Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 21 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:European Robin (erithacus rubecula).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: European Robin (erithacus rubecula) --Charlesjsharp 13:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Good quality. --Uoaei1 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Mainly because the photo lacks the desired amount of sharpness. Minor reason is noisy background (but that did not contribute much to the oppose). --Graphium 08:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
     Support Although the imperfections you mention undeniably exist under close examination (I'd already noticed both and suspected someone might oppose it on this basis), it's still a good image. Bearing in mind that the bird itself couldn't be set up in advance nor be expected to hang around long, one has to give it some leeway that might not be granted to a still life image. More might have been in focus has a smaller aperture been chosen, but then the pleasingly-defocused background would also have been sharper, to its detriment. Ubcule 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per Graphium really. Mattbuck 20:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Graphium 15:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Woolwich Arsenal station MMB 03 465007.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: 465007 at Woolwich Arsenal. Mattbuck 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  Oppose similar problem as yesterday, too dark --A.Savin 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Brightened. Mattbuck 20:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Arctic Kangaroo 02:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment The result is strong luminance noise all over the dark areas. This I cannot support. Same for the one straight below. --A.Savin 10:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support There’s some noise but not too much IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 04:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin.--Jebulon 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Graphium 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Derby railway station MMB 32 156408.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 156408 at Derby. Mattbuck 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose It is simply too dark. --A.Savin 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Brightened. Mattbuck 20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment A little too bright, although I agree the earlier version was too dark. --Arctic Kangaroo 02:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    My photos too bright? I swear that's impossible - if I produced a photo which was purely #FFFFFF I'd get someone say it was underexposed! Mattbuck 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support after reconsideration. What's #FFFFFF btw? --Graphium 09:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    A hash followed by six hexadigits (0123456789ABCDEF, eg #FF6600) is a 24-bit RGB colour code, where the first two hexadigits are red, the middle two green and the final two blue. Any two hexadigits (is there a better word for that?) can be converted to a decimal number from 0 to 255, which determines how bright that channel is. So #FFFFFF means that all channels are at maximum, ie it's pure white. Mattbuck 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    Whereas even at #FF6600, the red channel would be blown, or close to ;-) however, overexposure does not necessarily have to show #FFFFFF, the point is the loss of detail caused by the "overdrive". So it cannot be fixed by simply darkening the image areas in question. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable --Christian Ferrer 05:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Graphium 15:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Cabeza_de_un_Leptoglossus_occidentalis,_Hartelholz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2014-04-05,_DD_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Head of a Leptoglossus occidentalis, Hartelholz, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 07:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Strange black spots everywhere; easily removed --A.Savin 09:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I guess, I have to clean that lense Poco a poco 14:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Still, there are many.--A.Savin 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New round Poco a poco 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    And ✓ one more round Poco a poco 18:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    In case you don't watch your own files: I placed some notices last days; not even sure they show all existing problems --A.Savin 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    I do, and the last version is based on your feeback (thanks for that and for your patience!). Are there still problems? Poco a poco 14:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    There must be a misunderstanding, I see no new version upload since I made notes. --A.Savin 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Uploaded Poco a poco 22:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose decline: dof too low. could have easily been f/16 or more. --Kulac 07:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    After all efforts I invested here I'd like at least to discuss it. DoF is IMHO acceptable for this kind of shot. --Poco a poco 20:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I support because for me it is a nice macro with enough DoF. In the newest upload I can't find any disturbing dust spots. Good work, I think. --J. Lunau 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping: A.Savin --Graphium 07:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what you expect from me? I placed notes some time ago, some spots have been removed since then, some not. --A.Savin 09:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
With the version I just uploaded I do believe that it is (really :) cleaned now Poco a poco 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support DOF fine for me --Charlesjsharp 10:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --A.Savin 12:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Graphium 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)