Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 06 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Towerrabe.png[edit]

  • Nomination Raven of the Tower of London. --Cyberolm 12:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noise reduction needed --MB-one 13:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Added some noise reduction. --Cyberolm 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 14:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Head is not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 23:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for ma.--Manfred Kuzel 06:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed: blurring noise reduction. --Smial 11:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle 13:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Ķemeru_purva_skaistums.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spider web in Ķemeri National park By User:Jolanta Liva
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, schöne Tiefenschärfe. --Manfred Kuzel 09:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sorry. IMO there are CAs and DoF should be better. --XRay 09:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to raise a couple of questions here, if I may. First of all, it doesnt't look like a shallow depth of field issue to me. The cobweb is not so thick after all, and it would be even better, actually, if the DOF was shallower, because the background details are not very important here composition-wise. I believe the problem lies in the unnecessary cranked up ISO. I heard that 6D handles noise well, but there are, apparently, some physical limits. The noise erodes detailes, making the image blurry and enhancing CA. Was it really important to use such a short SS (1/4000) I don't know of course, but I guess that making it 1/2000 and lowering the ISO down to 800 or, say, to 400, would do the image a world of good. Second point is, shouldn't the images uploaded to encyclopedia have at least some illustrative qualities to them? I mean, aren't they supposed to illustrate the articles? What article this particular image is supposed to illustrate? --Stoxastikos 15:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It's Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. The image must not illustrate an article. (May be it can be nominated at VIC.) The aperture should be closed for example to f/6.3. The image becomes sharper and the DoF would be better, the background would be still unsharp enough. ISO 1.600 is too much for this kind of image, it should be for example ISO 100. --XRay 07:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
If there was even a light wind, which we do not know, a very short shutter time might have been necessary. A spider's web likes to tremble very much. I have spoiled such pictures several times... --Smial 11:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very athmospheric image, but wrong focus and somewhat overexposed. -- Smial 11:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2014_in_Sihanoukville._Ekareach_street.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sihanoukville. Ekareach street. --Dmitry Makeev 08:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose I think it's overprocessed. Some part like the street lamp looks like too much of HDR effect was used --Podzemnik 23:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
     Comment no HDR in the camera. --Dmitry Makeev 18:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik: contrast is overall too high and the sharpness is not that good to balance that. --MB-one 13:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpening even visible at A4 resp. letter size. Probably also somewhat oversaturated. --Smial 11:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

File:PlacaEscuela1Ayacucho.1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque in School #1 of Ayacucho, Argentina --Ezarate 21:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Carlos yo 17:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd like to see more opinions on this. It's very easy to take a picture like that - steady and flat so it's easy to focus. Yet it's sort of grey, not very sharp and we're getting only 20 % of camera's potential megapixels --Podzemnik 23:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik. --Peulle 17:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rather soft, some remains of CA, barrel distortion, rather low resolution. --Smial 11:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Classic_Days_2019,_Berlin_(CDB90011).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Continental Mark IV at Classic Days Berlin 2019, Kurfürstendamm, Berlin-Charlottenburg --MB-one 07:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Review
    So shiny and chrome! But wouldn't it be even better, if you try to use a polarizer on it? The reflections on the bonnet look interesting, but on the glass they seem to a bit too distracting in my opinion. --Stoxastikos 09:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
     Support - I'm not sure why this was headed toward CR without even a single vote on it, but I like the reflections on the glass, too. -- Ikan Kekek 04:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Very unfortunate lighting. I would not present such a photo as QI. -- Spurzem 10:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Per Spurzem --Cvmontuy 17:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 Support -- Piotr Bart 14:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 11:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the reflections and the busy background are distracting, so the car itself doesn't catch the attention. --Dirtsc 20:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 13:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)