Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 04 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Raven_on_the_Belchen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Raven in flight near the summit of the Belchen. --Prosthetic Head 20:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, overprocessed --Llez 21:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can you explain why it's over-processed? All I've done is a white balance tweak and crop out some excess sky.. no sharpening, blurring, de-noising, etc at all. I'd like to understand so I can do better next time. Thanks! --Prosthetic Head 21:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Prosthetic Head: Did you shoot the image as RAW file? If not, the camera processes the RAW data and applies lots of parameters while saving the JPEG file. --Basotxerri 17:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I was shooting jpeg only (short on SD space), so this from in-camera jpeg compression at its highest quality level. Don't mind it not being a QI, but don't know how to improve based on feedback that it's 'overprocessed'. --Prosthetic Head 19:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Prosthetic Head: Generally when we're talking about overprocessing we mean that the result of the image processing isn't natural or credible anymore. There might be e. g. oversharpening, excessive noise reduction, oversaturation. When I look at this image, I see some lack of detail because of excessive noise reduction and some artifacts of oversharpening (check the clouds). The raven seems a bit underexposed, too. If you had shoot this in RAW and edited the RAW files with a decent RAW converter (like Adobe Lightroom, e. g.) you would have more control over all these parameters. The other thing is that the sensor of your camera is quite small so you'll always have to deal with more problems related to noise and lack of dynamic range. Your images can get promoted here but with a small sensor it's more difficult and editing will often be necessary. --Basotxerri 16:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is overexposed, the main objekt the raven is underlighted (black is difficult, not sure if its fixeable)--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the raven doesn't stand out. --Peulle 11:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Ethiopian_wolf_(Canis_simensis_citernii)_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis citernii) Ethiopia --Charlesjsharp 16:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support You are my favorite wild photographer, excellent quality!! --The Photographer 16:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the animal is not sharp enough. Not a QI for me --Halavar 16:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment This may not be relevant, but this is an image of Africa's most endangered carnivore, an Ethiopian endemic, with less than 400 animals left in the wild. It is not easy to get this close. Charlesjsharp 23:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Clear Pro (Sharpness looks like NOT using "Contouring")--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat noisy, but sharp enough. Good lighting and very nice composition. --Smial 10:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support as others --Ralf Roletschek 15:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   ----PumpkinSky 17:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

File:18-07-13-Audi_Quattro_A5_Sportback-RalfR_RR70417.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Audi Quattro A5 Sportback 8T --Ralf Roletschek 12:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 17:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Due to 800 ISO it is a bit noisy but sharp enough for QI. Further it is a good composition so that I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 22:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - The lights also look a bit blown and posterized, but overall, I agree with Spurzem, though I consider this picture close to the line. -- Ikan Kekek 07:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Absolutely not. The car stands still so there's no question it should be sharper and less noisy than this. --Peulle 11:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question - How do you know the car is idling? -- Ikan Kekek 02:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Break lights, open door, tyre threads visible, take your pick ... --Peulle 07:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough -- Basile Morin 13:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)