Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 29 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Phylloscopus_collybita_-_Common_Chiffchaff,_Adana_2016-12-27_02-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita). Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 13:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very little supply pixels, but good enough for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not for me. Charlesjsharp 19:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Why not for you? -- Ikan Kekek 21:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I like to see the eyes in focus. Charlesjsharp 21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 02:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Eolophus roseicapilla in flight, Albury NSW.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Galah in flight, Albury NSW -- Thennicke 11:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Needs noise reduction and the bird should be centred somehow--Ermell 13:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy IMO--Ermell (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: I disagree. The composition was chosen to have leading space. And for photos of birds in flight, ISO 1600 is as low as it goes. This has already had noise reduction applied; I prefer not to do any more for then we lose detail on the bird. I agree that chroma noise should be removed, but I have already done that. Luma noise should be preserved, in my philosophy. It's really no different to film grain. -- Thennicke 09:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me for a shot of this type.--Peulle 23:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too grainy and not enough definition though it was a good shot. Charlesjsharp 19:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - This definitely looks like a VI to me, but I'm not sure it's a QI. I'd love to see what this photo would look like with a reduction in luma noise. -- Ikan Kekek 21:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: @Charlesjsharp: @Ermell: New version uploaded with selective Luma NR (just for the background) and a little more sharpening. Noise levels and overall detail are now comparable to this QI. -- Thennicke 00:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think it's still a close case, but it's a good capture and with that last edit, it gets my vote. -- Ikan Kekek 05:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Not very clean work at the tail feathers but o.k. for me.--Ermell 22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 02:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)