Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 06 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2018_Migrujące_ptaki_nad_Mokrą_Przełęczą,_Karkonosze,_Sudety.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Migrating birds over Krkonoše, Sudetes --Jacek Halicki 09:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
 Oppose "Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels" --Podzemnik 10:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Podzemnik: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 12:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but it's still too small for me. We're getting here less than 10 % of your camera's megapixels. Let's see what other people think --Podzemnik 07:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
This photo is a small section of the frame, I did not have a lens with a longer focal length. The size of the photo complies with the rules. --Jacek Halicki 20:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  SupportSmall, but good enough for QI in my opinion. Tournasol7 00:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Tournasol7. -- Ikan Kekek 06:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per others.--Ermell 21:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is really small. If the lens was too short, then it was too short. --Smial 18:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose to many unsharp areas --Fischer.H 15:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 01:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ford_Taunus_P7b_26m_Hardtop_Coupé.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Taunus P7b 26 Coupé (very rare) --Jacek79 23:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Is this HDR? The picture looks unnatural.--Jacek Halicki 00:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is not HDR, just the outcome of a RAW workflow. --Jacek79 17:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support The image has some very minor flaws indeed, especially a little bit noise, probably due to editing (shadows lightened? image sharpened? color saturation enhanced?). But the general impression is positive nevertheless: interesting subject, good composition, lighting, sharpness etc. So for me it's QI. -- MJJR 17:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment darktable isn't very good at raising shadows, it tends to expose strange halo-kind effects around color edges and this is one of those examples. That's why it looks like a badly processed HDR. btw: there's some quite ugly color noise in the shadows and darktable isn't good at denoising as well ... --Granada 15:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (for now): CAs on the license plates and serious chroma noise throughout. Probably both fixable. --MB-one 11:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Noise reduced. OK now? --Jacek79 13:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA is disturbing and should be fixed. The color of the car looks strange. Is it painted that way or is that a result of pp?--Ermell 08:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural colors. --Jacek Halicki 22:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overloaded photo, Vanneau Asocial 18:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 01:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Paris_Motor_Show_2018,_Paris_(1Y7A2067).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain at the central square of Paris Expo Porte de Versailles --MB-one 13:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. Brightness should be reduced in the middle a bit. --Ermell 14:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not only a bit too bright. Especially at the left side it is much too bright. I don't think that it can be corrected. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Not so bad, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 23:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - As per Ikan Kekek.-- Fitindia 10:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 15:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

File:ဗတ္တိဇံ.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Yardenit Baptismal Site, Israel/Palestine --E.3 05:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment You should add some categories. --Ermell 08:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yes can I have some help with the categories as they are very contentious in the area. I added "Jesus Christ" "Christianity and other religions" "Baptism" but this of course is very contentious urgent help request --E.3 01:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    Jesus Christ is too general, baptism is already right. I recommend here more categories about the location and the name of the river. --Ermell 13:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization through aggressive noise reduction at full resolution, as it is typical for a mobile phone camera. --Johannes Robalotoff 08:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment Worth a discussion I think. --Ermell 10:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    • That's something you have to explain to me. You say that my image File:Amthof-Bad-Camberg-JR-G6-6316-2018-09-02.jpg is not sharp enough, but this one is OK? Look at the plants, look at the ground of the wood, look at the woman's neck, look at the wet planks. What you consider as sharp here is pure software edge sharpening. All fine structure is lost and replaced by painting-like brushstrokes, because the phone has to hide the natural noise level from its tiny sensor. I could process my image in the same way by increasing noise reduction over any sensible limit and by appying brutal software edge sharpening. Would that be better? Detail would be lost. Good images should preserve fine detail as good as possible, not just produce sharp edges on high-contrast lines and kill any other detail. --Johannes Robalotoff 10:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think a river as a subject requires as much fine detail as emblems carved in wood. Anyway, I'm just one person, and I'll look forward to other views on this photo and on that one. -- Ikan Kekek 12:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ermell 09:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 01:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Paris_Motor_Show_2018,_Paris_(1Y7A2134).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Audi TT 45 TFSI quattro Roadster at Mondial Paris Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 10:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose The picture looks pretty bleak. In addition, the many spots on the hood and in the windshield are disturbing; a problem that I know from museums. For me it is no QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
     Support - Good quality, in my opinion. The spots of light on the hood don't damage the composition for me; if anything, some of the people do, but this isn't FPC, so it's OK. -- Ikan Kekek 22:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose OK with Spurzem, Vanneau Asocial 09:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
     Support -- As per Ikan Kekek -- Fitindia 06:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears underexposed and contrasts too high due to poor illumination. --Smial 11:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 01:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Porsche,_Paris_Motor_Show_2018,_Paris_(1Y7A1090).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Porsche 911 GT1 at Mondial Paris Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 15:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  SupportGood quality--Armenak Margarian 17:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is too bright and pale. Look at the red and yellow colors. Further the car is a bit distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose OK with Spurzem, Vanneau Asocial 09:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Spurzem: could you describe further, where you see distortion? --MB-one 10:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Durch die kurze Brennweite und den geringen Abstand zum Objekt wirkt das Auto leicht „verzogen“ und das Hinterrad sieht fast aus, als hätte es positiven Sturz. -- Spurzem 18:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Weitwinkelaufnahmen von Autos sehen eigentlich immer irgendwie verzogen aus und wirken dadurch stets etwas unglücklich und unvorteilhaft. Ausnahmen sind natürlich bewußt eingesetzte krasse Weitwinkel mit spezieller Perspektive, hier sieht es aber wie leider sehr oft eher wie ein zufälliger Schnappschuß, um nicht zu sagen wie ein fotografischer Unfall aus. So ein Ausstellungsauto läuft ja nicht weg, da sollte Zeit sein, sich eine trefflichere Ansicht zu suchen. Und wenn nicht, dann kann es eben kein QI sein. --Smial 00:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Smial: Das Auto läuft zwar nicht weg, aber steht leider auch nicht allein auf weiter Flur. Der Aufnahmestandpunkt konnte also nicht völlig frei gewählt werden. --MB-one 10:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I'll stick to English, so that others can understand me too: The camber angle of the rear wheel observed by Spurzem is consistent with the lean of the vertical lines in the background. So one should probably try to correct this. Concerning "bright and pale": I think this is mostly the fault of the arrangement, not so much the fault of the image, although exposure is hard at the upper limit. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Taking everything into consideration, I think this one passes the bar for QI. We have promoted worse.--Peulle 17:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Peulle. -- FitIndia 03:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective, background, lighting, burnt highlights, per Spurzem. There have been images of buildings declined because auf small disturbing waste bins... --Smial 15:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 01:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Idstein-JR-E-2637-2018-08-19.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The château at Idstein, seen from its reconstructed garden. --Johannes Robalotoff 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Horst J. Meuter 14:35, 24.December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but not sharp enough for QI. --Palauenc05 10:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not crisp but better than before. --Palauenc05 09:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Palauenc05. --Peulle 12:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment After looking for some time on the image I cannot see what your problem might be. The flowers in foreground are sharp as they can be. The pole on the top of the chateau is also as sharp as it can be. Therefore I think that what you mean is not a focus problem. It's a matter of micro contrast. If this is so, I can try to fix it. --Johannes Robalotoff 10:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC) --JRff (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Reprocessed the image from the raw file with parameters that preserve more detail, as there was no focus problem with the raw file itself. If this does not appear sharp, what is sharp then? Please revisit. --Johannes Robalotoff 11:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Seven Pandas 03:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I think the Schloss is still not sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 16:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan Kekek --Fischer.H 15:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 01:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)