Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 31 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:20170608_U21_AUT-GIB_Ritzing_DSC_4876.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination European U21 Championship 2019 Qualifying Round, Austria vs. Gibraltar. Picture shows: Bradley Banda (1) --Granada 10:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support This one works. There is a bit of noise because of the high ISO, but you have to do that since it's an action shot. I think you could probably turn up the shutter speed even more as well. --Peulle 11:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I set this to CR myself! I want to know what is a good high-ISO sports photo and why. --Granada 12:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think there is anything wrong with the high ISO-value. The main person is sharp and well done. However it might have better if you would have used a shorter exposure time because the moving ball is not really sharp. But I don't know how far this is realistic, but it's good enough for Q1 (probably not for FP) --Michielverbeek 08:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The visible motion in the ball and his right foot makes this a good sports photo (especially when enlarged), it is fully intentional. If I was shooting soccer for editorial purposes I would have shot faster at an even higher ISO, downscaled it to reduce the effects of more noise as the newspapers want sharp images. That's sth. valid for all sports images: only few shots are tack sharp at 100%, but that doesn't matter. The newspapers want a maximum of around 2MP for an image, so you can easily downscale your images to make them appear sharp. That's why it's so hard to post new QI sports photos as it is not allowed to downscale them and even higher res sensors make it harder with every new camera released. That goal keeper above was shot with the Nikon D4 (only 16MP!) and I bet if I would have shot this with the D850 now it would not be as sharp around his face as even with just 16MP it shows some blurriness. This one is made with the D850, it is huge (although cropped it still has around the full resolution of the D4) and it's no wonder it opposes some visible (motion) blur at 100%. --Granada 08:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment In case my comment above was unclear, what I meant was that while the ISO should always be set as low as possible to avoid noise, sometimes you have to set it high because of either light conditions or (as here) fast-moving objects. A good sports shot to me freezes the subject completely (which is why I suggested an even faster shutter speed), but sometimes 'action shots' like this one should not be completely frozen and instead include some movement such as wheels spinning or balls having motion blur. In such instances, the movement blur is part of the moment you're trying to capture. However, the blur must not wash out features that should not be lost, such as facial features. This one doesn't lose that and that's why this photo is good enough for QI.--Peulle 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support this is not in the photo studio --Ralf Roletschek 08:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Sport as it should be! --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 11:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Fine. -- Ikan Kekek 17:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise? What (disturbing!) noise? --Smial 19:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted As there was never a decline vote for this image and the reasoning behind the promotion has been explained, I'm going to speedy promote this one.--Peulle 14:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Церковь_Максима_Блаженного.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Церковь Максима Блаженного, г.Москва, Зарядье, декабрь 2017г. --WM wm WM 23:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nightscene as it should be. Highest Contrast. I like it! --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 14:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed on highlights, perspective distortion --A.Savin 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 08:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not too worried about the highlights, but there's definitely perspective distortion: the left side is leaning in rather heavily.--Peulle 14:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 17:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 22:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed all the building on the left - removed the tiltWM wm WM (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:17-12-12-SXF-KEF-RalfR-DSC_2330.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Winglet of TF-GPA (WOW Air) --Ralf Roletschek 08:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportThis image has a certain WOW factor Good quality. --Basotxerri 09:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree. Poor quality. Certainly shot through a window with a big piece of glass in front of the camera and nothing is sharp. --Basile Morin 10:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan --Michielverbeek 08:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too little of the vinglet is visible, IMO.--Peulle 18:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, very strange composition, sorry. Looks like an error, as when you pushed the shutter button accidently -- Basile Morin 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Monasterio_Franciscano,_Pula,_Croacia,_2017-04-16,_DD_48.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the Franciscan Monastery, Pula, Croatia. --Poco a poco 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose WTF Ok you will test sense of humor from the community. Overexposed for 2f, drunken perspective, details lost of 75% and I do NOT talk about line leading. Can I give you a extra point about sense of humor? gravely.... --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 17:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Mr Neubert, this is the most DISRESPECTFUL and INSULTING review I've got ever in QIC and I've been here for a while. Nothing else to say. According to Lr NO OVEREXPOSURE. Details are not lost, it is normal and intentional in this kind of perspective shot. This review doesn't speak for you as a photographer, let alone as a person. --Poco a poco 18:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you give us a vertical line in this pic? (And a personal tip, or sense of humor, pls. check next time "Pula" before you use it...) Regards!--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 20:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Seems good enough to me, especially as it's a large file. It's not always a bad thing for a view to get less sharp as it goes up, especially if it's all really the same thing. And Hans-Jürgen Neubert, please be aware that Poco is one of the best and most prolific photographers on the site, so even if he screws up and nominates something far from QI level (and on rare occasions, I've seen this), it's best to have a tone that comes across as more respectful. If you indeed intended to make a joke, keep in mind that humor often translates poorly in this teletype medium. -- Ikan Kekek 05:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Ikan's comments. About the image, if it has a weakness it's the loss of detail as you go higher, but that's mostly to do with lens distortion, isn't it? I do think that the word "detail" should be in the file description, though.--Peulle 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hans-Jürgen Neubert, I second Ikan's comment about how you use your humor and I think you could benefit form reading Commons:Staying mellow, please. --W.carter 09:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I've had a couple of days to think about it now and while I in no way agree with the other things said by the first reviewer, I do feel that the distortion problems are covering too big an area in this image. It's about 1/3 of it from the top, leaving several of the shells completely unsharp. I'm not sure what the best recourse would be - perhaps cropping?--Peulle 23:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Pretty for me. You can't have everything focused in such a composition, unless you do focus-staking. Regards, Yann 17:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support As a detail shot: OK for me. --Basotxerri 08:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Now with changes (from critic). Most space without details, still not one line for the viewer and still more then one EV too bright in middletones and shadows. To cut out the sky can´t hide the matters from missing colour details (Green right side).--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 13:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 22:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC))