Commons:秀逸な画像の推薦

現在の候補へスキップ 現在の除外候補へスキップ

ここにある画像は秀逸な画像への候補画像です。 今日の一枚とは異なりますのでご注意ください。

下記へスキップ：

• 作品を推薦する
• 画像のガイドライン
• 現在の秀逸な画像の候補
• 秀逸な画像からの除外
• 現在の除外候補
• 秀逸な画像の候補での方針
• 目次

概要

推薦にあたって

推薦者のためのガイドライン

まずはじめに、『秀逸な画像ガイドライン』、『画像のガイドライン』をお読みください。

ここでは推薦画像の評価を受ける・する際の必要事項を要約して紹介します。

• 解像度 - 200万ピクセル以下の写真画像は、特別な理由が無い限り却下されます。1,600 x 1,200 ピクセル（1.92メガピクセル）は200万ピクセルには届いていない事にご注意ください。

コモンズに置かれた画像は一般的なＰＣモニターのみで閲覧されるとは限らず、プリントアウトや高解像度モニターで表示される可能性もあります。将来的にもどのような機器が用いられるようになるかは誰にも予想出来ないので、推薦画像が可能な限り高い解像度を保っている事は重要な事なのです。

• スキャン画像 - 公式な方針ではありませんが、Help:スキャニングページで各種様々な画像を準備するための有用なアドバイスが提供されています。

• フォーカス - 通常、重要な被写体は全て焦点が合っていなければいけません。

• 前景と背景 - 前景や背景に主題ではない物が写り込むと、それは“余計なもの”になり得ます。前景にある物が主題の重要な部分を隠していないか、背景にあるものが構図を損ねていないか（例：後ろの街灯が人物の頭の上から生えているように見える、等）を確認しましょう。

• 全体品質 - 推薦される画像には高い技術品質が要求されます。

• デジタル補正 - 見る人を欺いてはいけません。写真画像のキズ・ホコリ等を修正する、良い編集、故意に人を騙す目的でない限り、デジタル補正は一般的に歓迎されます。例を挙げると、色合い/露出補正、シャープ/ボカシ、遠近感歪み補正、トリミング（切り取り）等がこれにあたります。背景に写り込んだ余計な物を取り除く等のさらに大がかりな修正は、{{Retouched picture}}テンプレートを画像ページへ貼付け、修正した旨を記述しましょう。記述漏れや記述ミスがある等、主題を不正確に見せる編集は決して受け入れられません。

• 価値 - 『全ての画像の中でも特に際立ち、最も価値のある画像』が我々の大きな目標です。秀逸な画像はそれぞれの分野の中でも別格でなけらばならず、故に次の点に留意して下さい。
  • たいていの夕日は美しく見えますが、そういう画像のほとんどは他の夕日画像と大差ありません。
  • 夜景は美しいですが、普通は日中に撮影された写真の方がより詳細を見せてくれます。
  • 必ずしも『美しさに価値がある』わけではありません。

技術的側面では『露出』、『構図』、『動感表現』、『被写界深度』等を見ます。

• 露出とはシャッタースピードと絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、適切なトーンカーブが見せる陰影〜ハイライトが有用なディティールを描写します。これをラティチュード（露光寛容度）と言い、このラティチュードの陰影〜ハイライトの領域内において、画像を暗め、中庸、明るめに作る事が出来ますが、デジタルカメラ及びデジタル画像はこのラティチュードの範囲がフィルムに比べて狭いです。ディティールの欠損した影部分は必ずしも「悪い」わけではなく、実際にその様な効果が望ましい場合（部分）もあります。ただしディティールの欠損したハイライト部分が大きく面積を占めるのは良くありません。

• 構図とは画像画面内での各要素の配置の事を言います。“三分割法”は構図作成には良い方法で、美術学校でも教えられています。まず、画像に水平線と垂直線をそれぞれ２本引き、画像を水平・垂直方向とも３分割します。主題を中央に配置するとたいていは画面に面白味を欠き、水平線と垂直線が交差する４つの交点の内どれか１つに主題を置いた方が良い画面になるでしょう。地平線は画面を半分に切ってしまうので、通常は地平線を中央に配置するべきではありません。上寄り、若しくは下寄りに配置させる方が良いでしょう。主たる考え方としては空間を上手に使い、躍動感・臨場感のある画面を作るという事です。

• 動感表現 - ここでは被写体の「動き」を表現する手法を紹介します。動きのある被写体は止まって見えるか、もしくはブレて写りますが、これらはどちらの方が良いとは必ずしも言えず、どのような表現意図を持っているかによります。「動感」は主題と共に写り込んでいる他の背景等との関係で表現されます。例えばレーシングカーの撮影。車と背景とが共に止まって見えては、見る側にスピード感は伝わってきません。　なので撮影手法によって車は画面内で止まっているように写り、かつ背景をブレさせることでスピード感が表現され、このような手法を「パンニング（流し撮り）」と呼びます。一方で、背景と共に止まって撮られた高く跳躍したバスケットボール選手は、これは決定的瞬間の「不自然」なポーズになり、これも良い写真になり得るでしょう。

• 被写界深度（DOF）とは主題の前側から後ろ側までのフォーカスエリアの事を言います。被写界深度は全ての画像で明解な意図のもと選択され、深い、または浅い被写界深度は、画像に品質を与えもし、また損なわせもします。浅い被写界深度は、主題を他の被写体から切り離し、見せたい被写体に注目を集めることが出来ます。深い被写界深度は空間を強調させる事が出来ます。広角（短焦点）レンズは深い被写界深度、逆に望遠（長焦点）レンズは浅い被写界深度が得られる傾向があります。また絞りを絞り込むと被写界深度は深く、解放すると浅い被写界深度が得られます。

グラフィック要素では形状、ボリューム、色、テクスチャー、遠近感、バランス、比率 等を見ます。

• 形状とは主題に対する輪郭線、及び形状を言います。

• ボリュームとは主題の立体感に対する品質を言います。立体感は横からのライティングで表現出来、反対に正面からのライティングは被写体を平坦に見せる傾向があり、不向きとされています。自然光の中でベストな光を得るには、早朝か、もしくは夕方の日の光が良いでしょう。

• 色は大変重要で、強すぎる色合いは好ましくありません。

• テクスチャーとは主題の表面材質の描写性に於ける品質を言います。表面材質は横からのライティングにより強調され、手に触れて伝わるかのような質感を与えます。

• 遠近感とは、画像の画面内若しくは外にある消失点で繋がる放射状の直線、これに沿った形で現れる「角度」により表現されます。

• バランスでは画像の画面内での重心が左右均衡か、若しくは片方に寄る等適切な配置が成されているかを見ます。

• 比率では画面の大きさに対する被写体の大きさを見ます。一般的に、小さな被写体は小さく写真に表現してしまう傾向にありますが、相応しい撮影手法により小さな被写体を実寸とは逆に大きく見せる事が可能です。例えば、小さな花を大きな山よりも大きく見る事が出来ます。この手法を指して「倒置法」と呼びます。

主題の全ての要素を画像に盛込む必要はありません。多くの写真はそれぞれの個性で評価出来ます。すなわち、画像の色やテクスチャー等々により判断出来ます。

• 『象徴性か妥当性か』　ー　『秀逸な画像』ではしばしばこのようなテーマで意見論争が起こる傾向にあります。技術的・品質的には出来の悪い写真でも極めて撮影困難な被写体を捉えた写真は、凡庸な被写体を写した品質的に良い写真よりも評価されます。もちろん撮影困難な被写体を写し、かつ品質も良い写真は極めて価値の高い写真と言えます。

画像は時に撮影者と評価者、若しくはどちらか片方の文化的な偏りが見られます。画像の意図は画像そのものの文化的背景により評価されるべきであり、評価者の文化的背景に依存してはいけません。イメージは人に語りかけ、そして慈しみ、怒り、拒絶、幸せ、悲しみ等の感情を喚起させる力を持っています。良い写真から与えられる心地よさには限りがありません。

画像のガイドラインを事前に読めば、あなたの推薦が成就する可能性を最大限に引き伸ばしてくれるでしょう。

新規推薦

推薦に値する価値があると考えられる画像を作った、または見つけたならば、その画像に適切な説明とライセンスが与えられているかを確認し、以下に従ってください。

ステップ１：画像名（接頭Image:を含む）を下のテキストボックス内の文字列の後にコピー＆ペースト、正しく Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg と記入されているかを確認し、続いて『作品を推薦』ボタンをクリックします。

ステップ２：ページ編集画面上にある指示に従い必要箇所を付記、ページを保存してください。

ステップ３：ステップ２で作成したページへのリンクをFeatured picture candidates/candidate listへ手動で挿入します。ページ編集をクリックし、候補リスト最上部に以下の書式で推薦画像へのリンクを加えます。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg}}

投票

投票には以下のテンプレートを使用します：

• {{支持}}または{{Support}} （ Support、 Support),
• {{反対}}または{{Oppose}} （ Oppose、 Oppose),
• {{中立}}または{{Neutral}} ( Neutral、 Neutral),
• {{コメント}}または{{Comment}} ( Comment、 Comment),
• 情報：{{Info}} ( Info),
• 質問：{{Question}} ( Question).

テンプレート{{FPX|理由}}を用いて、推薦画像が秀逸な画像の推薦に相応しくない旨を指摘出来ます。テンプレートの「理由」部分に、秀逸な画像には明確に値しない事の説明を書き加えます（可能ならば英語で）。

あなたが何故その画像を好むか、または好まないか、特に( Supportや( Opposeの投票をする際は簡単な理由を加えましょう。また署名（~~~~）も忘れずに。匿名投票は受け付けられません。

秀逸な画像からの除外

時も経ればやがて『秀逸な画像』の基準も変わります。かつては“充分に価値に値する”と決定されたであろう画像も、その価値は普遍ではありません。ここでは「もはや『秀逸な画像』に値しない」と考えられる画像をリストアップします。リストされた画像へは、{{Keep}}  Keep 及び {{維持}}  Keep （＝『秀逸な画像』に値する）、または{{Delist}}  Delist 及び {{除外}}  Oppose （＝『秀逸な画像』に値しない）を投票します。

あなたが『秀逸な画像』の価値基準に値しないと考える画像があれば、除外候補として提出できます。除外したい画像の画像名（接頭Image:を含む）を下のテキストボックスの文字列の後にコピー＆ペーストします。

あなたが作成した新規除外候補のページに以下を加えます。

• 画像の作者、投稿者等の出所情報。
• その画像の“過去の秀逸な画像への推薦”ページへのリンク（画像ページの「リンク節」に表示されています）。
• あなたが除外と考える理由とあなたの署名。

次に、Commons:Featured picture candidates/removalを編集し、下記の書式で作成した除外候補のページのリンクを手動で最上段に挿入します。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:除外画像名.jpg}}

秀逸な画像の候補での方針

総則

1. 投票期間を終えた後、結果は推薦日時から数えて10日後（下記タイムテーブル参照）に決定します。投票期間は推薦日時から数えて9日と23時間59分です。１０日、またはそれを超えた投票はカウントされません。
2. 匿名寄稿者による推薦を歓迎します。
3. 匿名寄稿者による議論への参加を歓迎します。
4. 匿名寄稿者による投票はカウントされません。
5. 推薦者票は投票へはカウントされません。支持は明示的かつ言明される必要があります。
6. 推薦者は自身の推薦をいつでも取り下げる事が出来ます。推薦を取り下げるには "I withdraw my nomination" （推薦を取り下げます）と書くか、テンプレート {{withdraw|~~~~}} を加えます。
7. ウィキメディア・コモンズのプロジェクトの目的は、全てのウィキメディアプロジェクト（将来的なプロジェクト含む）に於いて自由に利用可能な画像を集積するセントラル・データベースを提供することである、ということを忘れないでください。セントラル・データベースは単純にウィキメディアの保管庫と言うわけではなく、また『秀逸な画像』等のプロジェクトに応じた判断をされるべきではありません。
8. 推薦日から数えて５日間支持を受けられなかった画像（推薦者票含まず）は候補リストから外されます。（下記タイムテーブル参照）
9. テンプレート{{FPX}}が貼られた画像は、テンプレート{{FPX}}の適用後は推薦者以外の支持票が無い限り、48時間後に候補リストから外されます。

秀逸と除外のルール

候補画像は下記必要事項に準じて秀逸な画像に認定されます。

1. 適切なライセンス情報が添付されている。
2. 最低５票以上の支持票を得ている。
3. 支持：反対比率が2:1 (賛成が3分の2の過半数)以上である。
4. ２つの同様な画像での異なったバージョンは同時に『秀逸な画像』へは認定されず、より支持票の多かった一枚を認定します。

除外ルールでは、投票期間、及びリストから外される期間は秀逸ルールと同じ期間を取ります。除外候補提出後５日間で提出者以外の  Delist （ Oppose）票が得られなかった候補は、５日間ルールが適用され、候補リストから外されます。

常連ユーザーが推薦・投票の完了方法に従って、推薦投票を閉じることがあります。終了方法に関してはCommons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedを参照。

何よりも礼儀を忘れずに

どうか、あなたが評価するその画像が「人の作品」であることを忘れないでください。「これはヒドイ」、「こんなのキライだ」と言ったような表現は避けましょう。もしあなたが『反対』に票を投じなければならないのなら、思いやりを忘れずに。また、あなたの話す英語は、また誰か他の人の話す英語とは同じではないでしょう。慎重に言葉を選んでください。

それでは良い評価を。そして、全てのルールは壊すことが出来るという事を忘れないでください。

関連項目

• 候補リストの編集はこちら：Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
• 日付順秀逸な画像リスト：Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological
• 秀逸な画像候補アーカイブ：Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log
• 推薦・投票の完了方法：Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished
• 基礎英語による写真・画像用語解説
• 秀逸な画像の候補リスト
• Photography critiques（画像評論）
• Help:スキャニング

秀逸な画像の候補

purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates

Image:Matsumoto Castle Keep Tower.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2023 at 15:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Matsumoto Castle Keep Tower.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Matsumoto Castle Keep Tower.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Japan
•  Info created by 稲妻ノ歯鯨 - uploaded by 稲妻ノ歯鯨 - nominated by 稲妻ノ歯鯨 -- 稲妻ノ歯鯨 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- 稲妻ノ歯鯨 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Vue du château sur la plaine d'Alsace (au fond, la Forêt-Noire).jpg

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).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vue du château sur la plaine d'Alsace (au fond, la Forêt-Noire).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
•  Info created by Le_Commissaire - uploaded by Le_Commissaire - nominated by Le Commissaire -- Le Commissaire (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Le Commissaire (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment The cutoff of the pole is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:A foggy winter morning.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2023 at 17:26:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A foggy winter morning.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A foggy winter morning.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
•  Info created and uploaded by Abdul Momin - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Meiræ 20:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Berlin Sonnenaufgang am Drachenberg asv2022-08 img4.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Sonnenaufgang am Drachenberg asv2022-08 img4.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
•  Info Sunrise view from Drachenberg ("Kite hill") in Grunewald Forest, Berlin. All by me --A.Savin 13:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 13:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:20191215 Camel-drawn carts, Pushkar 1207 8771 (cropped).jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2023 at 10:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:20191215 Camel-drawn carts, Pushkar 1207 8771 (cropped).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20191215 Camel-drawn carts, Pushkar 1207 8771 (cropped).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Animal-powered vehicles
•  Info created and uploaded by Jakub Halun - nominated UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor background. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Knightscope K5 and Ford Crown Victoria at gas station San Francisco dllu.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Knightscope K5 and Ford Crown Victoria at gas station San Francisco dllu.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
•  Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 21:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

File:Red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) Reunion.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 19:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) Reunion.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) Reunion.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls)
•  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)
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

• Thanks. New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:New Orleans, Lake Pontchartrain with highlighted algae bloom, Louisiana - January 6th, 2020.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New Orleans, Lake Pontchartrain with highlighted algae bloom, Louisiana - January 6th, 2020.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#North America
•  Info created by Sentinel Hub - uploaded by Infrogmation - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

File:Berlin - Friedrichswerdersche Kirche - Apsis - Decke (9700).jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 19:14:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin - Friedrichswerdersche Kirche - Apsis - Decke (9700).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin - Friedrichswerdersche Kirche - Apsis - Decke (9700).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany
•  Info created and uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support impressive! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:20191218 Mężczyzna z rowerem na ulicy Jaipuru 1121 9109 DxO.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20191218 Mężczyzna z rowerem na ulicy Jaipuru 1121 9109 DxO.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
•  Info created and uploaded by Jakubhal - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Colorful but not that striking, and a lot of unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel Case. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Everest, Himalayas.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2022 at 12:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Everest, Himalayas.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Everest, Himalayas.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
•  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)
•  Support -- Argenberg (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, great! Yann (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Poco a poco (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

  it's also underexposed in my view - Benh (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

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)

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)

•  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)

•  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)

•  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)

  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)

•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sure, the mountain is outstanding, but the image is technically only average. --Milseburg (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
•  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)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support beautiful! --SHB2000 (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Lupe (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Poco a poco (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your vote, but you voted before (see above).--Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nythar^T.C 00:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Meiræ 20:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge2.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge2.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
•  Info: Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question tilted possibly? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done: on closer inspection, it was; fixed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Thanks for the interesting link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Emerald Lake in BC is the best I've seen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support you can never say no to a BC mountain /s --SHB2000 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:Мал полуостров во Дебарското Езеро.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 21:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Мал полуостров во Дебарското Езеро.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Мал полуостров во Дебарското Езеро.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Dean Lazarevski - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Is that cloud reflection on the water? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

•  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)

@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)

Alternative

•  Comment This one is an alternative version with brighter colours edited by Aristeas.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

•  Support This version is OK for me. Yann (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

File:Zoutelande (NL), Strand, Blick auf die Nordsee -- 2022 -- 4984.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zoutelande (NL), Strand, Blick auf die Nordsee -- 2022 -- 4984.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Netherlands
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay 💬 16:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Classic contre-jour seascape with the appropriate high contrast. --Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Quite minimalist. Serene mood -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support reminds me of something similar I saw a few weeks ago. Nicely taken, XRay. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Makes the North Sea look tropical ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --PierreSelim (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Zentraler Blick durch den Alten Elbtunnel.jpg

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.jpg Commons: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

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
•  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)
•  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)
•  Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Would a bottom crop for symmetry improve the image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

•  Support with or without the crop. -- Ivar (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Futuristic feeling. Immersion in another space -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nythar^T.C 00:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Meiræ 20:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Neptune Wide Field (NIRCam).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 20:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Neptune Wide Field (NIRCam).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neptune Wide Field (NIRCam).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Neptune
•  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)
•  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).
•  Support -- Habitator terrae 🌍 20:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @Benh: For the mapping and the filters click on link and scroll to "About The Image". Habitator terrae 🌍 16:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  (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)

  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)

  That's why I didn't nominated this image, with artifical AI-noice-reduction. Habitator terrae 🌍 16:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)

  @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??

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  (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)

  "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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

•  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)
•  Support This is impressive for a space photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you for all the explanations, Benh, Cart and Habitator terrae! --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support The wow takes a while to materialize in this one, but it's there. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per El Grafo. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Kloster Seligenstadt.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 16:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster Seligenstadt.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster Seligenstadt.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
•  Info Former Benedictine abbey in Seligenstadt, view from the garden. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Nice. I see no issue with the projection --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  Support per Ermell. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 19:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Lupe (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nythar^T.C 00:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Filipendula vulgaris - inflorescence - Kulna.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 15:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Filipendula vulgaris - inflorescence - Kulna.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Filipendula vulgaris - inflorescence - Kulna.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
•  Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support So crisp and detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Delicate beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Ermell (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 19:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful light, very good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 13:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Falconidae (Falcons)
•  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)
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 13:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support What a coup for you! A very valuable image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Same opinion here in terms of sharpening but overall still ok to me Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Daniel and Poco a Poco. --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nythar^T.C 00:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Charles, 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)

• 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)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Ruine Aggstein 20211024.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 10:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ruine Aggstein 20211024.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruine Aggstein 20211024.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
•  Info Castle ruins of Aggstein, Wachau, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful. Great light and details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like a side sunset(rise) light but too much is in the shade for my tastes. Sorry - Benh (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose A beautiful composition, but too much shadows for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 19:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Münster, LWL-Museum für Kunst und Kultur, Lichtkunstwerk "Silberne Frequenz" -- 2022 -- 4266.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 08:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LWL-Museum für Kunst und Kultur, Lichtkunstwerk "Silberne Frequenz" -- 2022 -- 4266.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LWL-Museum für Kunst und Kultur, Lichtkunstwerk "Silberne Frequenz" -- 2022 -- 4266.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay 💬 08:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support - Benh (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose - No any reason for FP nomination, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Could you explain by what you mean by "[n]o any reason for FP nomination"? --SHB2000 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Karelj: courtesy ping SHB2000 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

•  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)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Definite FP material. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Fun interplay of geometrical patterns -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile and IK. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Lupe (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Santa Francesca Romana belltower.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 08:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Francesca Romana belltower.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Francesca Romana belltower.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Italy
•  Info: vertical panorama of the Santa Francesca Romana belltower. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

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)

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)

•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:Basílica de Santa María la Mayor, Roma, Italia, 2022-09-16, DD 12-14 HDR.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de Santa María la Mayor, Roma, Italia, 2022-09-16, DD 12-14 HDR.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Italy
•  Info Ceiling of the Cappella Sistina of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, Italy. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Great, but can you please straighten the left side --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Uoaei1:  Done, thank you for your feedback, Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

   Support Uoaei1 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too obviously not centered. - Benh (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Benh: It's impossible to get it centered, check this out. Poco a poco (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

•  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)

• Daniel Case:  Done Poco a poco (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Basílica de San Pedro, Ciudad del Vaticano, 2022-09-14, DD 19-21 HDR.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de San Pedro, Ciudad del Vaticano, 2022-09-14, DD 19-21 HDR.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Vatican_City
•  Info Facade of Saint Peter's Basilica, Vatican City. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Love the symmetry. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment High quality, but I prefer the existing daytime FP which has less of the distracting chairs in the foreground. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  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.

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Terrible foreground of image. -- Karelj (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Karelj, be respectful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am extremely respectful, but I am not blind! -- Karelj (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You are extremely tactful, too, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure. -- Karelj (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

•  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)

•  Oppose It looks better to me. Oppose per George. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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 Chernilevsky ^talk 02:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose the sky could be fixed, but the foreground is a fly in the ointment. -- Ivar (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose the mentioned horizontal line, also looks titlted. No problem with the foreground --Lupe (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• @George Chernilevsky, Ikan Kekek, and Lupe: I denoised the sky and removed the stripe. I couldn't determine any tilt, though, Lupe, could you add a note? Poco a poco (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC) FYI, too, Ivar

•  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 Chernilevsky ^talk 19:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• @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)

 Support okay, thank you --Lupe (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support Fixed now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support wow... --KennyOMG (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Massis del Casamanya (2).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 18:47:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Massis del Casamanya (2).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Massis del Casamanya (2).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose bland centered composition, flat light - Benh (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Majestic. --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bland colors and dull light. Agree with Benh. Bluish tint at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Pyrenees in Andorra (10).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 18:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrenees in Andorra (10).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrenees in Andorra (10).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I realise this is how it naturally looks, but the photo is a bit too dark. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful and atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too blue for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

   Comment This is normal during the blue hour. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

   Comment Not in my experience of many days spent in the Alps and some in the Pyrenees. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Dish with fruits.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 10:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dish with fruits.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dish with fruits.jpg/2

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits (raw)
•  Info Renomination, dish of fruits. My photo. --Mile (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Would fruit normally be presented like this? Not in the UK. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

   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)

•  Neutral the apple almost in a state of decomposition makes the composition ugly --Wilfredor (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I do wish the apple had been fresher, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

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)

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)

•  Oppose Normal, good quality image, but I do not see any reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin from 2017 nomination. -- Ivar (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have the same opinion as last time.--Ermell (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Lupe (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Transfiguration Cathedral - 001.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2022 at 19:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Transfiguration Cathedral - 001.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Transfiguration Cathedral - 001.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Russia
•  Info created by Alexander Novikov - uploaded by Alexander Novikov - nominated by Alexander Novikov -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

•  Comment Thank you, Alexander. --Aristeas (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates

Image:Matsumoto Castle Keep Tower.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2023 at 15:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Matsumoto Castle Keep Tower.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Matsumoto Castle Keep Tower.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Japan
•  Info created by 稲妻ノ歯鯨 - uploaded by 稲妻ノ歯鯨 - nominated by 稲妻ノ歯鯨 -- 稲妻ノ歯鯨 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- 稲妻ノ歯鯨 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Vue du château sur la plaine d'Alsace (au fond, la Forêt-Noire).jpg

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).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vue du château sur la plaine d'Alsace (au fond, la Forêt-Noire).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
•  Info created by Le_Commissaire - uploaded by Le_Commissaire - nominated by Le Commissaire -- Le Commissaire (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Le Commissaire (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment The cutoff of the pole is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:A foggy winter morning.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2023 at 17:26:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A foggy winter morning.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A foggy winter morning.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
•  Info created and uploaded by Abdul Momin - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Meiræ 20:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Berlin Sonnenaufgang am Drachenberg asv2022-08 img4.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Sonnenaufgang am Drachenberg asv2022-08 img4.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
•  Info Sunrise view from Drachenberg ("Kite hill") in Grunewald Forest, Berlin. All by me --A.Savin 13:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 13:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:20191215 Camel-drawn carts, Pushkar 1207 8771 (cropped).jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2023 at 10:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:20191215 Camel-drawn carts, Pushkar 1207 8771 (cropped).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20191215 Camel-drawn carts, Pushkar 1207 8771 (cropped).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Animal-powered vehicles
•  Info created and uploaded by Jakub Halun - nominated UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor background. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Knightscope K5 and Ford Crown Victoria at gas station San Francisco dllu.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Knightscope K5 and Ford Crown Victoria at gas station San Francisco dllu.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
•  Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 21:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

File:Red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) Reunion.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 19:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) Reunion.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) Reunion.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls)
•  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)
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

• Thanks. New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:New Orleans, Lake Pontchartrain with highlighted algae bloom, Louisiana - January 6th, 2020.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New Orleans, Lake Pontchartrain with highlighted algae bloom, Louisiana - January 6th, 2020.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#North America
•  Info created by Sentinel Hub - uploaded by Infrogmation - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

File:Berlin - Friedrichswerdersche Kirche - Apsis - Decke (9700).jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 19:14:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin - Friedrichswerdersche Kirche - Apsis - Decke (9700).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin - Friedrichswerdersche Kirche - Apsis - Decke (9700).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany
•  Info created and uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support impressive! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:20191218 Mężczyzna z rowerem na ulicy Jaipuru 1121 9109 DxO.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20191218 Mężczyzna z rowerem na ulicy Jaipuru 1121 9109 DxO.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
•  Info created and uploaded by Jakubhal - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Colorful but not that striking, and a lot of unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel Case. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Everest, Himalayas.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2022 at 12:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Everest, Himalayas.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Everest, Himalayas.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
•  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)
•  Support -- Argenberg (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, great! Yann (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Poco a poco (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

  it's also underexposed in my view - Benh (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

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)

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)

•  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)

•  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)

•  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)

  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)

•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sure, the mountain is outstanding, but the image is technically only average. --Milseburg (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
•  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)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support beautiful! --SHB2000 (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Lupe (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Poco a poco (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your vote, but you voted before (see above).--Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nythar^T.C 00:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Meiræ 20:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge2.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge2.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
•  Info: Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question tilted possibly? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done: on closer inspection, it was; fixed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Thanks for the interesting link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Emerald Lake in BC is the best I've seen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support you can never say no to a BC mountain /s --SHB2000 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:Мал полуостров во Дебарското Езеро.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 21:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Мал полуостров во Дебарското Езеро.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Мал полуостров во Дебарското Езеро.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Dean Lazarevski - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Is that cloud reflection on the water? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

•  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)

@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)

Alternative

•  Comment This one is an alternative version with brighter colours edited by Aristeas.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

•  Support This version is OK for me. Yann (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

File:Zoutelande (NL), Strand, Blick auf die Nordsee -- 2022 -- 4984.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zoutelande (NL), Strand, Blick auf die Nordsee -- 2022 -- 4984.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Netherlands
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay 💬 16:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Classic contre-jour seascape with the appropriate high contrast. --Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Quite minimalist. Serene mood -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support reminds me of something similar I saw a few weeks ago. Nicely taken, XRay. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Makes the North Sea look tropical ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --PierreSelim (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Zentraler Blick durch den Alten Elbtunnel.jpg

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.jpg Commons: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

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
•  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)
•  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)
•  Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Would a bottom crop for symmetry improve the image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

•  Support with or without the crop. -- Ivar (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Futuristic feeling. Immersion in another space -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nythar^T.C 00:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Meiræ 20:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Neptune Wide Field (NIRCam).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 20:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Neptune Wide Field (NIRCam).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neptune Wide Field (NIRCam).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Neptune
•  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)
•  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).
•  Support -- Habitator terrae 🌍 20:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @Benh: For the mapping and the filters click on link and scroll to "About The Image". Habitator terrae 🌍 16:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  (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)

  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)

  That's why I didn't nominated this image, with artifical AI-noice-reduction. Habitator terrae 🌍 16:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)

  @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??

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  (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)

  "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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

•  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)
•  Support This is impressive for a space photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you for all the explanations, Benh, Cart and Habitator terrae! --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support The wow takes a while to materialize in this one, but it's there. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per El Grafo. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Kloster Seligenstadt.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 16:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster Seligenstadt.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster Seligenstadt.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
•  Info Former Benedictine abbey in Seligenstadt, view from the garden. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Nice. I see no issue with the projection --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  Support per Ermell. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 19:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Lupe (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nythar^T.C 00:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Filipendula vulgaris - inflorescence - Kulna.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 15:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Filipendula vulgaris - inflorescence - Kulna.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Filipendula vulgaris - inflorescence - Kulna.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
•  Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support So crisp and detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Delicate beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Ermell (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 19:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful light, very good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 13:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Falconidae (Falcons)
•  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)
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 13:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support What a coup for you! A very valuable image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Same opinion here in terms of sharpening but overall still ok to me Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Daniel and Poco a Poco. --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nythar^T.C 00:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Charles, 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)

• 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)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Ruine Aggstein 20211024.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 10:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ruine Aggstein 20211024.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruine Aggstein 20211024.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
•  Info Castle ruins of Aggstein, Wachau, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful. Great light and details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like a side sunset(rise) light but too much is in the shade for my tastes. Sorry - Benh (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose A beautiful composition, but too much shadows for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 19:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Münster, LWL-Museum für Kunst und Kultur, Lichtkunstwerk "Silberne Frequenz" -- 2022 -- 4266.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 08:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LWL-Museum für Kunst und Kultur, Lichtkunstwerk "Silberne Frequenz" -- 2022 -- 4266.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LWL-Museum für Kunst und Kultur, Lichtkunstwerk "Silberne Frequenz" -- 2022 -- 4266.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay 💬 08:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support - Benh (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose - No any reason for FP nomination, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Could you explain by what you mean by "[n]o any reason for FP nomination"? --SHB2000 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Karelj: courtesy ping SHB2000 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

•  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)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Definite FP material. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Fun interplay of geometrical patterns -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile and IK. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Lupe (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Santa Francesca Romana belltower.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 08:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Francesca Romana belltower.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Francesca Romana belltower.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Italy
•  Info: vertical panorama of the Santa Francesca Romana belltower. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

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)

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)

•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

File:Basílica de Santa María la Mayor, Roma, Italia, 2022-09-16, DD 12-14 HDR.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de Santa María la Mayor, Roma, Italia, 2022-09-16, DD 12-14 HDR.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Italy
•  Info Ceiling of the Cappella Sistina of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, Italy. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Great, but can you please straighten the left side --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Uoaei1:  Done, thank you for your feedback, Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

   Support Uoaei1 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too obviously not centered. - Benh (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Benh: It's impossible to get it centered, check this out. Poco a poco (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

•  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)

• Daniel Case:  Done Poco a poco (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Basílica de San Pedro, Ciudad del Vaticano, 2022-09-14, DD 19-21 HDR.jpg

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.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de San Pedro, Ciudad del Vaticano, 2022-09-14, DD 19-21 HDR.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Vatican_City
•  Info Facade of Saint Peter's Basilica, Vatican City. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Love the symmetry. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment High quality, but I prefer the existing daytime FP which has less of the distracting chairs in the foreground. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  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.

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Terrible foreground of image. -- Karelj (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Karelj, be respectful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am extremely respectful, but I am not blind! -- Karelj (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You are extremely tactful, too, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure. -- Karelj (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

•  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)

•  Oppose It looks better to me. Oppose per George. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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 Chernilevsky ^talk 02:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose the sky could be fixed, but the foreground is a fly in the ointment. -- Ivar (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose the mentioned horizontal line, also looks titlted. No problem with the foreground --Lupe (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• @George Chernilevsky, Ikan Kekek, and Lupe: I denoised the sky and removed the stripe. I couldn't determine any tilt, though, Lupe, could you add a note? Poco a poco (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC) FYI, too, Ivar

•  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 Chernilevsky ^talk 19:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• @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)

 Support okay, thank you --Lupe (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support Fixed now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support wow... --KennyOMG (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Massis del Casamanya (2).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 18:47:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Massis del Casamanya (2).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Massis del Casamanya (2).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose bland centered composition, flat light - Benh (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Majestic. --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bland colors and dull light. Agree with Benh. Bluish tint at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Pyrenees in Andorra (10).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 18:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrenees in Andorra (10).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrenees in Andorra (10).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I realise this is how it naturally looks, but the photo is a bit too dark. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful and atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too blue for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

   Comment This is normal during the blue hour. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

   Comment Not in my experience of many days spent in the Alps and some in the Pyrenees. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Dish with fruits.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 10:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dish with fruits.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dish with fruits.jpg/2

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits (raw)
•  Info Renomination, dish of fruits. My photo. --Mile (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Would fruit normally be presented like this? Not in the UK. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

   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)

•  Neutral the apple almost in a state of decomposition makes the composition ugly --Wilfredor (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I do wish the apple had been fresher, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)

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)

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)

•  Oppose Normal, good quality image, but I do not see any reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin from 2017 nomination. -- Ivar (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have the same opinion as last time.--Ermell (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Lupe (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Transfiguration Cathedral - 001.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2022 at 19:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Transfiguration Cathedral - 001.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Transfiguration Cathedral - 001.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Russia
•  Info created by Alexander Novikov - uploaded by Alexander Novikov - nominated by Alexander Novikov -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

•  Comment Thank you, Alexander. --Aristeas (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

タイムテーブル (推薦から5日後)

Tue 20 Dec → Sun 25 Dec
Wed 21 Dec → Mon 26 Dec
Thu 22 Dec → Tue 27 Dec
Fri 23 Dec → Wed 28 Dec
Sat 24 Dec → Thu 29 Dec
Sun 25 Dec → Fri 30 Dec

タイムテーブル (推薦から10日後)

Thu 15 Dec → Sun 25 Dec
Fri 16 Dec → Mon 26 Dec
Sat 17 Dec → Tue 27 Dec
Sun 18 Dec → Wed 28 Dec
Mon 19 Dec → Thu 29 Dec
Tue 20 Dec → Fri 30 Dec
Wed 21 Dec → Sat 31 Dec
Thu 22 Dec → Sun 01 Jan
Fri 23 Dec → Mon 02 Jan
Sat 24 Dec → Tue 03 Jan
Sun 25 Dec → Wed 04 Jan