Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 15 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Trenčín_Castle_14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Watch Tower Over Trenčín and Beyond --Scotch Mist 07:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 05:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject underexposed due direction of the sun. Halo effect, unsharp, noisy, CA. --Kallerna 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Kallerna: You make some valid technical points but photography is about more than simply creating images of objects under ideal lighting conditions. The 'Watch Tower' itself is relatively featureless apart from the finial but the stairway and wooden 'wall cladding' are relevant to this particular tower which in dark silhouette emphasizes the view below and the bright sky beyond which in turm emphasize the 'look-out role' of a 'Watch Tower'. (Although IMHO the CA's seem minor in the overall context of this image I can address these when time allows but would appreciate the views of others in the meantime?) --Scotch Mist 06:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course it is, but I'm just evaluating the result. The overall technical quality is IMO just not enough to feature this one. --Kallerna 07:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm sorry @Kallerna: , but you are using the term underexposed in a wrong way. Specially stating that it is a technical issue. A dark part does not mean that it is underexposed, if you can see all the detail. It is simply dark because it is in the shadow as in reality. Therefore it is correctly exposed. More, most photos have an ample spectrum of lights, like a white sky in an overcast day, and it is not overexposed, or some black parts. That is the beauty of a composition, having an ample dynamic range of lights and you are opposing many of those beautiful images. That's to bad! --Moroder 09:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Well exposed photo of midnight darkness might be technically ok, but it is still only darkness. If you point your camera to direct backlight the result is abysmal, sorry. If you support every badly executed photo to be a QI, every snapshot could be QI, there is no point in promoting images. That's bad also! --Kallerna 00:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Kallerna: In between 'Featured Pictures' and casual snapshots there are many good quality photos that may or not be rated QI on the basis of personal style and taste - often more creative photographers will push technical boundaries further but at the same time provoke more interest through, for example, different 'perspectives', less obvious compositions, or more striking contrasts, etc - it is of course up to each individual how they rate images for QI but personally, as long as the minimum criteria are met, I would rather see imaginative photos pushing technical boundaries and perhaps attempting to exploit varying light conditions rather than technically perfect but relatively simple/straightforward photos that reveal no individual traits. That said, all contributions should always be welcomed as the greater the range of images the more contributions that are in turn likely to be encouraged from others! --Scotch Mist 09:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Moroder, very well argued. Arguably a somewhat small photo, but I see the details. -- Ikan Kekek 06:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

* Oppose The brightness of the roof should be better to manage. Please spend more light there. --Milseburg 18:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It's still pretty dark. I think this image would normally be fixable in development but it was captured with the wrong settings (1/500s for a static subject -> ISO400 instead of base ISO) so the camera's dynamic range was wasted and there doesn't seem to be enough detail to recover in the dark areas. --Trougnouf 16:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Trougnouf: Or, perhaps as suggested by Moroder and apparently evidenced by numerous photos of others, the roof of the 'Watch Tower' is actually "dark" and with little colour/detail because the tiles have been weathered over a long period of time? --SM1 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment perhaps, but the front is very dark too, and regardless there is little detail and too much noise as the exposure value is increased in software. --Trougnouf 09:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enogh for me now. Cameras do not automatically reproduce brightness in an authentic manner. Sometimes you have to correct. --Milseburg (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   ----A.Savin 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)