Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 29 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Wat_Pho,_Bangkok,_Tailandia,_2013-08-22,_DD_34.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Pho temple, Bangkok, Thailand --Poco a poco 11:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose C´mon! I hope you gamble again with us, Lights are under paperwhite. Perspecitve is less then a smartphone and detail in white is totally missing. Pls tell me it´s kidding, otherwhise I don´t catch the x-mas story. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 18:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    Hans-Jürgen Neubert: I don't see why I shall tolerate it. Either you review in a respectful way or you keep your fingers off my noms. Sorry, I cannot assume good faith as you are only reviewing my pictures (and nobody's else) and doing again in a completely disrespecful way. I don't know what is your problem with me (whichi is obviuus), but I tell you, this is my last warning. Nicht einmal zu Weihnachten es locker lassen können. Traurig. Poco a poco 10:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I still dont´get it. You take the review personal. I reviewed it bcs. it´s king palace. One of the QI Rules are horizont must be horizontal.

How many times I read it here? A lot of time with monuments, where nothing is really in gauge. Right side is shifted and I write only this edit not the first time. You miss maybe the Poco-PRO´s from my side, but I cant´fix the Java problems here. Back to the image: 16 mm at fullframe is a absolute extreme Wideangle. To turn a zoom at the end will show evertime the issues and matters with the lens. With your expensive one, too. I still think it´s not intensional, and it´s a wrong object to show "frogview" (near fisheye) bcs. the main viewers point (the middle) get weired, to small, with missing details at the rest of space. A good example are the golden standing buddhas at King Palace (You shoot it) or one metro station in BKK. Anyway it´s not serious to construe different times with same arguments and not to use it over all.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 12:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I cannot understand your english, once more, but it shouldn't be hard to understand: if you review my images (or anybody's else, surely) do it WITH RESPECT. That is the least we expect here. If you cannot achieve that, then don't review. Poco a poco 12:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Looks alright to me, and the lack of perspective correction is obviously intentional. -- Ikan Kekek 22:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 08:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- PumpkinSky 12:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan.--Peulle 21:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like the almost perfect symmetry. - AWeith 16:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   ----PumpkinSky 13:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Adult_white-tailed_eagle_(Haliaeetus_albicilla)_of_central_Poland_in_flight_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Adult white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Poland (2) --AWeith 12:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good! --JoachimKohlerBremen 12:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; noisy and not sharp --Llez 13:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate crop, too. --Basotxerri 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Some careful denoising would be nice, but sharpness is absolutely acceptable regarding the high resolution. This is not an "easy-to-take" image and in the past we have accepted images of this kind, which were downscaled to 3 Mpixels or even less to get better visual sharpness. Crop is somewhat tight, but nothing is cut off, so also within QIC requirements. --Smial 11:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have uploaded a de-noised version to meet the comments I can deal with. Given that I used a fixed focal 400mm f2.8 lens from Canon I was lucky enough to catch this bird just when he approached me full-frame. I can, thus, not meet any critics regarding the crop. Thanks for your comments, anyway. AWeith 15:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Better now. Regarding the crop I stay neutral and hope that some more experienced animal shooters give their opinion. Not sure if Charles will read this ;-) --Basotxerri 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Does that camera produce images that large? I have been away from photos, mostly and onto scans and things. I would have thought that this photo was upscaled if it hadn't been for the shoulder and the beak and all parts in between. It is too out of focus to be QI. Even cropping to the focused parts would make the image too small. I would like to be a good enough photographer to get an image like this, also.--RaboKarbakian 06:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Nothing upscaled. Native resolution is 6.720 Pixel × 4.480 Pixel --Smial 14:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Subject is in focus, lighting is excellent, colors are great, crop is correct. Just noisy and not extremely sharp, but difficult shot and the resolution is high. -- Basile Morin 11:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Absolutely good enough for QI. Charlesjsharp 18:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't like the composition: The eagle should be near the right edge, not attached to the left side. -Lmbuga (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 13:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Adult_white-tailed_eagle_(Haliaeetus_albicilla)_of_central_Poland_in_flight_(3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Adult white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Poland (3) --AWeith 12:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Top qualitiy. --JoachimKohlerBremen 12:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; noisy and not sharp --Llez 13:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me (4,747 × 2,670 pixels) Lmbuga 19:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lmbuga. Good enough. --Smial 11:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good motion blur but in the wrong area -- over the wing. The tips are not moving. Weird. It is soft and mostly out of focus. I have taken photographs like this. .--RaboKarbakian 06:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI Charlesjsharp 18:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
In the Silliart days here (before the perspective police took over) the basic rule was that QI was technically perfect, wow unnecessary but welcomed and FP was wow first and technically perfect maybe. Also, there was quite a bit of category and article tweaking. And learning of photography. Sorry, I still got to oppose this and wonder if this is "the reclaiming the frames" part. :) --RaboKarbakian 05:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, please; I anxiously try to understand each comment made on my photographs. Here, however, I do not get your point. AWeith 16:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 13:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Adult_white-tailed_eagle_(Haliaeetus_albicilla)_of_central_Poland_in_flight_(4).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Adult white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Poland (4) --AWeith 12:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohlerBremen 12:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; noisy and not sharp --Llez 13:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me Lmbuga 19:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lmbuga. Good enough. --Smial 11:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for sure.--RaboKarbakian 06:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Basile Morin 11:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 13:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)