Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 21 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:17-03-17-Wien-DSC_0014.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Asfinag Bau Management GmbH Wien --Ralf Roletschek 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The building is unsharp. --A.Savin 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin, the focus seems to be on the traffic lights in front. --Basotxerri 10:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Luzern_Kapellbrücke_1180623.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panorama of the Kapellbrücke in Lucerne --Ermell 07:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but to me this looks like a postcard: quite flat. The building on the right is also leaning, there is posterization on the left and the bridge itself seems a bit soft. Good effort, though. --Peulle 08:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • New version might be worth a discussion --Ermell 08:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Definitely doesn't look flat to me (this version, at any rate, which is the one I'm looking at), and it's a good composition. But based on the idea that panoramas like this one are meant to be looked through and enjoyed at full size, could you possibly sharpen things a bit? There's also a small but obtrusive dust spot above what's either the right side of the Hotel des Alpes or the building that adjoins it to its right. -- Ikan Kekek 06:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review.--Ermell 13:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 14:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Me too. Very good improvement. -- Ikan Kekek 16:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg 22:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, better now.--Peulle 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 32.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago Lungo (2553m).
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment We discussed this image earlier - isn't there a possible licensing issue with that poster on the sign?--Peulle 07:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Ermell 13:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Northern_Gannet_high_key.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination High-key lighting of a Northern Gannet. By User:Merops --Frank Schulenburg 21:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I didn't know this photographing style but IMO this doesn't meet the QI requirements, last but not least because it lacks of contours. However you should put this into CR if you think differently. --Basotxerri 10:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral As I'm absolutely not sure if this image can meet QI requirements, I've changed my mind and I'd like to have this discussed in CR. As I've expressed above, my guess is that it doesn't but I'd like to have more opinions. Thanks to all! --Basotxerri 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about taking it to CR myself, actually, as I was wondering the same thing. My personal opinion is that yes, we should definitely allow "high key" photographs to reach QI status, if they are of high enough quality. There is actually a separate set of subcategories for this, it's called Quality images by technical merit, and I would probably place "high key" images in the Exposure section, just like this low key photo by Ralf R. All this being said, though, I personally think this particular image is too noisy, therefore I vote  Oppose.--Peulle 11:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support One of our strongest images for high-key photography. Certainly our best picture for an animal high-key shot. In general, an outstanding photograph… --Frank Schulenburg 02:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Sorry that the article on the English Wikipedia is not up to our standards. However, this image deserves to be at least QI… maybe even more…
  • I have stricken your vote: the QIC rules do not allow us to both nominate a photo and vote for it (see below).--Peulle 07:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question - I'm ignorant about the specifics of this, but I would like someone to please explain to me why deliberately blowing most of the picture, so that it's almost entirely white, could possibly be a good thing. Very little of the bird is visible in this picture. My ignorant reaction is that that's bad and probably something that shouldn't be considered a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 04:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • High key (and low key) photography is a technique used to create an effect. It's done on purpose, and when done correctly, it creates a work of art. There is a difference between general overexposure of an image (which tells us the photographer does not have the ability to control the amount of light) and correct use of high key (which tells us that the photographer has this ability). If we look at the QI movement control section, we can see several images that play with movement effects; some things are left blurry, but in those cases, that's how it's supposed to be. Likewise, we can sometimes take a photo that is supposed to be overexposed. The quality will therefore have to be judged within this scope.--Peulle 07:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I take your point, but this is a photo of a bird in which very little of the bird is visible. Blurring is OK, but isn't it a problem for QIC if the subject is not clearly visible? -- Ikan Kekek 16:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily; I'm not an expert in high key, but I think high key photos could definitely be considered QIs if they are good examples of high key photographs. Whether the specific photo is a good example would be up to the reviewer. As I said above, I don't think this one is.--Peulle 08:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low-key lighting in a photo sometimes leaves very little of the subject to be seen, but what is there should then be of very good quality, this one is too noisy. --W.carter 11:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Objekt 19 in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf an der Bundesstraße.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 05:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a cropping mark on the left top. Fixable. IMO also too tight crop on the top and too wide crop at the bottom. --A.Savin 14:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question - What does the cropping mark look like? Agreed on the crops, but I don't think I'd vote against the photo solely on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek 15:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: A white edge that looks like the picture has been stretched inwards while cropping away the white has been forgotten, or sth like that. Only visible in full scale. --A.Savin 15:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh well, I still can't see it. -- Ikan Kekek 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: It's there, look for a very narrow, long white triangle on the upper left corner. --Basotxerri 10:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh. I didn't notice that because I ignored it as part of the border. I agree that that should be fixed, and pending that, I, too,  Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 21:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper left corner should be fixed. --Basotxerri 10:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)