Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 23 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Wayside_shrine_in_the_Kehlbergstraße,_Graz,_Austria-VD_SE_PNr°0676.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The north-east face of the wayside shrine in the Kehlbergstraße in Straßgang Graz, Styria, Austria --D-Kuru 21:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose The sky is definitely burnt, not a QI to me, sorry# --Poco a poco 08:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: The sky is not burnet on this day it was foggy/rainy so the sky was literally all grey around --D-Kuru 07:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Burnt sky with distracting branches and telephone lines - sorry, good concept but not QI for me either. --GRDN711 15:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition and lighting are ok, colours appear natural, but too many small issues and rather low resolution for such a motif. Landscapes, and architecture and similar should have at least 6 MPxiels nowadays. --Smial 16:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 13:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Kraków_-_Old_Tenement_17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mural of Mary and Baby Jesus on Tenement Building (Rynek Główny 19, corner of Main Square) in Kraków --Scotch Mist 06:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Should be sharper IMO --Ermell 18:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment - the photo had to be taken at distance as the 'mural' is above the canopy of an outdoor restaurant, but that said, the window columns adjacent to the mural appear sharp to me? --Scotch Mist 07:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Maybe some other opinions will help. --Ermell 08:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurring noise reduktion. --Smial 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial. I was waiting till the image loads to its full quality but it hasn't happened. --T.Bednarz 10:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
... and I don't understand why this is happening more and more on commons. The first version of the photo shows slight color noise when you zoom in heavily. With programs like NeatImage, for example, this can be reduced practically without any significant loss of detail to such an extent that it no longer disturbs. But more and more photographers on commons seem to put their pictures on an anvil to smooth them out. The result is often banding in the sky or the loss of fine surface textures, because the software used cannot distinguish them from image noise or because image editors simply move the sliders to the top stop. --Smial 16:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 Comment @Smial: You have a valid point but it often appears that what is promoted by some as QI is 'perfection' and what some would consider minimal 'noise', or natural light on a dull day, or perhaps non-distracting peripheral glare, integral to the image, others consider as ‘aberrations’ that substantially reduce the quality of the image. Cropping seems to introduce further differences of opinion which can become confusing when at times it appears it is ok to take a photo of part of an object but it is not ok to take a wider shot (high resolution) and trim it (such perceived ‘restriction’ possibly encourages some to 'edit' first rather than upload the original, which will still remain accessible to others, then upload another edited image, if desired, under the same file name), even though the essential object of the photo is not significantly affected. Add to this we have the ‘vageries’ of particular settings - a mural is not comparable to a classical oil painting on canvas by a 'master' in an art gallery and so it may be more open to interpretation as to which details are 'real' and which are 'artificial'. All this perhaps pushes those with less time available, or less confidence, to use a 'heavy hammer' instead of a 'fine scalpel'!:) Of course this is not simply about QI but about setting consistent standards for Commons images that amateur photographers like myself can be guided by - thank you for taking the time to provide your helpful comments. --Scotch Mist 08:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 13:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Abrolhos_Marine_National_ParkRobertoCostaPinto33.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. By User:RobertoCostaPinto --Rodrigo.Argenton 13:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Needs identification Rodhullandemu 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it's clear neither of us will change our positions on the degree of id needed, so noting my opposition and placing the whole series into review to seek further opinions. Blood Red Sandman 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Species (or at least genus) ID is needed in the categories for QI status.--Peulle 10:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question If there are no supporting votes for a nomination and the nominator hasn't sent it to CR, why should anyone else do so? -- Ikan Kekek 10:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe it wasn't necessary, but I guess BRS just wanted some more opinions since it would set presedence for a whole series of images.--Peulle 00:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty much. Here, there was a dispute as to not the content of the guidelines but the way to interpret that content. Blood Red Sandman 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 13:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Abrolhos_Marine_National_ParkRobertoCostaPinto34.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. By User:RobertoCostaPinto --Rodrigo.Argenton 13:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Needs identification Rodhullandemu 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC) What the heck?? --Rodrigo.Argenton 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
     Comment I assume it's a coral reef or something, but there is nothing telling us what we are looking at, only where it is. Rodhullandemu 17:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Have a accurate information of what animals are described here is not a requirement for QI. Plus, this is a illustration for WLE, a natural heritage contest. So stay on the criteria. --Rodrigo.Argenton 18:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    "Images should[...] have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages." So it certainly is a requirement to know what is depicted. --Blood Red Sandman 17:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC) And it's more than clear what depicts:"Abrolhos Marine National Park" clear as crystal, I am not seeing any forest having a person saying that we need to idetinfy every living being in the photo. --Rodrigo.Argenton 16:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose I think it's clear neither of us will change our positions on the degree of id needed, so noting my opposition and placing the whole series into review to seek further opinions. Blood Red Sandman 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Even Category:Coral reefs would be better than nothing. Rodhullandemu 19:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 13:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Abrolhos_Marine_National_ParkRobertoCostaPinto15.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. By User:RobertoCostaPinto --Rodrigo.Argenton 13:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Needs identification Rodhullandemu 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it's clear neither of us will change our positions on the degree of id needed, so noting my opposition and placing the whole series into review to seek further opinions. Blood Red Sandman 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Species (or at least genus) ID is needed in the categories for QI status.--Peulle 10:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 12:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Abrolhos_Marine_National_ParkRobertoCostaPinto30.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. By User:RobertoCostaPinto --Rodrigo.Argenton 13:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Needs identification Rodhullandemu 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it's clear neither of us will change our positions on the degree of id needed, so noting my opposition and placing the whole series into review to seek further opinions. Blood Red Sandman 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Species (or at least genus) ID is needed in the categories for QI status.--Peulle 10:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 12:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Abrolhos_Marine_National_ParkRobertoCostaPinto25.jpg[edit]

 Comment Needs identification Rodhullandemu 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I think it's clear neither of us will change our positions on the degree of id needed, so noting my opposition and placing the whole series into review to seek further opinions. Blood Red Sandman 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For a QI, species (or at least genus) ID is needed.--Peulle 10:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 12:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Mary's Embrace - Poland's Resurrection.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Painting of Mother Mary comforting 'imaginary' Jesus before his resurrection (portrayed by the 'Crown of Thorns' in her hand) perhaps symbolizing aspirations for a ‘free Poland’, at Gdów Cemetery Chapel Altar (beneath sculpture of rising Polish Eagle dated 1844, two years before the Battle of Gdów) --Scotch Mist 05:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Blurred, sorry --Moroder 10:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Moroder: If you refer to the frame I do not believe the painting is "blurred" but happy to gain the opinions of others in discussion! --Scotch Mist 14:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough per Moroder. -- Ikan Kekek 06:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it is sharp enough. But the bright pillar at the right disturbs very much. -- Spurzem 14:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
     Comment @Spurzem: Appreciate your comment and had considered cropping closer to the frame but would have the light from the chapel side-window on the right edge of the frame so might still not be viewed as QI (have uploaded other images of the altar but this is the best image of the painting) --Scotch Mist 15:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Scotch Mist: It is hardly possible to cut more closely to emphasize the painting alone. Because then, among other things, the crucifix and the microphone disturb too much. Unfortunately, we don't always find the lighting that we needed to take good photos. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 12:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Eleonora_Lanckorońska_Fihauser_Portrait.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait painting on stretched hide reputedly of Eleonora Fihauser née Lanckorońska (1777-1850) which hangs in the former Fihauser Manor at Fałkowice, Gdów (apparent 'blemish' to the left is actually a bullet-hole sustained in WWII) --Scotch Mist 05:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Not very sharp (high ISO), sorry --Moroder 10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Moroder: As mentioned this is a painting on animal hide (not canvas) with 'stretch-marks' seemingly visible - to assess the quality/sharpness I would suggest that the 'bullet hole' and the 'paint spill' in the bottom left corner be examined! --Scotch Mist 14:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Scotch Mist: , @Spurzem: I strongly believe this beautiful portrait deserves a better photo (under better light conditions and camera settings) --Moroder 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. -- Spurzem 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of chroma noise.--Peulle 10:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Peulle: Devaluing a photo is always possible, doing better is harder. -- Spurzem 14:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 Question @Peulle: Thank you for your feedback but could you help me further by identifying specific area of CA (as opposed to apparent 'paint bleeding' at edges of painted area)? --Scotch Mist 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I mentioned none of the things you point out here, but if you're wondering where the chroma noise is, it is all over the photo, especially visible in the darker areas such as the lady's hair and the background.--Peulle 00:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Thanks again - if you point to (annotate\note) more precise areas I can compare with other photos but am not seeing the "chroma noise" that you are referring to, only 'paint colourations' that seem real --Scotch Mist 06:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Was her face really full of green and red blotches? -- Ikan Kekek 09:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 12:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Gdów_Manor_15_-_Henryk_Fihauser.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Painting of Henryk Fihauser (1801-1858) at Fihauser Manor, more recently referred to as ‘Dwór Habichtów’ or ‘Dwór Bednarskich’, situated on the outskirts of Gdów --Scotch Mist 05:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    PS This painting is not in a 'gallery' and probably has not been 'professionally cleaned' since it was painted over 100 years ago! --Scotch Mist 13:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Glare, sorry;I know oil paintings are difficult --Moroder 09:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Moroder: If the slight glare in the bottom corner is a concern should I not simply crop appropriately? --Scotch Mist 14:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Glare. You're suggesting cropping out part of the painting?? -- Ikan Kekek 06:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
     Comment @Ikan Kekek: This is a 'portrait painting' and if the glare on the bottom of a jacket sleeve is considered 'distracting' then cropping that section of the sleeve would appear logical, perhaps at the same time giving the image an amended title? --Scotch Mist 09:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not logical to me to crop part of a painting in order to try to get a QI designation, and if you choose to crop the image, please save that version under a separate filename, in order to preserve this image, which while perhaps not a QI, is useful. -- Ikan Kekek 09:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: Thank you for taking the time to comment further here, but I must admit to becoming confused! Many images are logically “cropped” to improve the final quality (not necessarily for QI) and paintings (without frames), sculptures and other objects are often deliberately ‘cropped’ when a photograph is taken but still pass as QI’s. Personally I do not find the “glare” in this image (which admittedly is not of exceptional quality) ‘distracting’ but I can understand if others do, so I offered what seemed like a reasonable solution to addressing this issue. Cropping to remove the end of a barely visible sleeve is not of the same scale as cropping someone’s ear in a portrait!:), but the end result of a smaller image should rightly be judged on its merits and may still not pass as QI. (It is not necessary to save a revised image as a new image as original uploads are ‘automatically’ preserved, and available, and in fact this is a justification for loading more complete pictures before possibly cropping to make both accessible while administratively minimizing the number of files.) --Scotch Mist 08:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • A painting is a complete artwork. Detail photos can be taken, but they do not substitute for a photo of the entire painting. Similarly, if you take an artistic photo that is carefully composed, someone's cropped version of it that cuts off a lot of the bottom is not a fair representation of your composition. And I again object to the idea of removing part of the painting from your photo and saving it as the new edit of a photo of the entire painting. Is the point to help people who are looking for photos of the painting or to get a QI by whatever means necessary? -- Ikan Kekek 11:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have a further remark. Forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know, but COM:VIC may be a good place for you to nominate some of your photos that aren't that sharp but are useful as thumbnails for online articles and best in their scopes. I'd be glad to discuss VIC more with you if you like. -- Ikan Kekek 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 Question @Moroder: Rather than go round in circles here can I ask for your thoughts on possibly cropping this particular image to produce a better quality portrait (ie with all significant features retained but less distraction and not necessarily QI)? --Scotch Mist 16:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 Comment @Scotch Mist: Besides the glare, same as above: camera settings and probably light conditions.--Moroder 18:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Moroder: With reference to the above comments the question was; is it acceptable to crop the image of a painting (and remove 'minor details' such as part of a sleeve where there is 'glare') to produce a better quality image for 'Commons' (not necessarily for QI)? --Scotch Mist 06:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 Comment The glare is just one of the several issues of your images. The main issue is that you can’t obtain a QI with ISO 3200. That’s at least my firm opinion --Moroder 10:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Moroder: OK, understand where you are coming from (even though I personally remain to be convinced that an ISO limit should be applicable for QI under all circumstances) but it seems 'Consensual Reviews' are of limited help if questions posed are not answered and when possible 'quality enhancements' are suggested new factors, or new questions, are introduced, but thank you for taking the time to review and add further comments --Scotch Mist 13:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't tell me I don't answer your questions. You asked me if your pictures would improve with cropping whatsoever. No! Because the light conditions and camera settings of the three pictures are not good enough for a QI. This is at least my opinion. --Moroder 20:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 12:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Honigbiene_IMG_6696.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Westliche Honigbiene auf Eseldistel. --Fischer.H 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose insufficient quality --Charlesjsharp 18:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Not an FP but certainly a good closeup of the bee's head, etc. -- Ikan Kekek 06:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Ikan Kekek --Scotch Mist 16:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Seven Pandas 12:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Vista_desde_el_pico_de_Arieiro,_Madeira,_Portugal,_2019-05-30,_DD_147-153_PAN.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View from Peak of Arieiro, Madeira, Portugal --Poco a poco 05:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Nice motif, but the horizon isn't straight. It's definitely tilted on the right side.--Milseburg 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    True thing, ✓ new version, thanks Poco a poco 19:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Since also the dust spot has disappeared now support ;-) --Smial 09:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support great image now it's been reworked Blood Red Sandman 19:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 12:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Estrella_espinosa_común_(Marthasterias_glacialis),_isla_de_Mouro,_Santander,_España,_2019-08-15,_DD_50.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spiny starfish (Marthasterias glacialis), Mouro Island, Santander, Spain --Poco a poco 11:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Beautiful colour contrast and good quality considering the difficult circumstances. --Aristeas 08:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp (blur), burnt whites, several better pictures of the same subject in category. FredD 08:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure about the whites, but "several better pictures of the same subject in category" is quite irrelevant to QIC; the only question is whether this photo is good enough to be a QI. It's only in VIC that each scope is represented by only the best image, and the number of other good photos in a category is also relevant at FPC, but not here. -- Ikan Kekek 06:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMHO “not sharp (blur)” is a bit exagerrated; I have seen quite some much softer photos promoted as QIs in the last time. Of course the image is not totally perfect at pixel level, but I can’t find a blur; IMHO the little imperfection is due to the high ISO and to the aperture f/4.5 which causes low DoF, and both ISO and aperture are forced by the mediocre light conditions. --Aristeas 09:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Regarding the category, please refer to Ikan’s comment. But which category we are talking about? The image has got more than one category, as appropriate. Is it Category:Marthasterias glacialis? Well, I am not totally convinced that many of the photos in that category are really better. Most show the same little problems (low DoF and high ISO, due to light conditions), and some are definitely worse than this one. So even if the comparison with other photos in the same category was important, I cannot see why it would speak agains this photo. --Aristeas 09:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Btw, you are all welcome to vote :) Poco a poco 19:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support (albeit weakly); in my estimation this is on the line between making allowances for tough circumstances on the one hand, and acceptance that some subjects can be harder to get QIs of than others (and that's just how life goes) on the other. I like this enough to promote, though, given the difficulties of bright white life in dull light beneath the sea. Blood Red Sandman 19:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Blood Red Sandman --Scotch Mist 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 12:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)