Date the photo was taken.

Also, the main camera settings can be useful, e.g. shutter speed, aperture, ISO.

Some people may prefer not to have this information displayed with their own photos, perhaps they told their wife they were going somewhere else that day, but that could be controlled by an option in account settings.

Same than Dan :-) + Original image size.......    The link on fotopedia at the top fleft is perfect except than today it link to magazine pages and it seems to be difficult to browse out except using the link to our profile.

The magazine is excellent!  The best way to have index is to use flipboard on Ipad ! It's really nice.... I didn't find index on Safari.

I completely agree with Jean-Michel: the size of the original image is an essential information. Before voting for a photo, I always make sure that its dimensions conform to the Fotopedia quality charter on this criterion. And I have often rejected with regret a picture I found yet very beautiful, but whose size was not appropriate. Conversely, I also voted in favor of images that seemed to miss some sharpness, but whose extreme dimensions could explain that feeling distorted by the display format proposed.
Other desirable information: the date of the shooting, the title of the image (which can sometimes be helpful to evaluate the relevance of the photo on the topic of the article) and a commentary by the author, when it exists.

@Jean-Laurent: The new design is good but it needs maybe to increase the minimum size of pictures. Less than 1620x 1080 is not enough.

800x533 or 533x800 is now a small size.

Portrait pictures are also not very easy for display.

Commentary on each picture is a goal for me, English is not always easy to do it.

I agree with all the above mentionned items: date taken, camera settings, image size, title and author comments (if any)

Possibly, something could be done with the latitude/longitude co-ordinates, if they exist in the photo's EXIF data.

I was directed here from the help desk, so I'll add my 2 cents.

I am interested in good pictures, so this site seems to be a place to contribute now and then.

But technical details are not of much interest, as quality is not really a question of technique nor equipment.

The annotation, however, might be necessary to understand the photo and the significance of it in particular (see my contribution to Norddeich (Norden)).

So I don't understand why you provide a field for this (which is good) and don't show it...

Even the Wikipedia does it. And why does it takes months to not implement a feature??? As a programmer, I tell that should be a snap to do.

Another bit of feedback: It should be fun to contribute. But for me, the experience was rather tedious.

I compare this with tumblr. Have a look, they know how to make things fun.

I can even automate the process and upload tons of photos with little effort via email (see for example http://phot48.tumblr.com or rather http://phot48.tumblr.com/archive to get an idea - my intention with respect to the quality seems to similar to yours).

On the other hand, apart from tags, the images are out of context, which is not the case here.

To sum up my experience so far: As Wikipedia has commons to contribute to, the difference here is the prevalence of presentation which impressed me. Also you seldom get images with high resolution these days.

+1 to latitude/longitude info.  I just joined fotopedia, and was surprised not to find this information being exposed (especially when viewing the map from a photo page, but that's a different topic). I think it can also be useful occasionally to ensure that a photo is relevant to an article, eg. a photo of Bled Castle with a geotag from somewhere else in Slovenia is likely to be suspect.

It would be good if you could click on the geotag information in the popup and be taken to the map page - this is a way of making the information come alive.