Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 25 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Palais_de_l'Élysée_jardin_Paris.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The garden gate of the Palais de l'Élysée. --Moroder 19:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Violet borders at the upper part of the portal; correctable --Llez 20:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Imo irrelevant --Moroder 18:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's see, what others think --Llez 11:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic aberrations on contrasting edges. These are fixable and by no means irrelevant. --Granada 10:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support For me more then QIǃ Imo clear FP - Ok, I can´t understand Moroder, that kind of Chromas are really easy to fix, right down we find a white shadow, up in the sky some disturbing issues, but anyway, if we consider the size we talk about it later and some count again ricecorns...(Es tut echt weh, nach dem Schrott dem man sonst so hier sieht, wie das sich hier zuspitzt, darf auch wieder meine Meinung bleiben) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very pronounced purple fringes. --Johannes Robalotoff 11:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Granada and Robalotoff. --Fischer.H 18:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 23:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Sulpice_de_Paris_Église_Intérieur_Jésus_et_Jean_l'Évangéliste.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the Church of Saint-Sulpice, Paris. Statues of Jesus and Saint John the Evangelist. --Moroder 14:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very sorry to say no, but this seems to have suffered from a camera shake during the 5 seconds of exposure time. :( --Granada 08:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The mirrorless camera was on a tripod --Moroder 08:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think it's a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 04:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't.--Peulle 22:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Granada: , @Peulle: If the photo had motion blur you could not read the table in the back perfectly well --Moroder 18:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vertical camera shake, sorry. Of course, the image can still be used without any problems if it is scaled down a bit. But unfortunately this is strictly forbidden here... Btw: very nice lighting, and composition, and presumably lifelike colors.--Smial (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

̈** Comment Neutrale Wertung - Mich stört ja mehr die Composition, gerade für ein "still". Farben, mehr die Leuchtkraft im halbdunkel (indoor), sind geil. Aber so Geister-Schatten-Menschen (ganz links) ertrage ich nur in b/w (geht wohl oft nicht anders, selbst bei Friedhöfen und die sind still und friedlich), darf mein Thema bleiben- dann ganz rechts (der cut)?ǃ Die unscharfen Statuen (dancing main objects) sind echt ein technischen Themaǃ Granada sprach nicht von einer Spiegel-Erschütterung (´ne HaBla war selbst analog keine RB67 oder RZ), nur woher kommt´s ?? Mann könnte es nur mir einem DNG nachvollziehen (Perspektive), hatte selbst schon Rechenfehler in PS. Das das Objektiv in Weitwinkel oder die hohe Auflösung technisch schuld sind, kann ich mir nicht vorstellen und mag es auch nicht glauben. Schade Schokolade, weit weit weg von den Schnappschussern und Handy-Knipsern. Die Kategorie braucht es erst noch...Was sollen erst die Canonisten sagen, mit den flairs im bokeh, wo jeder gleich besoffen wird (gerade das mögen dieǃ) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 23:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  •  Comment - I feel like some of you are judging this photo at full size. I consider it sufficiently sharp at 3x a 13-inch screen. Ought you really be judging it as unsharp based on a huge size? -- Ikan Kekek 12:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Motion blur, in spite of tripod. --Johannes Robalotoff 11:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Ford_(Model_T_1917-1922).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ford (Model T 1917-1922). --Fitindia 18:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Edges and borders are pixelated, upsized? --Llez 20:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Have uploaded a newer version of this file please do have a look --Fitindia 23:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now --Llez 06:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'm seeing magenta in the penumbras of light in the room. Llez and Fitindia, do you see that? Was the purple light really there? A reflection of something, perhaps? If so, I may have been incorrect in declining another picture of this car. -- Ikan Kekek 03:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, now I see it. There is a slight kind of "banding" of magenta and yellow --Llez 06:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Let's discuss. -- Ikan Kekek 21:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have no problem with any purple light but with the bad light at all. That means that the image at the right side is much too bright and at the left it is rather dark. Further the car is distorted. For me it is no quality image. -- Spurzem 23:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, very unfortunate lighting. --Smial 22:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Imo, still more then good enough--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the overexposure on the right is nearly impossible to avoid without changing the lighting conditions in the room. Exposure of the car itself is still OK, so one could argue. But due to the distortion issue mentioned by Spurzem I will oppose too. --Johannes Robalotoff 11:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 23:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

File:View_to_Lion's_Head_from_slopes_of_Table_Mountain.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lion's Head from the slopes of Table Mountain, Cape Town --Daniel Case 06:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A lot of spots in the sky here as well. --Ermell 08:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Fixed Daniel Case 07:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 Comment ̊̊Daniel, your sensor is dirty like a boot scraper, still min. 4 visible...I don´t like saturation and posterisation. Looks for me like GIMP (work), not a issue from your cam and not under 24.000 shutter-releases...--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 13:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you at least indicate where the four that you see are? Daniel Case 16:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: Nope Sirǃ Or will this stamping it out, with this and other pictures? Honestly, it´s cheekiness with your commons status, to nominate it at this low level.Tipː Take a monochrome surface (white wall or the sky without clouds) defocus at minimum (not infinite), take a really high aperture (up to/higher then f16) and you have a control shoot, before you order a sensor cleaning service...--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I see lots of dust spots. Perhaps it's time to have the sensor professionally cleaned.--Peulle 08:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed One last attempt before Christmas (and yes I will be doing something to clean the sensor over the holidays ... Daniel Case 05:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - This is nitpicky, but in a cloudless blue sky, there are nevertheless quite subtle blotches, especially diagonally up to the right of the summit, but perhaps they're some kind of whispy dark cloud, rather than posterized areas? I think it's probably good enough now. -- Ikan Kekek 06:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Sick of nitpicky reviewers --Moroder 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tournasol7 08:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am heartbroken. The choice of the motif is excellent and apart from the many spots, the quality was good. Now, however, the editing traces are too clear, for example at the bottom of the Mountain´s left slope. With a repair brush, the spots could be removed with a little patience on a simply blue sky without a trace easily. It should not be a problem, if reviewers are nitpicky. QI does not mean "picture with small quality problems". --Milseburg 12:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. --Fischer.H 18:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 23:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)