Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 04 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Boljoon_Church,_Cebu.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination This is a recent image of the Boljoon church in January 2017. It reflects the best representation of the church on a good day out of the whole category without tight editing. --Adamdaley 01:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Correction of perspective (verticals) and CAs required --Uoaei1 05:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment What is CAs? Adamdaley 05:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment None of the vertical walls are straight. I admit my tripod is slightly off. I've used in-software guidelines to test the vertical lines, and they are not straight, even though the image is slightly off. Anyone willing to "straighten" the image for me? I cannot do it. Adamdaley 06:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment CA means chromatic aberration. With Adobe Lightroom or other SW you can solve both issues. --Uoaei1 07:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I'm working with the .jpg file. Why does everyone insist I use Adobe Lightroom? If someone wants to pass judgement then why not fix it to help since that person doesn't know how to do it in Adobe Photoshop? Thought helping out each other was the key to Commons? I've clearly stated that I am unable to do such fixing with after taking an image. Adamdaley 10:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment The idea is to teach people how to fix images themselves. You see, the volume of images here is so high that a few people couldn't possibly help with the editing; the Community therefore rely on the creators doing most of the work themselves. What I can tell you is that it's easier editing images in .RAW format; then you can run perspective correction and everything much easier.--Peulle 10:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I do raw files. Just enough to get contrast done. I only use 3 functions out of the entire program of photoshop. No one can't be bothered to straighten an image for me? Not to worry i use a tripod due to shakey hands. Adamdaley 10:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment We can teach you. :) Check out this page if you're using PhotoShop (you can also look it up on youtube for teaching videos); I learned it just last year and it's easier once you got the hang of it. Then you can fix all your own images and it's a lot easier to get them through QI. :) --Peulle 11:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Adam, first you do not move your nomination manually from the nomination space to CR. This is done by a Bot after your photo has been assessed and someone is disagreeing with that decision. Moving thing around like this messes with the archiving system for one thing. If you want to have a lengthy discussion about the photo, as you are prone to, you could do that on the reviewers talk page until you sort things out. Second, I explained to another user a while back how to remove CA using Photoshop or Gimp or similar programs, I will post a copy of that conversation on your talk page. I will also second what Peulle said, that while we do help each other for time to time, we are essentially resposible for fixing our own photos. --W.carter 11:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Someone else have a problem? Someone else want to pay me $5,000 AUD to retake this image again? So it's all image-perfect so it does get passed "Quality Image" passed? I'm an 3 inches away from packing it all in from the negativity you guys dish out. Adamdaley 11:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't want you to retake it, we just want you to fix it. And we are trying to teach you how to do that. :) --W.carter 11:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What Peulle suggested hasn't worked for me. Guess I'll stick with panorama images. Adamdaley 11:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't take this the wrong way, but you will encounter chromatic aberration in panoramas too. With digital photography, taking a very nice photo is just the first step. To make it a good photo and a QI you also need to be able to do what is known as post-processing of it and that includes some sort of image program. If you don't want to buy one, you can download GIMP for free. And don't worry, most of us knew nothing about all this when we first started here at Commons. QIC can be a real eye-opener and a start into more advanced photography. --W.carter 14:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I cannot fix either the "chromatic aberration" or the "perspective (verticals)" as stated. I am not like those who can be "self taught" with websites and unfortunately, there are no courses here for Adobe Photoshop unlike a few years ago when I did my Introduction to Photography certificate in 2012. So whatever images I take will probably have something wrong with them, so does that discourage me from submitting them to here? Of course it does. I hardly get out of the house already because of my mental illness. So when I do submit an image, that means I've managed to actually get out into the "real world". Adamdaley 23:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I saw on en-wiki that you have worked on history articles. Perhaps you could learn about post-processing photos if you read it in a book? There are a lot of those around. Here is one list for starters. --W.carter 23:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's right. Been over there since 2006. I've got dozens of books in two large plastic containers. Adamdaley 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So if I cannot do these changes because of my hands, then how am I going to learn to fix them with the software? Sort of pointless of me putting them here to get them rejected because my hands won't co-operate with me. Oh well, you may as well close this. No point in having it open. Adamdaley 06:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Adamdaley, I should preface this by saying I am not at all knowledgeable about digital photo software, having done only some relatively rudimentary work on a very old copy of Photoshop. But if the issue is with your hands, it could be worth looking into voice-operated software. -- Ikan Kekek 10:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm making the formal 'oppose' here so that this can be closed. The pic needs fixing and it doesn't look like it is going to be. I did give it a shot to see if I could fix it, but there is just too much CA on this rather large file and most of it did not go away with automated tools, fixing it manually would take forever, sorry. --W.carter 13:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just saw this and fixed what I could using global adjustments. Not sure if QI but I think it improves the image either way. --Julian Herzog 20:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Julian, you are a miracle worker getting rid of all that CA! This is good enough for me. Given that it is a large file, we should be generous when pixel peeping. Moving to  Support. It can also be a good example for Adamdaley to see the difference we are talking about. --W.carter 21:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Yes. I appreciate what you've done Julian Herzog. This correction is beyond my comprehension. Adamdaley 21:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't decided whether to vote on this, but Julian Herzog, could you explain what you did to Adamdaley? -- Ikan Kekek 22:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I understand, but to find it in Adobe Photoshop or to actually do it ... I cannot do. Simple as that. Adamdaley 23:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Sure. These are my settings in Lightroom 5: Screenshots. I don't own Photoshop, so I'm not sure exactly how you would do it there, but I presume similar settings exist there as well? --Julian Herzog 06:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose COM:OVERCAT (fixable) + tower is blurred (unfortunately not fixable). Sorry. --A.Savin 12:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I did what I could, have another look. Granted, detail which is not there can't be recovered. --Julian Herzog 14:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support now. Especially, when I compare it to the first version, that clearly could not have reached QI status. I'd like to see Julian Herzogs work bringing it to a good end. Greetings --Dirtsc 16:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I found the CA section and I'm able to do it. On another note, the reason why I don't contribute to "assessing" the images here, is because why should I be critical of other people's images? Yes I have a certificate in photography ... where is your certificate in photography? I'm frustrated that people can just easily pass judgement without doing anything constructively to the images. Even when they know that user has not the means to improve it after the image is taken and uploaded to Commons. Adamdaley 22:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting (a) that all images nominated here should be automatically promoted, or (b) that anyone criticizing anything needs to know how to remedy the problem and volunteer their time to do that? The next time someone criticizes my flute playing, I will remember to ask them where they got a degree in flute playing and tell them that if they don't like my work, they should do it in my place, without getting paid. -- Ikan Kekek 03:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is only my opinion, concerning images promoted to "Quality Images" status. That I found a small percentage of them I feel shouldn't have been "Quality Image" rather "Valuable Image". And yes, if anyone wants to be critical or pass judgement they should know how to fix the problem even when the nominator doesn't know how to fix it. Or at least someone here knows how to fix it. If you do play the flute, then that's fine by me. Maybe, you could get a record deal if that's what you are passionate about. What is the comparison? Music and images? Hearing or seeing something, in this case it is the visual concept. Adamdaley 05:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The comparison, which you apparently didn't get, is that you don't have to be a flute player to criticize the performance of a flute player, and you don't have to be a photographer or know how to correct the problems you see in order to criticize a photograph. If you don't like that, Commons isn't for you and you should restrict yourself to settings in which reviewers have to be photographers expert in digital photo processing software. But in real life, anyone can be a critic and many of the professional critics don't have skills you or I have but perhaps have degrees in writing. -- Ikan Kekek 09:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment You can go review the images I've cleaned up W.carter. Adamdaley 08:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Adamdaley, rude comments like that will get you nowhere. --W.carter 08:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Comment quote "This page is for reviewing photos". Adamdaley 08:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)