Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 29 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Sony_Zeiss_85_mm_F1.4_-_0027-39.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sony Zeiss 85 mm F1.4 camera lens --Аныл Озташ 08:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose many dust spots and small hairs on the object - can you reduce / remove them? --Grunpfnul 10:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info They are not hairs, but small fibres. I didn't wipe the lens with a microfibre cloth beforehand, but it doesn't look dirty or anything like that, but like an object you've held in your hand in a non-sterile living room IMHO. I will make no effort to micromanage these fine particles to make the lens look like a 3D rendering. --Аныл Озташ 14:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks good to me. --Mike Peel 20:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Is it a focus-stacking image? If so, it should be properly marked in description. --LexKurochkin 06:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good --GoldenArtists 08:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The reflections in the lens spoil an otherwise very good image. --Tagooty 17:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI.--Ermell 21:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Old_Tram_in_Alexandria_(Bakous-Raml)_Since_1931.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Old Tram in Alexandria.--Faris knight 16:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good photo, but needs perspective correction to make vertical backround architecture elements vertical on the photo. --LexKurochkin 11:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done--Faris knight 08:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
      •  Weak oppose  Not done Sorry, but the buildings look leaning towards center of the image. It is quite typical effect if the camera is not vertical and the lens is rather short-focus --LexKurochkin 13:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
        •  Support it looks OK to me, moving to discussion. --Mike Peel 20:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Michielverbeek 09:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support There is a very minor perspective distortion on the building. But the building is not a subject here, only the background. I think it is good enough for QI --Jakubhal 15:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Soccer Field at G Ross Lord Park 17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Soccer field at G Ross Lord Park --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose the bins --Charlesjsharp 18:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Photographers must bring their images of best quality at all levels for QI consideration. Just another image, even if it is technically acceptable, is not enough. There must be a belief that this image is publishable in Wikimedia projects or outside use per COM:QIC guidelines on Value. Sorry, but I don't see that this image represents an interesting or representative view of the G Ross Lord Park. --GRDN711 18:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@GRDN711: Thanks for the review, I'm curious how a soccer field is not an interesting or valuable part of a park.--Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Fabian Roudra Baroi: An image showing soccer players on the field would be interesting. Or, an aerial of the entire soccer field - that could be useful. An image that is mostly pavement and grass will not likely find a home in any Wikimedia project. Consider carefully when you are making images of how they meet COM:QIC guidelines on Value and can be used effectively in Wikimedia projects. --GRDN711 13:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 Info I have checked Commons:Image guidelines thoroughly and have not found such criteria. There is no requirement to be interesting for QI. Actually nobody knows, what does it mean "interesting" as it is quite different for different people. As well nobody knows what is "publishable". May be in several years a boy playing on this field will grow to a world famous professional footballer, and it will make the photo quite valuable. May be the place will be deeply reconstructed, the field removed to build skyscraper and the image will be of historical value in 30 years. --LexKurochkin 06:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I would assume that maybe in 50-100 years, the use of this ground will be different, so this image is a document of it being a soccer field --PantheraLeo1359531 15:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Or it will be among the oldest football fields in the region ;) --LexKurochkin 17:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Fascinating :D --PantheraLeo1359531 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lex.--Ermell 20:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:P1320213_Paris_IV_rue_St-Louis-en-ile_boutique_rwk.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paris 4 rue St-Louis-en-ile, boutique (by Mbzt) --Sebring12Hrs 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but IMO too small for such an easy shot. Also I don't like intentionally blurred people --Jakubhal 13:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a 2015 photo taken with a w:Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 that had a maximum resolution of only 3648 × 2736 (10.1 megapixels), it's a good photo, and the blurring on the people is probably useless, because I think they'd be clearly identifiable to someone who knew them, anyway, but I don't consider that a reason to decline. -- Ikan Kekek 20:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This picture is not 10.1 megapixels, but slightly less than 3, for the still subject. --Jakubhal 04:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It was probably cropped from a larger photo of facades on that street to make it a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek 09:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It is not the best photo I've ever seen, but good enough for QI. --LexKurochkin 14:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info I have marked it as retouched picture. --LexKurochkin 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 07:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 07:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but the resolution is too low for me. 2015 images were able to hold 24 MPx or more, maybe around 10 MPx when cropped, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 15:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • This camera could not produce images of 24 MP. -- Ikan Kekek 02:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Might not become an FP, but barely passes QI for me. --SHB2000 23:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Like others said - just good enough for QI --Kritzolina 12:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:At_New_York_City_2023_072.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination World Yachts Princess and Duchess at Manhattan --Mike Peel 07:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry - too dark, particularly in the mid-tones. Also, very cluttered with the pylon in front and the dock in the back. Need to focus and isolate for a better view of the ship(s). A day with better weather would also be helpful. --GRDN711 17:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dull light, bad crop. --Kallerna 06:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me, and the crop is OK. Some days are like that, and while the photo is not pixel sharp or anything like that, I think it's good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 09:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Ikan. The white painted areas on the ship's superstructure are correctly exposed. If you simply make the image brighter, they will lose any detail. You might want to tweak the gradation slider a bit to carefully lighten the middle tones. This should be done during RAW development, because if you tinker with the JPG, you'll end up with unwanted artifacts and tonal breaks. --Smial 16:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark and looks like the floating restaurant La Barca Cantina to me, not World Yacht PrincessMike Peel Charlesjsharp 18:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Tones have definitely improved. Thanks for the attempt but ship still remains cluttered by surroundings. --GRDN711 01:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The edits seem good to me. As for the cluttered background, my response is - welcome to New York! It's not too cluttered to me. -- Ikan Kekek 17:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: With the ID, see User_talk:Clindberg#Category:World_Yachts_Princess_(ship,_1986) - it seems correct. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Renamed since this picture was taken. Here we have La Barca Cantina. Charlesjsharp 12:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support because of the dull light, otherwise sharpness accetable. --Palauenc05 07:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  SupportAnna.Massini 07:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 07:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, sure; FP, maybe not. --SHB2000 23:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)