Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 18 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Darter_Preening_Neck_Vedanthangal_TN_Feb22_D72_22956.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Darter or Snake-bird (Anhinga melanogaster) preening neck, Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary, India --Tagooty 09:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 09:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp. --Tomer T 11:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fairly low resolution, artefacts, level of detail...--Peulle 08:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Darter_Head_Bent_Back_Vedanthangal_TN_Feb22_D72_22958.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Darter or Snake-bird (Anhinga melanogaster) head bent back, Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary, India --Tagooty 09:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 09:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp. --Tomer T 11:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that with this fairly low resolution, this isn't the level of quality we expect in 2022. There are artefacts, a low level of detail... --Peulle 08:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Darter_Perched_Vedanthangal_TN_Feb22_D72_22961.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Darter or Snake-bird (Anhinga melanogaster) perched, Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary, India --Tagooty 09:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 09:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp. --Tomer T 11:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that with this fairly low resolution, this isn't the level of quality we expect in 2022. There are artefacts and a general lack of details.--Peulle 08:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Leh_Palace_Landscape.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Leh Palace. By User:Shri 4545 --Hulged 03:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 09:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp. --Tomer T 11:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavy perspective warp. Both sides are leaning in.--Peulle 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Krumpendorf_Pamperlallee_O-Ansicht_03022022_2101.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pamperlallee, Krumpendorf, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    CA should be fixed. --Tomer T 11:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Tomer T: Thanks for your review. CA was fixed. —- Johann Jaritz 06:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 21:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 22:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:20220213_Tesla_Model_S75D_850_9151.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tesla Model S 75D, Baujahr 2017, midnight silver metallic --Granada 16:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Too shallow depth of field - the roof is significantly out of focus. --VileGecko 20:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    Want to know if that's really the case. --Granada 21:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd allow it. If you look at full size, yes, there are areas out of focus, but this is an unusually big photo of a car. -- Ikan Kekek 06:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Totally normal way to depict a car. --King of Hearts 00:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Rainbow_lorikeet_Head_Shot.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Photo of a Rainbow Lorikeet standing on a bird feeder. --Dimitrijemat 13:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Too much noise. Blurred head or poor detail--Lmbuga 13:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    Lmbuga, what do you mean by poor detail as I can see the feathers very clearly. Have you viewed the image at the full resolution? --Dimitrijemat 15:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    * I disagree, sorry--Lmbuga 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm confused. Let's see what others think--Lmbuga 16:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks fine detail and also quite noisy. Probably ISO 500 is too high. --C messier 11:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy, lack detail. Looks like tilted.--Steindy 13:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Noise reduction may help, if it can be done without losing the feather detail. --Tagooty 14:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Although the image noise is a bit high, the image has significantly more than the 6 MPixels I like to call the lower limit, so that it can be printed to A4 size without any problems and without the noise disturbing. The lighting situation doesn't seem to have allowed a much lower ISO setting, so the photographer can't be blamed for mishandling his camera. -- Smial 14:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Ragnatela_bagnata.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination In the wet spider's web, a decoration as if it were an embroidery --PROPOLI87 11:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Out of focus --VileGecko 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks sharp enough to me. --Imehling 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 13:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with VileGecko. Tomer T 10:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with VileGecko.--Lmbuga 11:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:ED4M_0474_in_Central_Suburban_Passenger_Company_colors.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Electric suburban train ED4M model. --Kirill Borisenko 22:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry. Verticals shoud be vertical, a lot of problems with JPEG artifacts, sharpness should be better. --XRay 05:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    What do you mean about verticals? Lens are lens. And where did you see some JPEG squares? Sharpeness could be improved. --Kirill Borisenko 11:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    The building in the background is leaning in. JPEG artifacts for example at the front window of the train. --XRay 05:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    Now I see artifacts. But buildings are under lens distortion. What could be done here? It`s normal for fixed smartphone lenses. --Kirill Borisenko 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • My recommendation is - if you use a smartphone - to take the photos in RAW format and adjust all the issues with a third party software like Adobe Lightroom or ShiftN. Some issues aren't fixable at a camera or smartphone. --XRay 09:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with XRay. --Steindy 13:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per XRay.--Peulle 09:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)