Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 10 2015

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Umm Qais 00 (3).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination : Roman ruins at Umm Qais, Jordan.--لا روسا 12:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Fine, thanks for the image. Hilarmont 14:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose IMHO, oversharpened. --C messier 11:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    @C messier: , i uploaded a new one, review it please.--لا روسا 04:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --C messier 10:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me also.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 20:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Trostburg Bergfried Ostseite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg - Tower with clock east face --Moroder 13:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Please check for halos at the top.--XRay 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Comment I don't know how to fix them provided they need to be fixed. --Moroder 17:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
     Comment May be it's oversharpened?--XRay 06:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)  Comment No I never sharpen my images, I like them smooth. I had already long discussions on QIC about the halo between hi contrast interfaces, typically the roofs against the sky, there is always a halo in digital Photography of the size of 3-5 pixels which is 1/1000 compared to the whole image which has a huge size. Therefor imo the halo is irrelevant. Thanks for the review, cheers --Moroder 09:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction overdone IMO at the top (see the globe), and not enough on sides. Tight crop. Blown sky at left. Halo. Light not optimal. Not a QI (my taste), sorry.--Jebulon 10:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    I accept everything which is opinable but the "overblown sky " is not true, please look at the histogram. --Moroder 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    •  Question @Jebulon: Can you tell me how to apply different perspective corrections in different parts of one image without completely destroying the real proportions? -- Smial 10:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support for me it´s QI, the castle is seen from this position as it is seen on the picture. --Hubertl 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Isiwal 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a good framing, which is a fundamental component of Photography. Alvesgaspar 21:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 Question Whats wrong with the framing? --Moroder 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The crop is too tight and the shooting position is not the best: not only extreme distortion results but also is makes unclear what the subject is: only the tower? Alvesgaspar 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since I can't afford a chopper, I take the pictures from the bottom where I access on foot between different constraining walls. Yes, the subject is the tower as described.
  •  Support Good quality. @Moroder: Here we have typical very small sharpening halo, which is ok. In earlier discussions it was much broader ;-) -- Smial 10:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others (Jebulon and A.)--Lmbuga 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The small halo is acceptable imo, as is the perspective correction given the 'narrow' surroundings. --Cayambe 07:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 20:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)