Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 30 2013

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Krasnogvardeysky_Bridge_SPB_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Krasnogvardeysky Bridge in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 16:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  • Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Perspective correction destroyed church. --Nino Verde 18:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I cant see any problems with the subject. Overall quality looks OK to me. --Dirtsc 05:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Oppose Thanks for the annotation! Now I see the difference in sharpness. The minor distortion in the upper part of the tower could be accepted, but sadly the main buildings of the background and thus most of the image are not really sharp. --Dirtsc 11:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have no problem with the church but with the sharpness. Only a small area (near the bridge, see note) is really sharp. I cannot really explain it with regard to the camera settings (f9 10mm), but take a look. --Tuxyso 06:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuxyso, it's the second relapse from my side. :) I'm still learning to use new lens. And I cannot really explain this lack of sharpness too. --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Зеленову. На счёт того, что "коррекция перспективы уничтожила церковь". Вам бы надо понимать, как происходит та самая процедура коррекции в условиях подобной композиции, снятой на сверхшироком угле (15мм). Косую колокольню можно было бы поправить лишь хитрыми манипуляциями в ФШ. И если Вы думаете, дорогой Артём, что у Вас нету искажений геометрии собора например на этой фотографии (24мм), то Вы малость... заблуждаетесь. Чем больше угол, тем заметнее манипуляции с перспективой. --Florstein 16:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Какое-то не очень хорошее оправдание фотографии вышло. Я прекрасно понимаю, что вытягивать перспективные искажения сложно, но я и не выкладываю фотографии с размытой вдрызг колокольней в номинации на QI. Если коррекция уничтожает объект на фотографии, то зачем вообще делать такую сильную коррекцию? Снимите несколько кадров, сшейте панораму. Никто не обещал, что фотографировать архитектуру просто и легко. К слову, приведенная моя фотография, во-первых, не грешит такой размытостью, а, во-вторых, искажения на ней не настолько явные. --Nino Verde 16:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Как пример вот картинка, на ней можно все также скорректировать в фотошопе, вот только смотреться это будет ужасающе и никоим образом не сможет даже претендовать на фотографию, не то что на качественную фотографию.. --Nino Verde 16:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я и не пытаюсь оправдаться, просто сказал, что есть. То, что поместил нечёткую фотографию - вина ессно целиком моя - проглядел, уже во второй раз за месяц. С претензиями же по поводу искажений из-за правок не согласен. Они вполне приемлемы. Панораму конечно можно сделать, но мне сейчас интереснее снимать на сверхширик, но не заниматься кройкой и шитьём. И, уж поверьте, не все снятые им кадры получаются полным говном. --Florstein 17:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blässhuhn im Nest, Fulica atra 2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Fulica atra --Böhringer 20:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Cayambe 16:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Hyundai_-_i30_-_Mondial_de_l'Automobile_de_Paris_2012_-_202.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Une Hyundai i30 présentée lors du Mondial de l'automobile de Paris 2012. --Thesupermat 07:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. Bad crop, bad light in the face of the girls, sorry --Moroder 12:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good with regard to the shooting conditions. Resolution is quite high. Good framing. DoF is also good. --Tuxyso 13:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Technically OK, but bad crop and bad lighting of persons. --Dirtsc (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad lighting of persons. -- Smial 13:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Hyundai_-_i30_-_Mondial_de_l'Automobile_de_Paris_2012_-_203.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Une Hyundai i30 présentée lors du Mondial de l'Automobile de Paris 2012. --Thesupermat 07:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Maybe with a better crop --Moroder 12:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Tuxyso 13:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support This shot is good. --Dirtsc 10:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me but the incomplete texts in the top corners are a little disturbing--Dyolf77 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Anthomyia May 2013-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Little fly on the trunk of a tree -- Alvesgaspar 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good. File descr.: I've put 'sp.' into regular font. --Cayambe 07:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, good image, but I think that it needs better identification--Lmbuga 12:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that is not possible from the image only. Might be Anthomyia pluvialis but that is not certain Alvesgaspar 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm very much in favour of identifying organisms to species level or beyond. However sometimes one needs microscopic study of genital organs or other such minute structures and then a generic ID might do. Biopics 13:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have identified the fly as Anthomyia cf. quiquemaculata after submitting it to [1]. But it is only a guess -- Alvesgaspar 09:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Christian Ferrer 18:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
  •  Neutral--Lmbuga 19:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Smial 14:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Église_de_Vals_-_Fronton.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pediment of the church of Vals les Bains --Marianne Casamance 06:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose the coat of arms is out of focus + there's some tilt --A.Savin 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Just for your information, the coat of arms was built 250 year ago. This is not a out of focus. --Marianne Casamance 20:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The right side of the image is not sharp, the left side is. Maybe thats the reason, why some parts looks as if out of focus. --Dirtsc (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose artifacts with low details (most probably due to the compact camera) --Carschten 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is some detail loss due to noise reduction, but quality is acceptable. If tilt & shift are corrected imho QI. -- Smial 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Nassauer_Haus,_Núremberg,_Alemania,_2013-03-16,_DD_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nassauer Haus, Nuremberg, Germany --Poco a poco 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Request Bit dark and maybe a bit red? Mattbuck 11:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Poco a poco 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm currently unable to review images due to a very slow connection. Broadband is coming next week, I promise to review then. Sorry for the delay. Mattbuck 16:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm honestly not sure, it's better certainly, but the slow shutter speed means there is some blur in the people, and the top is a bit unsharp...  Bleh, sorry. Mattbuck 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sharpness problem in the top half, overall felling of blur (cf. street sign "Karolinenstraße") --Carschten 12:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose House looks too narrow in my eyes due to heavy vertical perspective correction. Perhaps better accept converging lines from this point of view. --Kreuzschnabel 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Kreuzschnabel, please compare with this QI of the building. --Dirtsc (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Dirtsc (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cimetière Américain Colleville-sur-Mer.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Normandy American Cemetery, France. --Clément Bardot 17:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Poor framing. Biopics 13:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support What is the problem with "framing"? No trouble with that. Good quality. -- Smial 20:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and composition. --Dirtsc 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As Dirtsc and Smial -- Arcalino 19:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition, image quality is good --High Contrast 20:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Brilon,_Keffelker_Kapelle,_Barockaltar.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Keffelker Kapelle, Barockaltar, Brilon, Germany --Malchen53 08:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ok --Poco a poco 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sry to disagree but the image is not crisp, has low contrast and suffers from harsh flashlight shadows --Manuela61 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some areas are too bright, shadows are harsh, color is a bit unnatural. The use of the flashlight should better have been avoided. --Dirtsc 11:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 11:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Steindy 21:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - the quality is rather on the poor side here. --A.Savin 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Dirtsc and A.Savin. --Carschten 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)