Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 29 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:"Ardhanarishvara_"_makeup_(performance_).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Folklore photographic contest. by User:TAPAS KUMAR HALDER--Ezarate 00:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I think this has been oversharpened—look at the halo on the hand on the right and to the harsher background. I'm not sure of the brightening, too, which makes the background black tones less deep. Personally, I would support the older version, but I would like to hear other opinions. I'm changing to Consensual review for this reason. --Lion-hearted85 13:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. I'd prefer the first version, which is good enough regarding the lighting situation. --Smial 11:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial. --Nefronus 17:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 12:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Inselhotel_Langeoog_20200910_DSC3458.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The island hotel in Langeoog. --PantheraLeo1359531 12:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Uncalibrated color space (sRGB recommended), identifiable people, IMO too little contrast, should cropped at the top and bottom. --F. Riedelio 10:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Let's discuss, IMO it is good enough for QI --LexKurochkin 18:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Seems like a perfectly OK photo to me, but how serious is the uncalibrated color space? -- Ikan Kekek 07:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Seems OK to me, although, looking at the centre windows, is it slightly tilted?--Peulle 08:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment “Uncalibrated” is just the name which is displayed (for some strange historical reasons) when the EXIF data say that a photo uses the Adobe RGB (1998) colour space. While Adobe RGB (1998) is not perfect (just as sRGB is far from perfect ;–), it is a well-established colour space and used quite often, even here on Commons. Of course it would not be necessary to use Adobe RGB for this photo, AFAICS it does not contain (much) colours which cannot be represented in sRGB; but IMHO it is completely OK if a user prefers Adobe RGB for his photos. --Aristeas 10:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per this explanation. -- Ikan Kekek 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 12:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Haupstraße,_Langeoog_20200910_DSC3442.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The main street in Langeoog. --PantheraLeo1359531 12:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --A.Savin 13:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Struck. --A.Savin 11:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think if you would undo the upscaling and just upload the (corrected) real resolution we could promote it … --Aristeas 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. --Fischer.H 17:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, interesting shot. DimiTalen 18:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Uncalibrated color space (sRGB recommended). --F. Riedelio 17:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support “Uncalibrated” is just the name which is displayed (for some strange historical reasons) in the EXIF data if a photo uses the Adobe RGB (1998) colour space. While Adobe RGB (1998) is not perfect, it is a well-established colour space and used quite often, even here on Commons. Of course it would not be necessary to use Adobe RGB for this photo, AFAICS it does not contain (much) colours which cannot be represented in sRGB; but IMHO it is OK if a user uses Adobe RGB. --Aristeas 10:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks good to me. However, there's some white space in the bottom left corner, probably due to perspective correction, which can be cropped out. In my personal taste, I would crop the bottom even a little more. --Lion-hearted85 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 19:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • QKC is becomlng a boring discussion with pixelpeepers--undefined 22:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, I like the picture. I reported the white space issue because it can be quickly solved, it is an oversight that can happen very easily when working on an image, and it is though very visible if viewed with a black background. --Lion-hearted85 22:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Talking about the image quality necessarily involves the technical quality of the photos, and probably we should assess the technical quality of photos better by looking carefully at them both from the far and at pixel level than e.g. by geomancy, augury or throwing dices. If you want to call that “boring“, well, you can do so. I just see no way to discuss the technical quality of a photo without these “boring“ things. --Aristeas 07:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose White border bottom left needs cropping out.--Peulle 10:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle until fixed. --Smial 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Cropped --PantheraLeo1359531 13:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Peulle 09:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you. I also like the new crop/aspect ratio. --Lion-hearted85 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Neutral IMO DoF is not consistent with the description as the most of the street is out of focus. I would suggest to change the description. --LexKurochkin 10:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 01:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)