Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 05 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Maulavern_Kellergasse,_Zellerndorf-6228.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Winemaker alley with press houses and wine cellars, Maulavern In Zellerndorf, Lower Austria (Weinviertel)by Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 --Hubertl 01:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Bad proportion and very noisy.--Marrovi 04:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Marrovi: 1. This is an intended close-up of this door, which is at it is (Proportion), no other view is possible because of the Sambucus, 2. The existing noise on parts of the door is absolutely acceptable for QIs in this situation, IMO and 3. What kind of monitor do you use? Your Notebook? --Hubertl 05:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me --Palauenc05 08:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Main object well exposed, sharp, composition acceptable. No noise that could be avoided in commercial available, affordable cameras. We all know, that current Sony sensors have some advantages against Canon, but this does not mean, Canon would be crap. --Smial 08:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:El Arenal, Hidalgo (5).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Mexican candies at flea market in El Arenal, Hidalgo, Mexico. --Marrovi 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good detail, althuogh I wonder if the WB needs to be so warm --Daniel Case 16:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO tilted CCW and perspective problems. --XRay 04:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Images in tungsten lighting do not necessarily need to be perfectly compensated, but this image has not "somewhat warm" colors. It has completely wrong WB. For color comparison see e.g. File:Borrachitos.jpg -- Smial 08:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial. --Peulle 10:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Σκίνακας 0488.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Top of Skinakas, Crete. --C messier 12:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good--Jebulon 09:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose More less, very noisy. --Marrovi 04:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Marrovi: Please make yourself clear, what "noisy" means in digital pictures. Don´t use it as a standard argument. Always have a look at the exif data to understand the light- and sensor process. In general, you won´t find color noise with 1/800, ISO 100 and f/5.8, if it is not obviously underexposed. Or what kind of noise do you mean? --Hubertl 06:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I Spanish, noisy is saturado, abigarrado or ruidoso, but for the fog is no legible this image.--Marrovi 15:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment What you mean and see is called haze, Marrovi, which is equally to "el vapor" or " la neblina" in spanish, IMO. It is a meterological, not a technical term. Am I wrong, Diego? --Hubertl 07:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad weather and lighting conditions, so there is very low contrast and dull colors. -- Smial 08:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 21:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:ACAP Upper Mustang Tangye.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A picture of 'Chörtens galore in Tangye, Mustang. By User:PatriciaSauer --Bijay chaurasia 11:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 11:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the sky is posterized. --Cccefalon 15:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 Comment This is a general problem with strong noise reduction. If you need images without noise, you need an image format with 16 bit per color channel. JPG has only 8 bit - therefore you will very often get banding and posterizing effects. It is often better to leave some noise in largely homogeneous color areas. -- Smial 11:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no lack. -- Spurzem 09:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Image --Anand2202 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Marrovi 17:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 21:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Old Central Jail, Goa.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Old central jail in Goa. --Nikhilb239 01:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. A geotag would be appreciated. --Cayambe 06:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to composition: too many empty space of water in front.--Jebulon 09:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, good composition. -- Smial 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, good composition. By the way, was there any special reason to use 400 ISO for that? --Basotxerri 07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture and good composition. --Marrovi 14:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me --Palauenc05 08:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Renkenörener See 14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Renkenörener See. Osnabrück Land, Low Saxony, Germany --Basotxerri 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The house at the right is slightly leaning in. --C messier 12:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done You're right, thank you. I've uploaded a new version. --Basotxerri 09:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, good landscape but low definition. --Marrovi 17:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. I don't understand what low definition is supposed to mean. Photo is 15 Mpix. --C messier 11:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. -- Smial 11:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me --Palauenc05 08:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Kellergasse Schöngrabern Objekt 7.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Weinkeller in der Kellergasse Schöngrabern in Niederösterreich (by Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 --Manfred Kuzel 17:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice place of a nice building in a nice country, but it is unsharp. The scale reduction (downsampling) looks useless, the picture is small.--Jebulon 16:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful building but no good scale.--Marrovi 22:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment What do you mean with "no good scale", Marrovi? --Hubertl 06:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I'm architect, for me good scale is a complement between landscape with the buildings, if the window are very important as architectural composition, the imagen can to be in other scale. I think so, this photographer has got more good pictures with quality.--Marrovi 18:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too unsharp given the rather low resolution, only about 3 MPixels. Landscapes and architecture should have at least 4 MPixels for QI. -- Smial 09:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)