Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 09 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Vieux_Limoilou,_Quebec_city,_Canada.png[edit]

  • Nomination Vieux Limoilou\ --The Photographer 04:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment 1 MByte size for every 2 MPixel is ridiculous --Poco a poco 09:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. IMHO the image know the requirements for QIC. Thanks --The Photographer 23:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please reupload as JPEG and I'll support. 1024 × 637 is smaller than the 2 MP minimum requirement, and nothing larger can load in any reasonable amount of time, so I cannot assess whether it is sufficiently sharp at the minimum resolution. Also note that when MediaWiki scales PNG images for web use, it fails to apply sharpening, making photos appear soft - PNG is just not an appropriate format for photos. -- King of Hearts 06:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks I uploaded another JPG version to QIC King of Hearts --The Photographer 02:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment This is 16/48 bit colour depth, JPG does not support 16 bit, only 8 bit. I tried TIFF with LZW compression, the file will grow up to 1.3 GB then. Btw: It's completely unclear to me why you need this huge resolution and color depth for such a rather trivial motif, unless it's meant as a technology demo. --Smial 12:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Ps.: There is a stitching error in the latern. Near "3000K".
Yes its a trivial motif, sorry --The Photographer 02:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness.--Fischer.H 15:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I very like this trivial scene ;-) .. and I like the WB and the resulting spectrum of colors within. And some parts of the stitch even match the high resolution. But unfortunately only a few of them. So I'm waiting for a new better shot of this scene. --PtrQs 01:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks PtrQs, what I could do to improve it (I understand that the size is too big)? --The Photographer 01:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment It defintely is too big - compared to the 100MB limit of the upload-assistent. What is it's size in jpg-format? Apart from this 100Mb limit pictures should be as big as possible, as long as they are sharp (I'm tired of all this fuss about "but for this huuuge size ... is it sharp at 30%"). So if all the basic pictures of your stitch are as sharp as your best of this stitch, I'd like to see a new version of this trivial scene ;-) --PtrQs 21:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Paris Orlando 20:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Ciastel_de_Stevia_te_Val.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Ciastel de Stevia peak with a natural arch in Gröden. --Moroder 12:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 13:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Impressive, but technically not yet a QI. Please fix the stitching problem at the bottom in the middle and the dust spot there. A minor problem is the unsharp part in the groove below the hole. --Milseburg 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks --Moroder 09:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Really impressive! If I do pixel peeping, I can still find some parts which are not perfect (e.g. the “unsharp part in the groove below the hole” mentioned by Milseburg), but given the size of the image and the overall quality this is definitely a QI for me (maybe even FP). --Aristeas 11:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose One of the pictures from the panorama set is not sharp. Maybe this can be fixed because the rest is excellent. Too bad.--Ermell 20:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I´m not really convinced about the bottom and Ermell is right I think. Sorry.--Milseburg 12:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris Orlando 19:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 2 or 3 images of the panorama set are unsharp due to camera shake. Did you use 18 images in panorama set just to double the megapixel count? Those landscapes are really great, maybe you can get better results by using a wideangle lens? --Shansov.net 23:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - 2 areas of very slight unsharpness are visible at 60%. That's good enough for me to say it's a high-quality image! How many other images much smaller than this that are imperfect do we pass as good enough? -- Ikan Kekek 07:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Paris Orlando (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)