Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 21 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Junger_Igel_P9210039.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Young hedgehog --Ermell 09:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't think enough of the face is sharp for QI, though I like looking at the hedgehog. If you can sharpen the snout a little, I'd reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek 10:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Here, only the eyes are sharp purposely. I know the picture is marginal and I would possibly withdraw it. Let's see what others think. Thanks for the review.--Ermell 19:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The DoF seems a bit too shallow in this case. The image also seems a bit overprocessed.--Peulle 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Tours medievales a Bozouls 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tours médiévales a Bozouls, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Maybe some opinions? Tournasol7 22:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment It requieres perspective correction both sides are leaned out. can you fix it?, --Cvmontuy 04:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, it's better? Tournasol7 22:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, it is not better. It is even worse than the previous version. On the edges are large parts of blur. For example, see the horse or lantern at the lower right. The editing seems exaggerated the image gets the character of a painting not of a photograph. I guess you're trying to control the weakness of your lense by electronic processing. But this dosn't work. Don't be disappointed by this statement, but for me this is not a good quality. Perhaps there are different opinions --Zoppo59 06:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Well stated, Zoppo59. -- Ikan Kekek 01:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Heavily overprocessed. It's a nice image illustrating the town's buildings when you see it at low resolution, but as for technical quality this falls far short of QI for the reasons Zoppo59 gave.--Peulle 10:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Westdeutsche_Lotterie_--_2017_--_6822.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Westdeutsche Lotterie, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Bold perspective, but acceptable to me.--Famberhorst 04:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I find it very weird. What was the point of it? -- Ikan Kekek 07:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting against promotion at this point, but I've changed the status to "Discuss" because I'd like XRay to explain the reason for the weird, unrealistic perspective and give other people an opportunity to express their views. I'm unconvinced so far. -- Ikan Kekek 01:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Flags and buildings shooting up into the sky, now there is something I've seen before. ;) I have no problem with the "onwards and upwards" perspecitve as it is very well executed here with even more lines joining in to a vanishing point up in the sky. It creates tention in an otherwise rather dull scene of a corporate building. --W.carter 08:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't get it. People complain when a building is tilted by 1 degree or less, but this is OK? How are we supposed to judge what's OK, then? I can't even see a lot of the rotations and tilts people complain about and demand correction of here. But this is really extreme distortion, and it's OK because it's artistic or something? I really don't get it. -- Ikan Kekek 12:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan, photography is like editing the WP, sometimes if you get a more interesting shot that is aesthetically pleasing by doing something unconventional, it is OK to ignore the rules. If you are looking for total logic and obedience to rules, you are on the wrong site. ;) --W.carter 16:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I just thought that QIC had certain standards. I don't understand some of the standards here, if imperfections so minor that I don't notice them, even when prompted, are enough to decline a picture if not corrected, but drastic things are OK because they're intentional. I guess the intentionality or lack of it is the issue? -- Ikan Kekek 21:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that's pretty accurate: the intention of the photographer is key. As we can see in the technical merit section, there are many cases in which a photographer can intentionally create a work of art that bends the otherwise logical rules. Do we hang Picasso for painting images that have people's eyes in the wrong places? No, because it's supposed to be like that. If, however, a painter tried to paint a normal portrait and failed to place the eyes properly, we'd consider it a bad painting. I see the same argument as relevant here. (In this particular case, IMO it's a failed attempt at a perspective shot, not a normal photo with perspective issues). --Peulle 11:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
That's logical, sure. Side point: Have we seen genuinely Cubist photography at QIC? -- Ikan Kekek 11:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say some of the mathematical photos might fall into that category. --W.carter 13:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Not in the conventional meaning of "Cubist", which isn't an accurate representation from life of actual geometric figures but the deliberate distortion of subjects like a woman, a clarinet or a pipe through geometric means. -- Ikan Kekek 22:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I know, but that is as close as we have come so far. Doing a real cubist photo, now there's a challenge. --W.carter 22:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm all for setting up this kind of perspective in "looking-upwards" shots, but this is not one of those. The distance from the camera to the building is too great for such a perspective to be acceptable IMO.--Peulle 14:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Idon't like the distortion. Charlesjsharp 09:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I rarely decline images only because of composition, but I do not get the point. The extreme wide angle does not support anything here. Nothing of interest in the foreground, random, leaning objects (pole, building, tree) at the margins. Sorry, not QI imo. --Smial 09:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)