Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates ![]() Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. | |||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new usersAdding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2 All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
|
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 00:06:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships
Info The MS Fram is a purpose-built expedition ship with an experienced Norwegian crew, exactly the type of ship you want to be on in a difficult environment. c/u/n by GRDN711 -- GRDN711 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)---------------
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)
Support Great underwater photography as usual (but did you forget to support your own image?) Cmao20 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
Support -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
File:Tanguar haor, Bangladesh 01.jpg (delist)
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)
Delist People were sceptical at the time. Definitely a photomontage. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Delist --Thi (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
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 talkcontrib. 18:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Delist Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Delist and surprised at the 27 support to 0 oppose of original nom. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Ploceidae (Weavers)
Info No FPs of this species. In my opinion the best picture of it on Commons, Charles has a good one but it's not as high resolution or as sharp as this one. created by Poco a poco – uploaded by Poco a poco – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you for the nom, Cmao20, was also on my list :) I changed the crop, I hope you like it Poco a poco (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Looks good to me! Cmao20 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 06:57:10 (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 created by AVRTisco – uploaded by AVRTisco – nominated by AVRTisco -- AVRTisco (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and composition, the image stands out with its bold red monochrome styling. It demonstrates dramatic lighting, tonal depth and visual symmetry. It's rare to capture such a candid and visually striking portrait of a public figure. Taken during an event in Hyderabad. -- AVRTisco (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support AVRTisco (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hi and welcome to FPC. I've fixed the upright format of the photo and the gallery for you. Things are a little different from the Wikipedias here. You need to check that the link you make for the gallery actually goes to a section on a page, and select it more carefully. Also, the file is rather small for an original photo, any chance of getting a bigger upload, preferably with the Exif included? Good luck with your nom now. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment an interesting portrait but small size. @AVRTisco: Bigger size available? --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @W.carter and @UnpetitproleX,
- Thank you both for your valuable feedback. Unfortunately, the higher-resolution version is no longer available—the raw image files were deleted, and I only have this version (I hope this will not effect the voting process). If it’s acceptable under Commons guidelines, I’m willing to upscale the image using Photoshop while preserving the original quality as much as possible. Please let me know your thoughts on whether that would be appropriate in this case. Thankyou -- AVRTisco (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Upscaling is not considered best practice on Commons. Seeing that no new information is actually being added by upscaling, it is merely interpolating pixels, then we take the line that upscaling just increases file size without preserving any new content and thus it should be done client-side if desired rather than being done by the uploader. Anyway, if this is the best version you have,
Weak support on the basis that the composition is really good but the size is a little on the low side. Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Upscaling is not considered best practice on Commons. Seeing that no new information is actually being added by upscaling, it is merely interpolating pixels, then we take the line that upscaling just increases file size without preserving any new content and thus it should be done client-side if desired rather than being done by the uploader. Anyway, if this is the best version you have,
Support --Yann (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 15:55:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian Federal District
Info Capes and cliffs of the north coast of Olkhon Island at sunset. Ancient Archean/Proterozoic deposits in the Baikal continental rift valley (BRZ), Lake Baikal. All by --Argenberg (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely light and composition, although the corner sharpness could be better Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 15:19:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Rosales#Family : Rosaceae
Info Solitary pear tree on a hill above the hamlet of Kaisersbach near Beilstein, Germany, photographed in January with a bit of snow (we rarely get more snow now in southwest Germany). The Schmidbach valley can be seen in the background, with the hamlet of Gagernberg on the right. The afternoon was hazy, but when we approached that tree the sun began to come through the clouds on the horizon, creating an interesting contrast between the overcast sky and the rosy glow over the mountains, similar to an early evening glow. All by – Aristeas (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the calm and peaceful atmosphere, the complex shape of the bare pear tree and its contrast against the pastels of the background. The latter is rather soft thanks to the haze, but I actually like this (just as the out-of-focus foreground) because it emphasizes the tree. – Aristeas (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice light Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support The tree caught my eye, but the landscape behind it and the overall atmosphere make it FP for me. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Perfectly captures the damp cold on such days. Brrr... --Cart (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful landscape --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support A serene winter landscape with subtle colours. --Tagooty (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Cart and Tagooty. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Stunning. I like how everything contributes to drawing our eyes towards the tree: the snowy landscape, the muted sunset colours (which add to the scene without fighting for attention), and the choice of aperture (the tree is fully in focus, and the foreground/background are soft). A great example of how intent is every bit as important as good light. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful composition and light. --Rbrechko (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 14:36:40 (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#Windows
Info Broken window in Ponte de Sor, Portugal. Created and uploaded by Jules Verne Times Two, nominated by – Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I love the charm of decay in this photograph. I love the framing – the concentric white, blue, and brown borders surround the white window like a complex picture frame. The stuff behind the broken panes of glass is certainly just accidental, but looks like carefully arranged to me, with different arrangements in the different window panes. And the colours are both complementary and harmonious. Yes, it’s just a broken window. But I have looked at many broken windows in many derelict buildings and never found one which looked so nicely arranged. – Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Aristeas, thank you for the nomination and for your continued enthusiasm with abstract(ish) images! This one takes me back to my very first camera and fast prime, which I kept permanently glued at f/2 regardless of subject. I since tried to return to this broken window, in hopes of photographing another nice arrangement, but never found it. Nine years have passed and the likelihood the old wooden frame was replaced by a boring new window is high, but I'll try again! Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- You are welcome. This subject is certainly worth the effort; I wish you good luck! BTW, the image quality is excellent for f/2; obviously the Fujinon XF 35mm F2 R WR is a good prime with very flat field and you have got a very good copy. – Aristeas (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ha, I think I found it: [1] It's fascinating to click on 'see more dates' and witness the different arrangements over a span of 15 years! PS: Should I wait for the nomination to run its course before getting rid of the "(approx. GPS location)" on the file name? Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- You are welcome. This subject is certainly worth the effort; I wish you good luck! BTW, the image quality is excellent for f/2; obviously the Fujinon XF 35mm F2 R WR is a good prime with very flat field and you have got a very good copy. – Aristeas (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Aristeas, thank you for the nomination and for your continued enthusiasm with abstract(ish) images! This one takes me back to my very first camera and fast prime, which I kept permanently glued at f/2 regardless of subject. I since tried to return to this broken window, in hopes of photographing another nice arrangement, but never found it. Nine years have passed and the likelihood the old wooden frame was replaced by a boring new window is high, but I'll try again! Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support per nomination Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I am also a big fan of decay and the aesthetics of broken things. And yes, this one stands out, the colors, the different things we can discover ... you got me here. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Conditional support once the blue region is straightened relative to the white wall. Beautiful shot. JayCubby (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Good catch. The various frames are not quite straight, but hopefully those differences are now less conspicuous. Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- You now very much have my
Strong support for this FP. I, for some reason, am sensitive to even very slight tilts. First-world problems, I suppose. JayCubby (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- You now very much have my
- Good catch. The various frames are not quite straight, but hopefully those differences are now less conspicuous. Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Convincing capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 10:25:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Morocco
Info created by Mounir Neddi – uploaded by Mounir Neddi – nominated by Mounir Neddi -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, nice composition but not great image quality and some perspective distortion. I also feel this scene would benefit from a wider panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Healthy and nice waterlilies (not often they are) but the bright and almost washed out background, plus the technical quality doesn't make this FP for me. --Cart (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Overexposed background, low quality. --Tagooty (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 04:01:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
Info created & uploaded by Ashraf747 – nominated by ROCKY -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Again it is a spectacular capture, but again the oversharpening and lack of detail on the bird give me pause Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- This photograph is not over sharpened and the purple sunbird male has plenty of details. Ashraf747 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I can see very obvious sharpening haloes Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ashraf747 I see that the Sony ILCE-7RM4A can produce images at a maximum resolution of 9504 × 6336 pixels. It seems this file might have been downscaled from the original. If possible, could you please reupload the high-resolution version? High-res image is important for a FP nomination, as it allows for detailed evaluation, better usability across Wikimedia projects, and meets the technical quality standards expected for featured content. Thank you! -- Moheen (keep talking) 17:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- The image is not downsized. It's just cropped to make this composition. In wildlife or birding one cannot always go near the subject. So we make sure to keep a safe distance for not disturbing the birds or other animals. Hope you understand. Ashraf747 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Cmao20. The bird benchmark is set pretty high. JayCubby (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would be quite happy if I took this photo -- congratulations on the bird in flight on clean background! As others are explaining, the standard for this particular process involves looking at the image in full resolution, in which case it does show some oversharpening, especially in the wingtips. If you didn't sharpen it in post-processing, the camera is likely doing some sharpening itself (perhaps a setting you might want to change). But yes, I too have many shots I'm proud of but which don't meet the technical requirements to become a featured picture. Hope you'll continue to share your photos, though! — Rhododendrites talk | 01:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- The EXIF metadata suggests the image was taken in Raw (so no in-camera sharpening), but that two AI editors were used (Topaz Labs and DXO's). These are notorious for adding false feather detail with default parameters. Hopefully you can have another go at editing this wonderful image. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 00:50:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created and uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Nice view but the light is a bit pale and the composition, while pleasant, doesn't seem outstanding enough to compensate for me. Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Neutral
- Perhaps @Tagooty: can perform some edits to fix the light. The wide view with the dam on the left and the expansive reservoir it creates stood out to me, hence the nom. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Done @Cmao20: I've reduced exposure to bring out the colours. --Tagooty (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps @Tagooty: can perform some edits to fix the light. The wide view with the dam on the left and the expansive reservoir it creates stood out to me, hence the nom. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Weak support with these changes, thanks Cmao20 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support @UnpetitproleX: Thanks for the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the varying and quite elegant curvature of the banks. – Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 00:01:30 (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#Poland
Info Beautiful drone photo of a Polish castle and surrounding landscape at sunrise. You could argue there's a bit of noise in places but honestly I much prefer a bit of noise to too much noise reduction. created by Gswito – uploaded by Gswito – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Picturesque landscape and buildings, great atmosphere. – Aristeas (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support bit of a dark fringe on the top edge, but nice picture overall. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Pleasing composition. --Tagooty (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 20:13:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Tyrannidae#Genus_:_Tyrannus
Info Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis). I debated whether to nominate this one or this other one. I like the pose of the latter, but can't resist this composition between the two similarly-colored leaves. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support - I agree, @Rhododendrites: . The juxtaposition of the kingbird between the bright yellow leaves is unexpected and impressive. ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support the composition is great with the leaves calling the ventral feathers. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support per ERcheck and Harlock81. – Aristeas (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Harlock81. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 20:08:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Icteridae_(Icterids)
Info Male brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). In the blackbird family, but unusual for that group, it's a brood parasite (they lay eggs in other species' nests). all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Gorgeous plumage! --Cart (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 11:03:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Fagales#Family : Betulaceae
Info The "veins" of the forest. The exposed roots of two birches next to a hiking trail in Brastad, Sweden. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Moheen (keep talking) 13:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support We often miss the fascination of roots (until we stumble over them and grumble). This is an excellent example for the complex intertwining of roots and photographed with good light and colours. – Aristeas (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Like Aristeas, it reminds me to appreciate and see more in the simple things we encounter. Fascinated by its animalistic vibe. ERcheck (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support per anderen. De wortels lijken opgepoetst.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Famberhorst, ja, ze staan op een plek waar kinderen vaak op de wortels zitten. --Cart (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Bedankt voor uw uitleg. Berken hebben soms prachtige bovengrondse wortels. Maar deze zijn wel heel bijzonder,--Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Famberhorst, ja, ze staan op een plek waar kinderen vaak op de wortels zitten. --Cart (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 07:41:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1970-1979
Info created by Jahangir Razmi, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
Info A revolutionary firing squad at the Sanandaj airport in Iran, 27 August 1979. In a 30-minute trial, 11 prisoners from the Kurdish rebellion were charged with crimes of firearm trafficking, murder, and inciting riots, and were sentenced to death. The men were blindfolded and led outside to the airfield, where they were lined up several meters from their executioners. Razmi was unhindered by security forces, allowing him to stand behind the rightmost executioner and photograph the killings. This image got the 1980 Pulitzer Prize. There was a successful previous FP nomination in 2011 for a very small version.
Support Quality is not the best, but educational and historical values compensate for that. -- Yann (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment For the sake of clarity, it might be best to link to the previous nomination and also mention that the small version was deleted later. --Cart (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Cart. The previous nomination is also linked above, below the title. Yann (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I can't find it, I think you missed that one. --Cart (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, it is there, but only visible from the whole page. That's the case for all renominations. Yann (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank, now I see it, but no harm in having it visible directly from the list page too (for people like me who tend to not go to the individual page for each nom). --Cart (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support As per Yann. ZarlokX (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Gruesome, but we now live in an age where the copyright of our childhood's nightmares are being released, so I guess we will have to deal with them and make history visible. --Cart (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Cart. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support more context in the description (in general and also about those being shot), if possible? --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 02:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Yann (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 04:21:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Netherlands
Info The foundation stone of this church (National Monument) was laid on 23 May 1814. With some shifting back and forth, the church tower was placed properly between the two trees.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hello Agnes, I really like the composition etc., I just would suggest to remove the fragmentary twigs in the sky near to the right edge – please see the image notes on the nomination page. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Aristeas Thanks for your comment. I removed the branches. Sometimes it takes a while before the improvement is visible. Greetings from Friesland.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you very much, Agnes! – Aristeas (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Aristeas Thanks for your comment. I removed the branches. Sometimes it takes a while before the improvement is visible. Greetings from Friesland.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I think the sky could do with denoising but it's still great Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Done. Noise Reduction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 15:51:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Soldiers
Info: created by Paolo Bovo, US Army – uploaded by ERcheck – nominated by User:ERcheck -- Thanks. ERcheck (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support: ERcheck (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hi and welcome to FPC. Before we begin evaluating this photo, it needs to have a name that is in line with Commons naming policy and not just a code from the military. If you would be so kind as to suggest a good name for the photo here, describing it so that anyone can understand it, I'll take care of the re-naming and fixing the nomination for you. You can write your suggestion in a reply below. Best, --Cart (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - Thanks for the welcome and the assist. How about "Wet silk training - US Army paratrooper - Lake Garda, Italy - March 2025" ERcheck (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I'll fix this for you. Good luck with your nom now. --Cart (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - Thanks for the welcome and the assist. How about "Wet silk training - US Army paratrooper - Lake Garda, Italy - March 2025" ERcheck (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment A great composition (even if I almost get a panic attack by looking at it! <gasp!>), almost like some alien birth scene from a SciFi movie. However, the photo is full of chromatic noise and artifacts (photos are always reviewed at 100%). I have mended most of that in this version. You are welcome to use it as you like, such as overwriting the nom photo with it. Your choice. --Cart (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - I agree, it is rather scary. Reminds me of Frodo in Shelob's Lair (LOTR - Return of the King). Thanks for working on the photo. I've uploaded the "healed" version. Much appreciated! ERcheck (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Great and though-provoking photo of a rather strange situation. It brings on a lot of emotions like any good photo should. --Cart (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support A striking and almost surreal image that impresses both emotionally and aesthetically through its composition and material texture. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 20:50:30 (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/People#Paintings
Info created by unidentified 17th-century painter, uploaded by Zhuyifei1999, nominated by Yann
Support Gigapixels reproduction of a painting. -- Yann (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment If you have problems opening this large file, please use this link, it shows the painting large enough to see the details, brushstrokes and lint, without freezing your browser. --Cart (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Cart, thanks for warning me before I crashed my computer with that. It's a nice painting reproduced at a ridiculous resolution. Were we to feature this on the main page, can we link ZoomViewer straight away or add a note of its resolution? JayCubby (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- JayCubby, you need to ask the people in charge of the main page that. We've had very big images like this before there, and I don't think there is ever any warning. --Cart (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm the only one who clicks on images straight from MediaViewer. In any case, I feel it's worth noting that this is an exceedingly high-resolution reproduction, as that's part of the reason it's FP-worthy. Just a thought. JayCubby (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are other user who go straight to MediaViewer since it's in the setting options in your Preferences. --Cart (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm the only one who clicks on images straight from MediaViewer. In any case, I feel it's worth noting that this is an exceedingly high-resolution reproduction, as that's part of the reason it's FP-worthy. Just a thought. JayCubby (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- JayCubby, you need to ask the people in charge of the main page that. We've had very big images like this before there, and I don't think there is ever any warning. --Cart (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive reproduction of a portrait painting which is exemplary for its time; the huge resolution allows to study the finest details. It’s a pity that we do not have Exif/metadata or other comments as it would be interesting to see how this file has been created and edited. – Aristeas (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Aristeas: We have an encyclopedia with an article. ;o) Yann (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! It’s a pity that the article does not really explain much besides saying these pics are sooo big. It’s the same with Gigapxl Project, Gigapan, etc. – all articles with a strong advertising/fanboy smell and no technical details. Such articles do not reflect any credit on Wikipedia. Without technical details Gigapixel image looks more a marketing slogan than a technical term (just like Elon’s Gigafactory). But it’s the trend of this time … Of course this does not diminish the value of this image, and so these questions are not important as long as the reproduction is realistic. – Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Very weak support It's a rather normal 17th-century portrait with no extraordinary style (and in a rather bad condition), common for artists who had to do them to be able to put food on the table. The only thing that stands out about it, is that it's digitized in a huge file. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 20:04:27 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Iran
Info The Milad Tower by night and the Hakim Expressway, Tehran, Iran. – created, uploaded and nominated by ZarlokX -- ZarlokX (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose A pretty sight, but it needs a lot of cleanup:
chromatic aberration, perspective correction, sharpness, too many and too big starbursts (sadly no Exif so not possible to tell about the camera settings) to get to FP standard, and like we've seen on the previous nomination there is the problem with the freedom of panorama for the tower. I would recommend that you nominated your photos at COM:QIC first, to get a sense of what quality is required for top Commons photos. --Cart (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to move to "quality images" category for my future submissions. Thank you for your feedback. ZarlokX (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 07:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Monarchidae (Monarch Flycatchers)
Info created & uploaded by Sanjoykumar99 – nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 09:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment A great capture for sure, but too much noise reduction has left it with almost no detail and looking at the reflection, it is tilted. --Cart (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- You are totally wrong, it's not a tilted photo, there is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sanjoykumar99, in a reflection on a water surface (or any perfectly horizontal surface) the different parts of the reflection are always aligned under the main object. Please take a look at this example. That is how you see the tilt and rotation. Cart (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Again you do mistake, my raw was in that form, i did't rotate.
- With photo i have gained 1st prize in usa https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15JNBjmDTJ
- https://www.natphotosociety.com/2025-reflection-winners Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure your raw has the same angle, you just happened to tilt your camera a little bit when you took the photo. This tilt might be an artistic effect that other sites are ok with, but such tilts of calm water surfaces with reflections do not usually make FPs, unless there are very special circumstances or intentions, like if this photo was taken at a very smooth waterfall. Different sites, different rules. (Did you even look at the example? Because it is your photo with explanation lines.) --Cart (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sanjoykumar99, in a reflection on a water surface (or any perfectly horizontal surface) the different parts of the reflection are always aligned under the main object. Please take a look at this example. That is how you see the tilt and rotation. Cart (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- You are totally wrong, it's not a tilted photo, there is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Definitely looks tilted to me. Nice capture but I agree we can afford to be a little bit discriminating about which bird-in-flight images we promote, now that we have so many. The technical issues in this one preclude it from FP despite it being overall impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Are you crazy? How can you definitely told that it was a tilted photo? Do you know about raw? If you need i can show you.There is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Somewhat rude. Yes, I know what RAW is, but just because you didn't rotate the picture in postprocessing doesn't mean it wasn't tilted when you took it. I am sure the RAW file looks the same, but this doesn't tell me any useful information. Cmao20 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support ZarlokX (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Agree that this wonderful capture needs at least a rotation. According to the image size the original photo from the camera should provide some more pixels at the borders, so there is hope that the photographer can rotate the image easily. Could anybody (best somebody who talks Bengali/Bangla) try to contact Sanjoykumar99? They have a whole series of great shots, but a lot of them could profit from less sharpening and some minor tweaks. – Aristeas (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is not any kind rotation. It's not a tilted photo. It's original reflection in water with orginal angle. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Welcome and it’s great that you take part in the discussion, Sanjoykumar99. For the point, please see the explanations by Cart and Cmao20 above. It’s absolutely normal that photos are tilted because the camera was not completely horizontal when the photo was taken. Sometimes this can be ignored, sometimes it’s very obvious, e.g. in cases like this one when there is a reflection in the photo – please see Cart’s wonderful example. Then many people, e.g. most of the folks here, think it’s better to rotate the photo when developing the raw image file in order to align the image properly, as it was in reality. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Welcome and it’s great that you take part in the discussion, Sanjoykumar99. For the point, please see the explanations by Cart and Cmao20 above. It’s absolutely normal that photos are tilted because the camera was not completely horizontal when the photo was taken. Sometimes this can be ignored, sometimes it’s very obvious, e.g. in cases like this one when there is a reflection in the photo – please see Cart’s wonderful example. Then many people, e.g. most of the folks here, think it’s better to rotate the photo when developing the raw image file in order to align the image properly, as it was in reality. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is not any kind rotation. It's not a tilted photo. It's original reflection in water with orginal angle. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per my comment above. --Cart (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)