Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 26 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Ephèbe Antikythera NAMA Χ13396.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Ephebe of Antikythera, bronze statue larger than life found in a shipwreck, NAMAthens, Greece. Three versions availbale: natural, black bg, and .png version with transparent bg.--Jebulon 08:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Comment Sorry, but even before I checked the versions, I knew this background was artificially added. The result is not where you want it to be; it looks like those movies where you can see actors are standing in front of a green-screen. I'd revert it, or get a version with fewer people nearby.--Peulle 12:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Oh really ? Of course it is an artificial background ! Like many other of my museum pictures ! I don't really understand your comment. The goal is to emphazise the quality of the work, without disturbing surroundings elements, like marble statues here, small objects here, marble busts here, red background here or, closer, grey-reworked here. We have a bronze (metal) statue, so the light is particularily difficult to manage, it is easier for marble. See this or this. I don't know what do you mean, or what to do. There are very few "inside" pictures in QIC, and none museum pictures but mine right now. Please ask yourself: "why ?".--Jebulon 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I take it you wish to move the image to CR, then - consider it done. My opinion stands: I think this particular background creates a contrast which makes the image look artificial and overly edited. There is also no mention of the edit in the image description, which the guidelines say there should be. --Peulle 19:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look to the upload history of the file...--Jebulon 09:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks for comments, I'll try something different.--Jebulon 10:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lübbenau_-_Marstall_0001_(infrared_and_partly_coloured).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Royal studs of the Lübbenau castle, Lübbenau/Spreewald, Brandenburg, Deutschland --DerFussi 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The picture is unsharp and I don't get the educational purpose of such partial color/BW process? --A.Savin 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is an educational purpose a part of the guidelines here? Discussion please -- DerFussi 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @DerFussi Ich nehme zu Kenntnis, dass du dich zu der eigentlichen Frage nicht äußern magst. --A.Savin 10:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I have to admit. Its my old camera (haven't been satisfied with it). I have had the photo printed 3 years ago for my wall and didn't re-check it before uploaded it here. I admit. I should have done it. But still don't get the reason for the second comment. Painting a layer mask for the infrared layer took some days. I did it because it's just nice and focuses on the main object. So I am more puzzled abou the second comment. Thats why I have answered. -- DerFussi 15:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Sorry, the bot was faster than me (I just wanted to decline it by myself). I should not dig out my old photos. -- DerFussi 05:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support das Haus ist scharf. --Ralf Roleček 14:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not true. --A.Savin 19:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The house is definitely not sharp. Don't sell your reputation, Ralf. --Cccefalon 20:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, wo nicht? Ich bin ja lernfähig. Bei 100% ist alles Farbige bei mir scharf? Was übersehe ich? --Ralf Roletschek 22:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Phalaenopsis_(01).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fleur de Phalaenopsis (orchidée) --Lepsyleon 20:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 21:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: See the annotation (someone left them already, but I agree with those notes) --Cccefalon 21:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment it was me, --Hubertl 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Is that better ? The stem will always be unsharped due to f/5. --Lepsyleon 22:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I´m afraid, it´s not. See additional notes.
    •  Comment Bad separation ? Jpg errors ? I deleted them with the new version. I don't understand... --Lepsyleon 07:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The issues are still present. I stand my oppose. --Cccefalon 07:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is OK (the stem being out of focus is no problem since it's the flower petals that are the main subject), but the big problem for me is the extreme white glare from the background, which spills over into the edges of the flower. It's just too bright for me. --Peulle 12:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreeing Peulle -- DerFussi 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   -- DerFussi 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)