Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 20 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Luebeck_04_2008_047.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lübeck April 2008. By User:Daniela Kloth --Ralf Roletschek 15:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, PumpkinSky 15:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is sharp --Michielverbeek 08:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is o.k., but overall it's quite blurry. Camera shake? --Granada 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 08:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Peulle 21:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 19:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

File:15-07-31-MilwaukeeRiver_IMG_1097.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Milwaukee River in Milwaukee. By User:Daniela Kloth --Ralf Roletschek 15:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, PumpkinSky 15:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too noisy and also loss of detail due to the noise. --Granada 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Granada. There also appear to be a bunch of dust spots. Too bad, because the view is pretty. -- Ikan Kekek 08:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Granada and Ikan. IMO not reasonably fixable. --Basotxerri 09:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Peulle 21:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 19:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

File:15-08-SchmitzReadyMix IMG 1087.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fahrmischer Schmitz in Milwaukee. By User:Daniela Kloth --Ralf Roletschek 15:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, PumpkinSky 15:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please remove the color fringing (CAs) on contrasting edges. --Granada 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I have to agree. I'm not usually so good at seeing chromatic aberration, but this is obvious to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

File:15-08-04-Minocqua-Daniela-Kloth-IMG_1367.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Minocqua, Wisconsin. By User:Daniela Kloth --Ralf Roletschek 15:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, PumpkinSky 15:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too noisy and not really much detail. --Granada 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Granada. -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Granada. --Basotxerri 09:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Peulle 21:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 19:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Trier, Dom - Marienkapelle, Krippe (um 1740).JPG[edit]

@Jacek Halicki: Incredible. But if you mean, O.K. Thank you -- Spurzem 09:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Corrected. -- Spurzem 09:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. – I withdraw. -- Spurzem 09:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 19:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Генуезька_фортеця_(Судак)._Панорама.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Genoese fortress (Sudak). By User:Zysko serhii --Ата 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, wish the author didn't remove metadata --Trougnouf 09:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, extreme distortion of the wall and the tower at the left and also the people and the trees at the right; perspective correction necessary --Llez 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now per Llez. -- Ikan Kekek 07:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Llez.--Peulle 10:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

File:«Флігель_Тараса_Шевченка»_(Яготин).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shevchenko wing of Repnin estate in Yahotyn, Ukraine. By User:SNCH --Ата 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Vote deleted by PumpkinSky himself 23:33, 14 December 2017. Please sign subsequent changes clearly next time. --Milseburg 12:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree - perspective and CA problems --Jacek Halicki 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jacek. -- Ikan Kekek 05:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jacek.--Peulle 10:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 13:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Buddhist_child_monk_in_Wat_Phou.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Buddhist child monk going down the steps of Wat Phou in Champasak --Basile Morin 14:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, JPEG artifacts, composition and crop looks like random. --XRay 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral JPEG artifacts gone, better. But the composition still does not work for me. --XRay 11:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I didn't see the artifacts but I can live with the composition. --Basotxerri 21:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I can't see the JPG artifacts. Would be nice to see them in order to avoid further uploads, but I would prefer of course they weren't there :-) Is 80% compression too weak for Commons ? Concerning the composition, chance or luck is not random. The boy turning back to meet my camera was not expected, however pushing the shutter button at this moment was certainly wanted. The older monks were voluntarily included in the image for their shapes and flashy color. Though these subjects are in the background, seen from behind, their importance is much lower, due to focus, and that's why the tight crop of the man on the right is not a big problem IMO. Also, Basotxerri I don't understand your comment, which sounds like a support. Writing "I can live with the composition" means you find the composition acceptable, don't you ? Or is the composition so bad that you can't bear it ? Please be explicit. But despite the ambiguity, I've uploaded a new version with another crop, to reduce the empty surface and highlight the main subject. Hopefully better now -- Basile Morin 00:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi Basile Morin, please let me explain: when I voted for supporting your image, I didn't bother about the composition but I oversaw the posterisation on the blurred monks. XRay saw it and I was reminded that I should have seen it. I've read your explanations, you've improved the compression. I'm not sure if I've got a cache problem but I still see the posterisation. Because of your improvements, I'd won't oppose further but I'd like to hear more opinions so I stay  Neutral, at least for the moment. --Basotxerri 18:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
IMO 80% and visible compression isn't acceptable for a QIC. May be 95% may work, my recommendation is 100% - no compression. --XRay 07:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Just my 2 cents...Composition is as it should be! (From technical side young monk was catched with focus trap -perfect!) It´s NOT random and it´s not that what called snap in a bad way. Ok, the issues (PS-Work after development) left green spot downside looks like CA or jpeg bug. Background is maybee too sharp, or I miss more bokeh. Rightside - Monk´s Head in the middle (dodge), black spot makes no sense (stamp it out), two white ones with the first monk, too. - Total: A little bit PS Work and than it´s more then a really good image, it can be Q1, too (about colour, skin, hair, focus etc from the child monk) but needs old crop and bigger size-- Hans-Jürgen Neubert 08:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  • New version uploaded. No compression, so 100% quality of the original file. Erased 3 spots pointed by Hans-Jürgen Neubert in the background + slightly enlarged the crop. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better. I like it! It´s a small file and u use really a old CS, feel free to send me the raw or DNG-File. PS-Work can still be improved....-- Hans-Jürgen Neubert 12:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Photo from 2011, recorded in JPG only. Thanks for your help, Hans, anyway. -- Basile Morin 13:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Basile Morin: I think you can rescue this image: could you try to edit it in Lightroom and repair the posterised areas using the Adjustment Brush? Give it lots of negative sharpness and negative clarity and pass over the affected areas. I've downloaded your image and the result IMO is acceptable. If you can't get it better, I can upload my version if you want. --Basotxerri 18:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Basotxerri, yes I would be grateful if you would upload your version. I'm also interested in looking at the result, since I'm not really used with such kind of retouches on Lightroom, I appreciate a lot your tip and helping hand. -- Basile Morin 01:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've uploaded my fix on your image page. Please have a look, if you don't like it, revert my upload. @XRay: What do you think? Acceptable for a QI? --Basotxerri 10:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, on your version I still can see the posterisation on the monk's clothes. --Basotxerri 10:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello Basotxerri and Hans-Jürgen Neubert, first a big thanks to both of you for your help in trying to improve this picture. After seeing the result on your version, Basotxerri, I managed to understand how you did on Lightroom and believe I will be able to do the same next time with the Adjustment Brush. I see the difference and find this version really great ! Hans-Jürgen Neubert, your version brings a totally new image and I can understand the goal here, to hide all the small spots on the skin for example and make the appearance softer. However, I find it too soft. Personnally, I like the small details on my original file, especially the grain, which has disappeared on your version. The reason why I like those details is probably for a documentary purpose : I try to be as close as possible to the reality here on Commons, even if the reality could be more beautiful, for sure. Hans, your attempt to improve is certainly interesting, and I wouldn't expect that change on my image, so thanks for showing me a new potential on Photoshop. However, I will keep Basotxerri's version. Wish this will be acceptable for a QI, too, maybe. Thanks again -- Basile Morin 12:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm glad that you agree with my version. As I'm implicated now in some way in the creation of the current version, I can't review my own work but I'm sure that someone else will support it. --Basotxerri 12:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi there, first of all this is not a competition, sense was to show ways of digital development. For example Pic from Basotxerri still have green CA? left and the middle monk right is a headlight-jesus:) Mine have the issue with posterisation - With poor kids I have my own issues and see pics absolute critical, bcs. they are a collectors items for not sensitive Photographers/(sometime Phädos). Was taken a lot, for rotary and other "Clubs" like Kindergarten (Banana Leaf Boat etc). I like your image indeed about the monk story behind. The first-born-Boy can go to military, the second or third must go to WAT, both have to walk...that`s Life! - PS is not destructiv, my idea was too beauty the child monk (fairy tale), and give the possibility to real, by erasing the Brush-Level. My idea was NOT to finish it! -- Hans-Jürgen Neubert 17:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support very good now.--Ermell 15:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)