinronaghi – nominated by محک -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Yann (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Dreamy and romantic photo, but unfortunately quite noisy (to some extent masked by the B&W) and the motion blur of the hand should not be present in a portrait photo session. --Cart (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 16:20:58

•  Info Undisclosed photomontage, please see the discussion. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- Yann (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I trust others more experts about this. Yann (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delist People were sceptical at the time. Definitely a photomontage. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to be proven wrong this time Cmao20 (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delist --Thi (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist + delink from Wikipedia main NS articles. Especially per the bird in the tree + strange halo around the right man's head. Furthermore, I cannot judge a lot about the distances, but the sharpness of the birds definitely doesn't match the sharpness of the tree and humans. If the birds were in the same plane or beyond, they would be some monstrous human-eating ducks. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 18:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist  Keep Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yann: @Cmao20: @Thi: @Draceane: @UnpetitproleX: @W.carter: The uploader provided two images for the context, that looks credible to me. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delist and surprised at the 27 support to 0 oppose of original nom. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks to Abdulmominbd for providing evidence of the image’s authenticity. I understand that this discussion may have been uncomfortable but it is also essential given how often undisclosed manipulations do get featured at FPC.

  For me, the image though not a photomontage is still not FP—a significant part of the image is completely black, the saturation brush in the sky is way too obvious, the wetland i.e. the titular subject is cropped out. To me, the unedited actually looks better (even FP worthy with some editing). Perhaps it could have been edited differently? For now I am not striking my vote, will revisit this later. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A side  Comment Looking at the author’s stream, I can see that many, if not most, of the shots are overedited, overprocessed, and extensively oversaturated. Yet many of them have Wiki Loves Earth winner badges, picture of the day stars, and featured awards. I wonder if encyclopedias actually need these kinds of images featured on their pages? I’m talking about a broader set of winners on Wiki Loves Earth. If you look at Wiki Loves Earth winner pages from many countries, many of the top entries there are overedited and oversaturated to the extent that they have nothing to do with realistic photography. There seems to be a competence/expertise issue among the judges. It’s like pop culture eating encyclopedia culture ;) To quote: “The primary driving forces behind popular culture, especially when speaking of Western popular cultures, are the mass media, mass appeal, marketing”. It’s probably fine to have pop culture, but it’s not OK to substitute encyclopedia work on summary of knowledge with pop culture or fantasy culture. --Argenberg (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a constant stream of positive votes in the original nomination, and the only user who questioned the nomination with regard to editing was Charlesjsharp. This particular image, aside from being a photomontage, is actually OK tonality-wise. One could imagine taking a shot like this with a telephoto lens and minimal post-processing. --Argenberg (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the judging on Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves Monuments is often poor. There are good pictures that win awards, but they are frequently beaten by low-quality, oversaturated, heavily processed, unrealistic slop. The judging here is much better, although as this picture shows, we can make mistakes. I don't know how judges for WLE and WLM are chosen. I was once approached to judge WLM Bangladesh, which was good fun, but that is my entire involvement with them. It would be good if these contests solicited the opinions of people who are more skilled photography critics from here, QIC, VIC and elsewhere. Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cannot go into details (that would be rather impolite), but I can tell you from my own experience that often some other jury members don’t like it if one gets picky about details; they think that is boring nitpicking. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This says a lot about the competence of such judges. It could be one of the dividing lines between the smartphone/pop/marketing culture mentioned above and the photography/encyclopedia culture. One aims to impress and manipulate, while the other tries to educate. And education is tough, much harder than marketing, because it takes more energy to build up new neural circuits and pathways in the brain. --Argenberg (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delist Checked some of his FP nominess. I already repulsed one because of bad PS edit. Author (User:Abdulmominbd) can correct us, but so far i will oppose. --Mile (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment EXIF show it's original. Striked. --Mile (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delist  Keep It's unfortunate that this was promoted, but at the time we were still a bit naive here at FPC. A montage was suspected, I remember more chatter about this in e-mails than on the FPC page, so it went undocumented. I know that people were checking if all the ducks were different, maybe a composite from one duck flying past and several exposures used. But it was before schablons popped up in every editing program, and we simply didn't know what to look for. Now we are more seasoned by AI and more wary. Shit happened, and now that we are wiser, it can be corrected. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to be proved wrong in this. There is still some wonder in the world. Of course I apologize to you. --Cart (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delist It’s a pity because this particular image is, as Argenberg stated, “aside from being a photomontage, […] actually OK tonality-wise”. I guess this also explains the broad consent in the original nomination. Many manipulated images are totally overdone and immediately look unrealistic; this one is better. I would love to see the original image before the montage. Maybe it would still be a FP, and with more right than this manipulated version. But we don’t have the choice. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for sharing the files, Abdulmominbd! I’m happy to learn that the photo is authentic. I will take a closer look tomorrow, but have striked my oppose vote. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Keep Just for the record: I can confirm that the metadata of the provided JPEG files look completely authentic. I can reproduce the look of the discussed image by ca. 1 minute of editing of the provided original JPEG (only removing CAs and reducing the sharpening applied by the camera would take longer). So I have to apologize to you, Abdulmominbd, and want to thank you again for sharing the original images for comparison. Congratulations to this great shot and I wish you always good light and many more wonderful photos! – Aristeas (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good capture. But the image is quite heavily edited with newly introduced hues (yellow in the sky). This gives it a different, slightly surreal atmosphere. --Argenberg (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Great, EXIF tell Ver.1.02 which is camera firmware, early one. Probably its all fine here, just edit was a bit strange. Birds have colors, some have CA - so "lens mistake". Abdulmominbd Thanx for showing up. So now is can this edit be FP or not. --Mile (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep obviously Юрий Д.К 21:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Weak keep Clearly overprocessed (yellow sky and what looks like mist) but not fake (genuine shot with real silhouettes of accurate proportions) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Thank you, Abdulmominbd, for stepping forward with transparency and sharing the original files—it takes humility and integrity to do so, especially in such a charged discussion. It's a reminder that sometimes extraordinary moments do happen in real life, and scepticism, while healthy, must be open to evidence. This image may be imperfect from a technical or post-processing standpoint, but the authenticity you've demonstrated deserves appreciation. I hope this experience encourages continued dialogue grounded in both critical thinking and mutual respect. --Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per consensus above. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, satisfied with the explanation from the uploader.--Rocky Masum (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 15:15:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.