Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 27 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Осколки_льда.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Baikal in winter (by Discoverynn) --SKas 09:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 09:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It´s amazing, but let´s talk again about downsampling. --Milseburg 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Milseburg: Downsampling? What did you mean? The resolution exceeds the minimum requirements. Not any reasons for discussion. I would like to see a photo in higher resolution too. But also such resolution is enough for QI. --SKas 07:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Holding off my vote until Milseburg's concern has been addressed. @SKas: Please look at the Resolution/Downsampling section of the Guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." This is a nature photograph, so there had better be a very good reason for the reduction in size. This rule is in place to avoid users downsampling their photograph to just above the absolute limit of 2 Mpx. --Peulle 11:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Images shouldn't be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Yes, it is written so in the Guidelines. There is absolutely other case. The image has been loaded in not the highest resolution, but not to appear of better quality. I don't know why. Maybe the image has been damaged or something else. If this image was loaded in the highest resolution, it would be even better. But also at such resolution the image is great and completely corresponds to a concept the quality image. --SKas 04:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 Question You can give here at least one example when downsampling has improved quality of a nature photograph? --KSK (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Personally, I think the guidelines give us a good example of a case where downsizing is acceptable: portraits where the full size might be unflattering to the person depicted. For nature photography, I can't see any reason. Gentle cropping to get rid of disturbing trees or something is OK, but reducing the size greatly ... I don't see why it should be done.--Peulle 07:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment It is not the answer to a direct question, but abstract reasonings. And please don't substitute downsampling for cutting. These are absolutely different things IMO. Sorry --SKas 08:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment To which direct question are you referring? I see none that has not been answered. Also, you misunderstood my comment; I said that gentle cropping might be OK but that the general downsampling (which seems to be the case here) is not.--Peulle 15:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 Comment From the camera used, quality in a higher resolution can be expected. About 6 MP instead of 36 MP is heavy. By using such downsizing many quality problems can be hidden and the QI-level becomes low. Maybe this is a candidate for VI. --Milseburg 16:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And how about for this entire series? It looks great, but we need higher-resolution photos to evaluate them for possible Featured Picture Candidates nomination, as well as consideration here. -- Ikan Kekek 20:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

File:15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S_8826.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Airbus A320 EI-DSW von Alitalia FlughafenParis Charles de Gaulle --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The dust spot should be removed as well as the reflections of the windows in the sky. --Ermell 06:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-05-06_Fünfmarkstückeiche,_Kierspe,_NRW_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fünfmarkstückeiche, ND 2.3.2, südöstlich v. Haus Rhade, 58566 Kierspe. By User:YvoBentele --XRay 11:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--ArildV 15:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not convinced here, it definitely lacks detail. --Poco a poco 15:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - The sky is slightly noisy, but a good landscape, and in a landscape, it is unnecessary to focus on the small details of individual trees and blades of grass. -- Ikan Kekek 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco.--Ermell 06:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan Kekek. --Granada 11:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Destructive noise reduction in some areas, but main object is ok. Very nice lighting and composition. --Smial 13:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 22:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)