Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 07 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Interior_of_Johanneskapelle,_Pfons-Altstadt_09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Johanneskapelle, Pfons-Altstadt - statue of Madonna with child, detail --Kritzolina 16:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 07:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me, the white balance and brightness need to be corrected. --Andrey Korzun 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark. --Kallerna 08:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's casual ! In addition, it's too dark and the cut is not good at all, even if it's a detail. --Sebring12Hrs 17:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Shelburne_Falls_October_2021_003.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Glacial potholes, Shelburne Falls, MA. --King of Hearts 04:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Perspective should be corrected. --Ermell 05:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    The bottom edge is more than 45 degrees below vertical, and correcting it would lead to extremely unnatural distortion. When an image is only slightly off from normal perspective, it makes sense to correct, but here it is better to just have a natural aerial view. We shouldn't try to force perspective when it's halfway between perfectly vertical and perfectly straight down. --King of Hearts 07:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    You should try and then pull the image apart a bit. That´s what I do. --Ermell 08:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    It also cuts out parts of the composition that I intend to include in the image. IMO if it requires a greater than +50 correction in Lightroom, then it shouldn't be corrected. --King of Hearts 16:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    I would be interested what others think. --Ermell 22:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perspective looks quite unusual to me, but a full correction will result in a strange look. Maybe the image overall is a little bit dark. I would apply a slight tilt clockwise and hope it looks more natural. Greetings --Dirtsc 13:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Dirtsc: I have brightened the image. Not sure why the image needs to be rotated; it is impossible for a drone photo to be tilted unless the gimbal is miscalibrated, and you can see that the verticals in the center are straight. --King of Hearts 16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts:  Support Thanks. I took one more look at the verticals and I have to correct myselt,: I would apply a slight tilt counterclockwise, then the verticals will be correct. But overall good. Greetings --Dirtsc 09:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support See my comments in the nomination below. Alvesgaspar 18:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I completely agree with King of Hearts: if the angle of an aerial image with respect to the horizon is too large, the verticals should not be corrected because this leads to very unnatural looking distortions. For example, rectangular sides of buildings become very acute-angled parallelograms or trapezoids, which looks quite unnatural to me. On a technical level, the closer the vanishing point of the verticals (the image of the nadir point) is to the image, the more distorted and unnatural looking the perspective corrected image will be. Therefore, I also agree with Alvesgaspar's comments on the image immediately below: correcting all the verticals should not be a must and maybe the guidelines should be adjusted. Should we start a discussion about this point on the Discussion page? --Carsten Steger 10:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with the idea of starting a discussion about the guidelines. Since the image guidelines apply to all image-related projects, the discussion should be broadly publicized. Alvesgaspar 18:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 17:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Shelburne_Falls_October_2021_005.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Deerfield River in Shelburne Falls, MA. --King of Hearts 04:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 05:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The verticals should be corrected IMO. --Ermell 22:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    As with the other image: The bottom edge is more than 45 degrees below vertical, and correcting it would lead to extremely unnatural distortion. When an image is only slightly off from normal perspective, it makes sense to correct, but here it is better to just have a natural aerial view. We shouldn't try to force perspective when it's halfway between perfectly vertical and perfectly straight down. --King of Hearts 04:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a very nice picture and composition, with the technical flaws we would expect from a small drone camera. I quite agree that correcting all the verticals should not be a must, maybe the guidelines should be adjusted as to avoid the present fundamentalism on the subject. Alvesgaspar 18:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Alvesgaspar and King of Hearts. Also see my comments on the image immediately above. --Carsten Steger 10:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 17:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Pabda_Jhaal_-_Home-_Kolkata_-_West_Bengak.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pabda macher jhal. By User:Nilanjan Sasmal --Bodhisattwa 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment This is quite a solid QI, but it needs some more specific categories. How about Category:Fish curries of India and categories for the rice and the cilantro at least? -- Ikan Kekek 22:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality --PetarM 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Added support template. --Mdaniels5757 23:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. More categories are needed. -- Ikan Kekek 21:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality and very nice composition. Tournasol7 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support +1 --Stepro 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support More categories added. -- Ikan Kekek 08:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Tournasol7 -- Radomianin (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 17:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Playa_de_Comporta,_Portugal,_2021-09-12,_DD_15-26_PAN.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Beach of Comporta, Portugal --Poco a poco 11:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Commonists 13:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition, which is an important part of quality. I don't like the uninteresting foregound combined with the little band of sea -- Alvesgaspar 15:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition IMO ok, it's a photo of the beach. --Kallerna 08:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 19:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)