Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 10 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Peñón_de_Ifach,_Calpe,_España,_2014-07-01,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Rock of Ifach, Calpe, Spain --Poco a poco 03:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The foreground (i.e. the cityscape) is definitely missing detail --A.Savin 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please, bear in mind that the cityscape is not the main subject of the picture and on adition there was a considerable distance from the camera position to the rock Poco a poco 22:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 22:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Lech_Pisciadu_Sella_Dolomites.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: The lake Pisciadù in the Sella group in the Dolomites, South Tyrol.) --Moroder 06:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Soft detail in some areas, particularly foreground—seems a little overprocessed --Daniel Case 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review but overprocessed is inappropriate because the image was uploaded as it came out of the camera. We could discuss about the softness of foreground, does it bother so much? The picture was taken with a reasonable aperture of f/9. Cheers --Moroder 06:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
     Comment if not the description - I would never think that the subject of this image is a lake. You photographed a valley with these huge rocks, not the lake itself. Also - at this distance and focal length combination you don't really need to use f/9, you could safely use the sweet spot of your lens. --SkywalkerPL 20:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Well, it is both with the detail of the lake. You see here above that you'll always find someone who is not satisfied with your DOF ;-)--Moroder 12:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Theory is one thing, practice another. I don't know the lens Moroder used, but I know my kit zoom, which is best at f/11 when used at 55mm focal length. Diffraction may be measurable at this f-stop, but is really disturbing at f/32 or smaller. If viewed in 100% size you will not see a big difference between f/8 and f/22. But at f/8 or wide open you will see disturbing unsharpness at the image corners. -- Smial 13:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I assure you that a difference is there, and it is big. This "theory" has a very direct implications on practice. :) SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, as the sharpness could be somewhat better. -- Smial 13:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 22:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Papaver oriëntale. Locatie, Tuinen Mien Ruys in Dedemsvaart.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Papaver oriëntale. Location, Mien Ruys Gardens Dedemsvaart (Overijssel) in the Netherlands.
    Agnes Monkelbaan 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The red channel is completely burnt, thus most of the structure of the flower is lost. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 21:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. New version. --Agnes Monkelbaan 16:06, 3 August 2015
  •  Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 20:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --A.Savin 16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --Atamari 18:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)