Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 28 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:PlayaCametatardecer1MDP-jul2017.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Camet Beach, Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment There are at least four creepy animals (dust spots) on your sensor - just above the horizon. --PtrQs 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Ezarate 02:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Not done there still are dust spots, see comments to 'PlayaCametMDP3-jul2017.jpg'. You really should check your sensor to save time of checking images - mine and yours . --PtrQs 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Ezarate 22:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you are using lightroom and are not used to a exact local correction, you should rather use the 'correction mode' than the 'copy mode'. This will avoid non-fitting patterns as your broken cloud over the left annotated dust particle; The other annotated spots are still present. Btw: your last correction was connected with massive loss in sharpness and the new crop with the half cut-off cabin spoils the scene. As I don't want to rate too many of your images, I will leave the evaluation to others in discussion. --PtrQs 21:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite dark and IMO too unsharp for QI. Unfortunate composition (triangle on the left and cut-off rescue box), rest of a crop mark on the lower right corner. --Basotxerri 07:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:St.-Antonius-Kirche Immensen innen 2a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of church in Immensen --Hydro 07:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Burned out highlights which is normal for an estreme light situation like this. I recommend HDR processing using a tripod. It will take a few years until sensors can manage such a dynamic range. --Ermell 10:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment In this case I like the burned out highlights as a stylistic device, one can regard it as a spirituality. --Hydro 21:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment Fair enough. Let´s hear what others think. --Ermell 06:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell, plus not sharp enough and chroma noise. --Tsungam 06:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Difficult lighting. The entrance and the floor are much too bright. -- Spurzem 19:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:The_skull_and_horns_of_an_adult_male_Argali_(Ovis_ammon)_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The skull and horns of an adult male Argali (Ovis ammon) in Tost Local Protected Area, South Gobi Mongolia. By User:Ksuryawanshi --Shankar Raman 17:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • The image is nice and OK but the snow seems a bit too blueish. Could you check the white balance, please? --Basotxerri 08:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you, better now. Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Forgot to support the original image but oppose the pale retouched version. The blueish snow is not a matter of white balance but the result of the natural light at 5 PM in December in Mongolia. So the snow remains blueish even in the falsified image that is rather inexpressive compared to the natural footage. --Jotzet 23:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Change to support after night's sleep. Since focused on "the blue topic" I didn't realize the image in fact was way too dark and noisy. --Jotzet (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment No problem. Anyway, it's always possible to argue why a certain colour tone is present as this can depend on the local conditions (which a reviewer cannot always know). --Basotxerri (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 Support Nice picture --Billy69150 16:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 21:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-21-Heiliger_See_Sandkrug-DSCF6064.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Großer Heiliger See bei Sandkrug, Chorin in der Nähe von Eberswalde --Ralf Roletschek 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality und sehr schöne Stimmung -- Spurzem 20:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Category not fixed. Where is the lake? Brandenburg is big. --A.Savin 20:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Es steht in der Bildbeschreibung. -- Spurzem 20:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Die Geokoordinaten sind fast auf den Meter genau. Aber das ist wohl nicht genau genug. --Ralf Roletschek 21:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Ermell 07:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral IMO CAs should be fixed. --XRay 07:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done autsch, das war heftig, stimmt. --Ralf Roletschek 12:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support Thank you. --XRay 12:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very nice photo, congratulations. -- Ikan Kekek 05:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 21:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Cow_with_a_cloth_piece_on_top.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cow with a cloth piece on top in Punjab --Satdeep Gill 17:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 18:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp and noisy --Llez 18:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Lietz. --Till.niermann 10:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Llez. --Peulle 15:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Imho the background and the litter would lead to a noisy result even if the photographer had chosen a lower speed rating. But precisely that noisyness and the slightly unsharp parts together with the image composition lead to a coherent entity of a good photograph with vintage impression. --Jotzet 22:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment I don't understand how a noisy background can cause a noisy cow. --Llez 15:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)