निर्वाचित चित्र उम्मीदवार वो चित्र (छवियाँ) हैं जिनके कॉमन्स पर सर्वोत्तम चित्रों में से एक होने के लिए समुदाय के लोग मतदान करेंगे। यह सूची उन उम्मीदवारों की है जो निर्वाचित चित्र हो सकते हैं। आज का चित्र निर्वाचित्र चित्रों में से चुनी हुई एक छवि होगी।
यदि आपको लगता है कि आपने एक महत्वपूर्ण चित्र प्राप्त अथवा निर्मित किया है जो उपयुक्त चित्र विवरण और मुद्राधिकार के साथ है, तब निम्न कार्य करें।
प्रथम चरण: चित्र का नाम निम्न खाने में उपस्थित पाठ के आगे लिखें, उदाहरण के लिए, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:आपके चित्र का नाम.jpg लिखें और "नया नामांकन आरम्भ करें।" बटन पर क्लिक करें।
सभी एकल फाइलें:
पुनः नामांकन के लिए चित्र के नाम 'के बाद केवल /2 लिखें। जैसे:– Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
Set nominations ONLY
Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon.
द्वितीय चरण: आप जिस पृष्ठ पर पहुँचे हैं वहाँ के निर्देशों का पालन करें और पृष्ठ को संरक्षित करें।
वो सम्पादक जिनका खाता कम से कम १० दिन पुराना है और ५० सम्पादन कर चुके हैं, अपना मत दे सकते हैं। अपने नामांकन के लिए कोई भी मतदान कर सकता है। अज्ञात (आईपी) मतों की अनुमति नहीं है।
आप निम्न साँचे काम में ले सकते हो:
{{Support}} (Support),
{{Oppose}} (Oppose),
{{Neutral}} (Neutral),
{{Comment}} (Comment),
{{Info}} (Info),
{{Question}} (Question),
{{Request}} (Request).
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.
Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2023 at 12:20:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vue du château sur la plaine d'Alsace (au fond, la Forêt-Noire).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vue du château sur la plaine d'Alsace (au fond, la Forêt-Noire).jpg
Comment The cutoff of the pole is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regretfully oppose because of its tight crop. It's a shame, really, because it's a nice image otherwise. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very atmospheric, simple and beautiful composition, nice colours. With a fog photo like this one, more DoF etc. would be useless; all comes down to a few things: it is important that the mood of the foggy day is captured, that the colors are good, that the silhouettes of the important things (here: the people, the palm trees) are sharp. And this is all the case. --Aristeas (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2023 at 13:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Sonnenaufgang am Drachenberg asv2022-08 img4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Sonnenaufgang am Drachenberg asv2022-08 img4.jpg
Comment I like the photo, but would you consider cropping out the most unsharp parts of the nearest foreground? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 21:50:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Knightscope K5 and Ford Crown Victoria at gas station San Francisco dllu.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Knightscope K5 and Ford Crown Victoria at gas station San Francisco dllu.jpg
Support I think that the dystopian cyberpunk vibe looks pretty cool, with the juxtaposition of an unmarked police cruiser and a security robot in a dimly lit gas station at night. -- dllu(t,c) 21:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I see what you were thinking, but the right side is kind of distracting, and obviously it's kind of hard to tell the car is an unmarked police car. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info A bird introduced onto the island of La Réunion in the 1970s and already widespread. No FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Slight halo on the left side of the bird that you might want to do something about, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 19:20:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:New Orleans, Lake Pontchartrain with highlighted algae bloom, Louisiana - January 6th, 2020.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:New Orleans, Lake Pontchartrain with highlighted algae bloom, Louisiana - January 6th, 2020.jpg
Comment If this were a normal photo, we'd call it posterized, but it's interesting. I wonder, though, whether it's really an FP without a key explaining what the different colors in the water indicate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support You can even make out that famous set of power lines in the "round Earth" view off I-10 just south of the lake west of the city ... (If someone gets a good-quality pic of that, they should nominate it here). Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 11:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20191218 Mężczyzna z rowerem na ulicy Jaipuru 1121 9109 DxO.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20191218 Mężczyzna z rowerem na ulicy Jaipuru 1121 9109 DxO.jpg
Info Classic telephoto view of Mount Everest from the south ridge of Mount Pumori. Everest southwest face with its geological layers is in view. Everest West Shoulder and South Col (from where most overnight ascents to the summit start) are also in view. Created, uploaded, nominated by --Argenberg (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great. (But isn’t the white balance a bit on the blue side? Maybe this could be improved …) --Aristeas (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's also underexposed in my view - Benh (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aristeas, Benh, do you think the white balance should be changed? If you ask me it is almost spot on and true to life in this scene at this time of the day. I checked with other images in the series. The sun starts leaning towards the horizon leaving some bluish casts on the right Nuptse wall. The higher you go, the thinner and darker the air gets. The sky is always dark deep blue at these altitudes in late afternoon and early evening. Also the temperature on the surface of those ridges is already around −20 °C (−4 °F) and even lower (−50 °C (−58 °F)) high up in the sky. I guess it’s natural to have some coolness and coldness in that scene. What do you think? --Argenberg (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we are used to see winter photographs and high mountains photos with a cold white balance, so you can keep it to give a cold feeling. --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I does seem very cool if you ask me. But I personally think WB is one of those subjective issues. A bit too cold or warm is for author to decide and there's no truth when it comes to WB. I'm more concerned when the snow renders almost grey though. - Benh (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Change the white balance in a natural scene is change the reality representation and transform it in a artistic picture out of commons scope. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I sympathise with your point, but the problem is: what is the right white balance? The camera just guesses it (depending on your settings) and can be wrong, so sometimes changing the white balance in post-processing is necessary just to achieve a realistic result. (This is a general remark, not related to this photo.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support out of curiousity, how hard is it to hike to the south ridge of Mount Pumori? --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say it is easy provided you’re properly acclimatized to the altitude and don’t have any preexisting medical conditions. The hike usually starts from Lukla and most people need at least two to three nights at 4000+ m. And then it’s advisable to sleep two more nights in either the Everest Base Camp or Gorakshep. Once fully acclimatized to low levels of oxygen it is pretty easy to traverse that ridge up to about 5800 m., weather permitting. There are no technical difficulties. --Argenberg (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Milseburg. Actually it's below average, as the snow on the upper mountain looks like paint daubs, suggesting overprocessing. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2022 at 06:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg
Info The water of the fast-flowing mountain stream Flem arrives in the calm water of the reservoir Lag da Breil. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support A bit more noise in the darker areas in the back than one would like, even given that this is a long exposure, but still not enough to oppose IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 21:38:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge2.jpg
This is very similar to a previous nomination you made. Was the lake all that color? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I've applied different post processing to address the camera's technical limitations. This is a glacial lake with significant rock flour influx, so the colour is accurate. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regretful weak oppose I supported the earlier one, and I am glad that you have tried to improve it to meet the objections raised to it, but this goes too far—the far ridgeline looks oversharpened, and the mountainsides in the foregound just look overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I like the shape of the peninsula etc., but IHMO the photo is a bit dark. I have tried to create a slightly improved version (which can be improved further if there are concrete suggestions). @Kiril Simeonovski: What do you think? --Aristeas (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aristeas: I like that version too. I'll nominate it as an alternative to see what people think.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much better, but what about the colors? It seems to me like it has a bit of a magenta tint? El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good hint. I noticed it, too, but did not correct it because I assumed (maybe by mistake) that this could be the real colour of the ground at the shores. In the Category:Debar Lake, some photos show a yellowish colour, some a reddish colour of the shores. @Kiril Simeonovski: Can you clarify which is the real colour of the shore: is it really that reddish, or is it more like in this photo, or …? When I know this I can further improve the photo. Thank you, --Aristeas (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some parts of the shore are yellowish, while some are reddish due to the red tide in the shallow waters. Please see this image for further details. You can notice that the shore to the left is reddish and the red tide is even visible, but the shore in the background is more yellowish. I'd see that the natural colour of the shore on this image is a bit more reddish.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I am sorry to say so but I have big problems to find a satisfying correction of the colour balance for the photo. It certainly has more colour shift than a simple magenta tint. When I try to correct the colour so that the shore get’s right, the lake gets unbelievable colours. I assume that in reality this must be a great photo with astonishing colours, but I am not able to find out which. Maybe somebody else with more skills (El Grafo?) can help here. Sorry, --Aristeas (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support But maybe it is just good as it is. At least the comparison with the other photos show that the reddish tint is not unrealistic … --Aristeas (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This version is OK for me. Yann (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I thought the filename was in Bulgarian ... I knew the two languages were close but I didn't realize they were that close. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand the glassy, rippled surface of the water that's only where it is not in shadow. Please explain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because the lake isn't wave-free on that part of the image. It has really nothing to do with the cloud reflection. However, it's a very good example of how clouds reflect on a surface of a larger body of water. In order to see a full reflection, it's necessary to have a crystal clear water surface, but that's impossible in practice (unless it's a very small pond).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 16:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zoutelande (NL), Strand, Blick auf die Nordsee -- 2022 -- 4984.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zoutelande (NL), Strand, Blick auf die Nordsee -- 2022 -- 4984.jpg
Support it's such a cliché, but ... well, those exist for a reason and this one was really well executed. --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 09:28:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zentraler Blick durch den Alten Elbtunnel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zentraler Blick durch den Alten Elbtunnel.jpg
17
17
3927
2391
3977
2647
possible crop for symmetry, removing part of pavement
Info The Old Elbe Tunnel in Hamburg, Germany, seen from the northern entrance early in the morning. When the Old Elbe Tunnel was finished in 1911, it was a technical sensation: 80 ft beneath the surface, it connected central Hamburg with the docks and shipyards on the south side of the river Elbe. Created and uploaded by GZagatta – nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The tunnel is normally a very crowded place, so it’s a real achievement that the photographer has captured it in a silent moment. I also like the perfect vanishing-point perspective and that it seems to lead from dark (foreground) into the light (background). --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Would a bottom crop for symmetry improve the image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
was about to suggest the same. The rounder sidewalk corner ruins the symmetry. Still an incredible photo Support - Benh (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support with or without the crop. -- Ivar (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support based on the description you gave, I'm quite surprised this is empty. Oh, and if the bottom is cropped, I'll give my support !vote in advance (if I somehow miss the ping). --SHB2000 (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Funny, the only time I've been there, it looked exactly like this: empty. It had a mildly unreal feeling to it and the image captures that very well. --El Grafo (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info created by NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, Joseph DePasquale (STScI), Naomi Rowe-Gurney (NASA-GSFC) - uploaded and nominated by Habitator terrae -- Habitator terrae🌍 20:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Perhaps not so clear cut impressive as images of nebulae, but stunning because of the content wise contrast between the galaxies and Neptune (with rings, which is pretty rare for images of neptune).
Question I am tempted to oppose this as it seems to be an image created from data and bears no relation to what you would 'see' in a telescope. But I am no expert. It just looks so false. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not expert either, but I can tell this much: most of the light wavelengths can't be seen by the human eye. JWST's sensors can catch these, so mapping to visible wavelengths can be necessary. This can be a calculated (like when the light have traveled for so long it's shifted toward the reds / invisible infrared, so we just "shift back") or just arbitrary. This photo is probably the later case (it's not far enough so that the infrared light is shifted from visible light). Hope it's not too much bullshit that I said... - Benh (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow-up Question Does this mean that we should understand and handle this rather as some kind of Computer graphics than as a photo? --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's signal processing, so yes to me. But it's real stuff, just we must bear in mind the colors are mapped because the camera used is NIRcam (near infrared, so I assume it's not visible light). I guess they use a mapping which makes sense. But I think I've said too much and I hope some astronomer corrects me. - Benh (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benh: For the mapping and the filters click on link and scroll to "About The Image". Habitator terrae🌍 16:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict) Just because we now have instruments that detect things our human eyes can't see, doesn't make the image any less real. Look at it this way: A digital camera's sensor records photons of certain wavelengths. It does some very fast calculations with the software in the camera and the result is an image of pixels we can see. JWST's sensors does the same thing. It records photons of other (non-visible) wavelengths, software does some calculations (although way more advanced than in a normal digital camera) and this results in pixels that we can see. Yes, the colors are added/enhanced and not exactly what our eyes would see, but in early B&W photography when colors were not rightly represented (like the blue-yellow switch), people still didn't think the photos were 'fake'. Our everyday phone cameras can now record IR light, from say a remote control, process it and give it a color we can see, and we don't hesitate to call that a true photo.
A computer generated image is an imagined picture, with user and AI extrapolating and guessing how things might look. JWST's images are not made up or imagined, they are very exact representations of what is out there. We are just not used to seeing it so clearly yet. Imagine how the Lumière brothers would react to seeing an IMAX nature documentary, they would probably also think it looked false.--Cart(talk) 13:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your explanations, Benh and Cart! I did not want to devalue the image with my question, it was just a question. --Aristeas (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I didn't nominated this image, with artifical AI-noice-reduction. Habitator terrae🌍 16:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: By that standard you would be forced to oppose many pictured in Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy like File:Pluto-01 Stern 03 Pluto Color TXT.jpg or File:Jupiter Showcases Auroras, Hazes (NIRCam Closeup).jpg. It has many relations to what you would "see" through a telescope. Fully red objects don't go to fully blue and vice versa. This comes from the fact, that green is a not existing color for stars. Therefore the basic colors don't fully negating themselves. Furthermore: From a technical point of view, this sensor uses the same process as normal cameras: The only difference is, that it doesn't uses the anthropocentristic filters red, blue and green, which evolved to life on earth and not to view stars, but some infrared (which might find their equivalent in some other species than human). Habitator terrae🌍 16:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so if it is imagined that's fine as long as it is described as such. And the image of Neptune itself is ground-breaking. My problem with it is the whole image, which must be a composite. The planet and one nebula are illustrated with the same brightness; not to mention Neptune's moon Triton with its six-pronged reflection. The two FPs you link to are fine. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Why do you think this is a composit, or what do you mean with this? This "six-pronged reflection" isn't to the infrared light or some composit, but because of the form of the mirror (which is needed in normal telescopes) and the high light concentration at one point. See for this en:Diffraction spike. Habitator terrae🌍 17:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) PS: Do you mean with "composit", that this is a composit of the different reflection of the different parts of the mirror??Reply[reply]
@Charlesjsharp I just got from Habitator's reply that "six-pronged reflection" means diffraction spikes. If you look closely, there are 8 spikes (two verticals as well). It's probably because the primary mirror is made of smaller hexagons and because the secondary mirror is held by three tubes. I think we can safely say these are acceptable tradeoffs given all the constraints that come with sending such an incredible telescope so far. You can't review these like you'd review a photo taken with a "regular" camera. - Benh (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I still can't understand why some of the planets/moons/stars have the refraction and others don't. But I'm not opposing this anyway; just saying I am not that impressed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason is the concentration of light. Stars often have disffractions, because the source of their brightness come from one "small" source, while galaxies (often) have a more scattered type of brightness. The reason for Triton to be so bright, is that is an big icy moon, which reflects a lot. Habitator terrae🌍 19:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same can be seen in this image of an airport at night: The point-shaped light sources have diffraction spikes (what photographers like to call "starburst"), but the large rectangular ones don't. --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No pb with that. But I'd like to underscore that sometimes the context and meaning of the photo outweights the rest. A bit like photos of animals are better when taken in the wild instead of a zoo... don't you think? Anyhow. Enough digression, apologies for that. - Benh (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Habitator said all stars (except the Sun) can be considered point light sources regardless of their magnitude simply because they are so far and so small. You can pretty much think of them as one single stream/column of photons. Most other objects have some dimensionality which means more than one stream/column of photons will reach your eye/the camera. This is also the reason all stars seem to "blink" on the night sky but planets don't (and how you can immediately tell whether you're looked at a planet or a star). Now, single point sources diffract much easier than other sources, but if the light intensity is large enough you'll get diffraction spikes with those sources as well (see Triton in this example). In a way the strength of the diffraction spikes in any night photo can be explained by the relation of the sensor size vs the size of the light source as it passes through the aperture. The more you stopped down the smaller this size is and the more point like the light sources become. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a composite in the same way as HDR and focus stacked images are composed of a number of photos. I guess you could call it an "Astro HDR" if you like. --Cart(talk) 17:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. HDR and focus-stacked images are taken at (almost) the same time from (almost) the same position. A composite is a selection of different images combined into one. That's what this looks like. You are suggesting that they extracted the Neptune image from this 'wide angle' shot. That would surprise me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact the different frames were tacken at almost the same time (all on 12 July 2022) at almost the same position (L2 of Earth-Sun with the move of less than one day). I furthermore remind, that this is a considerable shorter time compared to e.g. this image. This short times are a feature of JWST. Of course, this is a image of a solar system object and not of galaxies. Habitator terrae🌍 19:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict) I think you've misunderstood what this image is. This is not Neptune and bunch of images of other galaxies thrown together in one picture, it's what the sky looks like from that point of view when all the stars and galaxies are brought up to the same visibility/brightness, like you do with HDR. They are there all the time, but we have not been able to see them this well until now. Have you seen how big the Andromeda galaxy would look in the sky if you just bring up the light with HDR? You talk about the image of Neptune and its rings being 'extracted' from this, like this was just an ordinary photo. The photos we get from NASA are only what they release. My guess is that this was originally an extremely large image. The part with Neptune and its rings was released as one photo, then the whole wide view was downsized by NASA to fit being shown over the internet and that is what we see here. I also suspect that the JWST sensors can, in simple terms, to a degree zoom in and out on objects they want it to record. You have to let go of thinking about this extraordinary machine in terms of normal cameras and telescopes. --Cart(talk) 19:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"HDR" is NOT what it's about. The main point of astronomy is to study observable (by eye, instrument, any wavelength, etc) characteristics and how these relate to each other. Adjusting an image like you would in case of a HDR would be falsifying scientific data. What they do is take images at different wavelengths and combine these into one composite image. You can think of it in away that the Leica M10 monochrome can only take monochrome images however if you take 3 images, one with a red, one with a green and one with a blue filter, then combine these into one composite you'll get a true color image. But, again, it has nothing to do with fiddling with the brightness of objects observed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just to get you an idea, how the raw data looks like: Here an raw image (which is part of the image in green), with an exposure of 7515.740 seconds. This was parallel taken, by what is shown in blue, starting on 2022-07-12 06:28:25.913 (with perhaps, I don't know filtering the noise out with parts of the exposure). Red and orange hat an exposure of 1878.935 seconds, starting with 2022-07-12 06:52:35.448. Habitator terrae🌍 20:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Addition, perhaps, that's what's the problem for some, the exposure was more like a "scanner" and didn't all the time viewed the same region of the field because of the size. That's why they end up with different intensities, as shown, if you automatic put all the raw data for one wavelength together (as linked). I presume for the processing of this image they used the original "small" exposures to remove all the noise and different intensities across the image. But all of this seems to be pretty standard for most JWST images. Habitator terrae🌍 10:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the link to the raw data example. This makes me much more confident of the final result. --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think this needs to be featured and explained, so the knowledge has more opportunities to be spread. It's fascinating how we can see Neptune's rings. - Benh (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is impressive for a space photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Neptune and Triton in the center are interesting, but compared to the Hubble Deep Field image the wide field is not outstanding. -- IamMM (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The wow takes a while to materialize in this one, but it's there. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not very outstanding + bended projection, which isn't very necessary with such a long focal + very visible stitching seams on the OOF foreground grass. - Benh (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice. I see no issue with the projection --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per Uoaei1. Beautiful, and by far the most representative photo of this – historically quite important! – abbey I have ever seen. --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The flaws can be seen on closer inspection, but they do not disturb the good overall impression.--Ermell (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support the crop may not be the best, but after reading Ermell's comment, it's not too noticeable at a first glance. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's great how you manage to get the same color background behind the natural objects every time.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info In 1974, this Mauritius endemic was the rarest bird in the World. Due to groundbreaking conservation work the population rose to 800, but has now slumped to possibly 400 birds. This year, the Government of Mauritius declared the Mauritius Kestrel as its national bird. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support What a coup for you! A very valuable image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Being an admirer of Gerald Durrell, I'd known about his involvement for some years, so it was nice to get to the island (and search for three days!). Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support While I think you might have sharpened (ahem) a little more than necessary, that is more than neatly offset by the way you turned a background which usually derails other FP nominations like this into a pleasing abstraction that, for me, enhances the overall image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Same opinion here in terms of sharpening but overall still ok to me Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentCharles, I think this image deserves a re-process to address the sharpening issues mentioned by others (there also seems to be a slight halo around the bottom portion of the branch and feathers). In a few years we'll look back at this AI look - with its crunchy subjects and impossibly smooth backgrounds - and chuck it in the same category as over-the-top tone mapping and selective colour... --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Post-processing is a contentious subject with no 'right' answer. When I have submitted images with less denoise (which includes less sharpening) there have been objections of a lack of sharpness. I try for a balance between on-screen appearance and suitability for printing, where sharpening artefacts don't seem to be such an issue. With the RAW file, we can always reprocess when new software is developed. 16:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I disagree. Enjoyable rhythm, and one of the best of this interesting series of photos of this sculpture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Even though I prefer some of the other images from the series to this one, I see this as an excellent image of an interesting work of art that well deserves the FP badge --Kritzolina (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Well done. I would prefer the crop a bit wider at the left and right … Is this possible? --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, it's a bit tighter than ideal. Unfortunately, after correcting geometry, this is all I have. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the answer! Well, the crop has its advantages, it really concentrates on the tower. --Aristeas (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like it but personally this strikes me more as a Quality Image candidate than FP - a technically very good photo of a not particularly interesting building. BigDom (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 21:46:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de Santa María la Mayor, Roma, Italia, 2022-09-16, DD 12-14 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de Santa María la Mayor, Roma, Italia, 2022-09-16, DD 12-14 HDR.jpg
I was certain there was a reason. But the in the end, we're looking at a non centerd architectural shot. - Benh (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Can you do something about the bluish fringing around the muntins in the upper window? Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I'm not too concerned that it's not centred, especially if it's impossible to centre it. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 21:38:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de San Pedro, Ciudad del Vaticano, 2022-09-14, DD 19-21 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de San Pedro, Ciudad del Vaticano, 2022-09-14, DD 19-21 HDR.jpg
I don't believe that this is not a valid candidate because there is already a great shot of the basilica during the day, the subject looks in daylight completely different. I find that the arrangement of the chairs improves the composition a lot and I also find the lighting of the building in the night very appealing. Poco a poco (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC) PD: I've improved the highlights to recover more detail.Reply[reply]
Support High quality and a definite “wow” photo. Taking a look at our other photos of that famous place shows that the foreground is almost always crowded or blocked. Therefore the existing FP has just cropped the foreground, but that looks unbalanced and in the end even worse to me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It looks better to me. Oppose per George. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very noisy sky and a strange horizontal line in the sky at the level of the cross. And also an unsuccessful foreground, unfortunately --George Chernilevskytalk 02:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the sky could be fixed, but the foreground is a fly in the ointment. -- Ivar (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the mentioned horizontal line, also looks titlted. No problem with the foreground --Lupe (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The sky remains not excellent. Also as noted above, it looks tilted clockwise. Maybe still too much perspective correction, but the geometry is not too good, unfortunately. --George Chernilevskytalk 19:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@George Chernilevsky and Lupe: I've applied a slight tilt and improved the crop to increase symmetry. I also reworked the sky a bit, although I only see a difference increasing exposure not like this. Thank you! Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support okay, thank you --Lupe (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Would fruit normally be presented like this? Not in the UK. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not sure why this has been nominated again, having failed last time (not a close decision) and no improvements have been made. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral the apple almost in a state of decomposition makes the composition ugly --Wilfredor (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I do wish the apple had been fresher, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think Wilfredor is right. Charles, fruit would be presented similarly to this in the U.S., but probably not as crowdedly. However, from my viewpoint, this is a still life, so the artist can make it look any way they want. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment imo the apple is still fresh, but it's infected with a disease like apple scab (caused by the fungus). -- Ivar (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Like Ivar, I think the apple is OK; the scars on the surface are a common apple disease which does not impair the apple’s taste. At least this fruit looks more interesting than the common over-perfect apples from the supermarket (which look only that perfect because they have been treated heavily with pesticides ;–). The rest of the arrangement is flawless. Small improvement to the gallery link made. --Aristeas (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I would have halved the apple like all the other fruits. Or is there a special reason for this? --Llez (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm failing to make much sense of this arrangement - what is the intention here? It is certainly not how I would arrange fruit for people to eat - partially prepared but not entirely ready for snacking (and who would snack a lemon?). I wouldn't store it like this either, for obvious reasons. Nothing suggests it's being prepared for cooking either - like a knife or a cutting board. So surely this must be a purely "educational" shot - no, wait, why is the apple not cut? And why so many citrus fruits instead of something different like a banana? Is it art then? It a rather crowded arrangement, as Ikan already pointed out above, and if you ask me, the busy tablecloth does not help at all. Excellent food photography requires more than QI quality photography (which is certainly the case here). It requires a solid concept about choice of subject, a setting, and how to arrange the subject(s) within that setting. This one is halfway there, but there's a reason it was rejected in the 2017 nomination. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for your information, I usually eat lemons even with their shells, it has a strong and acidic flavor that is especially dangerous for dental enamel and for this reason I drink a glass of water immediately. It is not something common but it is not completely unreasonable to think that this is a common breakfast somewhere in the world --Wilfredor (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough - if my drink or dish comes with a slice of lemon, I'll typically eat that too. I might have gone a bit over board there. Still, it does not feel like an attempt to illustrate a particular part of a local eating culture either. --El Grafo (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Normal, good quality image, but I do not see any reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment An impressive view, however there are many red and green chromatic aberrations especially at vertical lines of the buildings. --Aristeas (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment@Aristeas: Thank you for review and your advice. I tried to fix it in JPG. If it is not good enough, I can try to fix it in RAW. -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
सीधे वर्तमान उम्मीदवार पर पहुँचें।
.jpg)
.jpg)
_Reunion.jpg)
.jpg)
_04.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Strand,_Blick_auf_die_Nordsee_--_2022_--_4984.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Support),
Oppose),
Neutral),
Comment),
Info),
Question),
Request).
Weak support A bit more noise in the darker areas in the back than one would like, even given that this is a long exposure, but still not enough to oppose IMO. 
Done: on closer inspection, it was; fixed. --
Regretful weak oppose I supported the earlier one, and I am glad that you have tried to improve it to meet the objections raised to it, but this goes too far—the far ridgeline looks oversharpened, and the mountainsides in the foregound just look overprocessed. 
Abstain As author. 
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Reunion.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
,_Strand,_Blick_auf_die_Nordsee_--_2022_--_4984.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![4.22 File:Münster, LWL-Museum für Kunst und Kultur, Lichtkunstwerk "Silberne Frequenz" -- 2022 -- 4266.jpg](#File:Münster,_LWL-Museum_für_Kunst_und_Kultur,_Lichtkunstwerk_"Silberne_Frequenz"_--_2022_--_4266.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Reunion.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Reunion.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
,_Strand,_Blick_auf_die_Nordsee_--_2022_--_4984.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Strand,_Blick_auf_die_Nordsee_--_2022_--_4984.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
