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 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]

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]

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]
•  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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)[reply]
•  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  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)[reply]

• Looks good to me! Cmao20 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support. It's a nice composition, subject, and crop.JayCubby (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Cart (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

•  Support AVRTisco (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  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)[reply]
•  Comment an interesting portrait but small size. @AVRTisco: Bigger size available? --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

•  Support --Yann (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I don't mind the size, and the photo, colors and light are well managed. But sorry, for me the crop is too tight at the bottom and to the right, cutting off the shoe. I don't think this pose is the best for an FP portrait, even though I understand that it is meant to convey some sort of attitude and mood. It's more suited for GQ, Harper's Bazaar or something like that, as one in a series of photos in an article about the actor. As a stand-alone portrait, it doesn't work that well. --Cart (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
•  Support -- Argenberg (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Lovely light and composition, although the corner sharpness could be better Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support The light is great, and together with the stark landscape and the stormy sky it provides an impressive view. – Aristeas (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Thi (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
•  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)[reply]
•  Support Nice light Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  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)[reply]
•  Support Perfectly captures the damp cold on such days. Brrr... --Cart (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Beautiful landscape --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support A serene winter landscape with subtle colours. --Tagooty (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support as per Cart and Tagooty. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  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)[reply]
•  Support Beautiful composition and light. --Rbrechko (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Lijkt meer een schilderij als een foto.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
•  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Thank you for the research. Wow, this is really a nice journey through time! File and nomination subpage renamed. It’s more complicated to rename an image during the nomination, but I hope I have found and updated all links. – Aristeas (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Awesome, thank you! Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support per nomination Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  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)[reply]
• Template:Conditional support once the blue region is straightened relative to the white wall. Beautiful shot. JayCubby (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Convincing capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
•  Support -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  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)[reply]
•  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)[reply]
•  Oppose Overexposed background, low quality. --Tagooty (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Low quality, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
•  Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  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)[reply]

  This photograph is not over sharpened and the purple sunbird male has plenty of details. Ashraf747 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see very obvious sharpening haloes Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

•  Oppose per Cmao20. The bird benchmark is set pretty high. JayCubby (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]
•  Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

   Done @Cmao20: I've reduced exposure to bring out the colours. --Tagooty (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Weak support with these changes, thanks Cmao20 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support @UnpetitproleX: Thanks for the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I like the varying and quite elegant curvature of the banks. – Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Thi (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
•  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Picturesque landscape and buildings, great atmosphere. – Aristeas (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Cart (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support bit of a dark fringe on the top edge, but nice picture overall. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Pleasing composition. --Tagooty (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  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)[reply]
•  Support --Cart (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support the composition is great with the leaves calling the ventral feathers. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per ERcheck and Harlock81. – Aristeas (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Yann (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)