Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 15 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2011-06-03_PIONEER_BAY_-_IMO_9164550.jpg[edit]

File:Chiesa_San_Mattia_alle_Grazie_Via_delle_Grazie_Brescia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: San Mattia alle Grazie church. --Moroder 07:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose IMO CA on the roof and bird in the sky should be removed. --F. Riedelio 08:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment Imo they are totally irrelevant --Moroder 10:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment I have taken this CA-criterion from the guidelines "Quality and featured photographic images". --F. Riedelio 13:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
        •  Comment guidlines cited "Chromatic aberration (distracting [typically purple] hazing at contrast edges)", Please don't tell me the minimal CA on this picture at full size is distracting --Moroder 09:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
          •  Comment The green CA on the street lamp, the roof and the satellite antenna in the background as well as the violet CA on the roof of the main building is present but not very disturbing. That's why I did not decline the photo. --F. Riedelio 10:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done within a week. --XRay 04:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree --Moroder 07:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment The CA is visible at a mere 300% of my 13-inch monitor's size. I think you should remove it. If you do, I'll be happy to support. -- Ikan Kekek 06:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
        •  Comment I understand CA is visible at 300% so why should I remove it? :-) --Moroder 09:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
          •  Comment Assuming you'd still edit the thing with CA, you could also deal with the overexposed color channels on the sunlit house wall on the right. --Smial 13:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Do you understand that I'm not talking about 300% of the full size of the file? Please reread my comment. -- Ikan Kekek 16:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pardon me, but if you want to say 300% of your 13" screen that doesn't mean anything to me. On my 32" Eizo screen this image is perfect and I could not think of a better lens or camera as I already told you. Cheers--Moroder 18:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You are a great photographer, but it seems to me that you don't respect other people's eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 00:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You are flattering, but please don't say that I don't respect other peoples eyes. I don't accept the so called pixelpeeping and hope noone feels offendet, because I'm convinced QIC should have other priorities. But anyhow I welcome anyone's suggestions and critics. That's what this forum is for and it helps. --Moroder 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The Italian sun... With Smial: Facade is overexposed. In this case no expensive camera and lens will help :) Maybe in post-processing something can be improved and the structure of the facade can be recovered, which is hardly visible in the bright areas. --Tuxyso 12:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, it looks overexposed. Also, the right side appears to be leaning out and the green CA really are quite disturbing. Those should be fixable, though.--Peulle 12:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Peulle: The leaning out is something new now. Can you please show me what and where --Moroder 16:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me. CA is visible at 150% of my 4K monitor (especially the green by the chimney), it would be better to fix but it's subtle enough to pass QI imo, and I don't know whether the perspective is right or the buildings are leaning because they lean slightly towards both ways. --Trougnouf 10:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info The roof gutter on the left has a stitching error. --Milseburg 18:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint --Moroder 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 19:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Trougnouf. --Aristeas 09:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Added notes for another couple stitching errors. They're very minor, though, and only visible at full size. Rhododendrites 13:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks @Rhododendrites: for the notes --Moroder 16:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
     Support fine for me Rhododendrites 18:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose exposure issue not fixed. --Smial 13:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 08:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)