Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 28 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Ενετικά_νεώρια_Ηρακλείου_1620.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Heraklion venetian shipyards. --C messier 17:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Noisy sky --Moroder 12:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done within a week. --XRay 06:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version --C messier 19:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Blown lights and ghosts are just too distracting in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 08:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support They don't bother me --Moroder 09:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bandhavgarh_National_Park_Tigers_(2009)_8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bandhavgarh National Park Tigers -- Fitindia 10:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 06:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Was this downsized to make it appear less grainy/unsharp? It's very low-resolution and looks bad when blown up to as little as 200% of my 13-inch laptop screen. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan --Milseburg 15:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan. Maybe question of old camera. White balance too cold and lack of contrast. --Basotxerri 16:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 18:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Arch_of_Constantine_in_Rome_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Arch of Constantine at Via di San Gregorio in Rome, Italy. --Tournasol7 06:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry but the stitching went terribly wrong here. The arch looks completely distorted. If you like you can send me the single pictures and I will give it a try stitching them with PTGui. Maybe we can make a QI out of it then. --Code 20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    ✓ Done thanks Code. Tournasol7 21:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support now. --Code 19:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tourists spoil it, specially the one in the middle, not a QI to me like this Poco a poco 18:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Tourists are literally everywhere in Rome, so I don't think that's a valid argument. --Code 19:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's IMHO, but yes, probably you have to wait or ask politely, a monument with a tourist in front of the camera taking a selfie is not a QI. --Poco a poco 21:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with that. A monument with a tourist taking a selfie can of course be a QI. It shows exactly what a city like Rome is like in these days. --Code 06:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, and the light is harsh.--Peulle 15:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The sharpness issue may be there in some parts at 100% but the resolution is rather high. Harsh light is no reason to decline. This is not FPC. --Code 06:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition : "Foreground and background objects should not be distracting." -- Basile Morin 03:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • See above. The tourists are not "distracting" but part of the composition. And again, this is not FPC. --Code (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Code finds the tourists not distracting. That's a subjective opinion. I find them very distracting as part of this composition. But there are also other reasons why this picture wouldn't work in FPC either. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Basile Morin 03:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Cattedrale_di_Palermo_acquasantiera_Domenico_Gagini.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stoup by Domenico Gagini in the Palermo in Palermo. --Moroder 12:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --GPSLeo 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree, at least tell us why --Moroder 18:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The shadow on the top makes it not good enough for me. --GPSLeo 08:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the stoup is quite good, but the figurine at the top is not sharp enough. Can you sharpen it a bit? -- Ikan Kekek 07:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --Moroder 11:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO acceptable. --Basotxerri 19:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree, acceptable enough for me. --Nerve net 22:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Good enough for me not to oppose but to be neutral. -- Ikan Kekek 09:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Mother_Armenia2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Mother Armenia in Gyumri --Armenak Margarian 18:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Dark, underexposed --Basile Morin 03:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Still dark in my view. All the subject is in the shadow -- Basile Morin 07:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Yes it is, and emphasized as such. It's unnecessary for us to enforce convention. Sharp enough, striking, and IMO good. -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • One of the basics in photography is to compose with the light. So it's like music, you can try dancing hip hop on a tango rhythm, this will not be elegant because one of the fundamental rules is broken. I don't think this is a question of convention, but more of consideration of the main principles of photography. Assuming the main subject is not the blue background, the rest of the image is just wrong. If the picture was described as a silhouette, that would make the subject slightly different (though not very successful either). But here the statue is just underexposed. And thus doesn't respect these 2 guidelines : 1) Exposure : Lost details in shadow areas 2) Lighting : Distracting harsh shadows. I understand we want to shoot this object in front because that is a convention (we're free to respect or not), but unfortunately the light is on the opposite. The lighted side is behind, not in front. And the main part simply lacks detail, lost in the shadow. In this situation, you can either take the picture at another time of the day, or admit your work is not a quality image. Finding a few pixels sharp in a small part of the picture is not enough IMO to consider it's "good quality". Photography is more than correct focus. And I'm sorry to consider this is typically an example of "bad quality" picture, because the subject is almost completely hidden -- Basile Morin 03:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Since you're bringing in music, I'll tell you what I was thinking: Having a subito piano is a very good way to emphasize a passage in a piece of music. If you know the work of Gustav Mahler, think of some of the memorable sections of his symphonies in which only a small number of instruments play piano, sandwiched in between full orchestra passages. Photography is not simply about light; it's about contrast. Pure light would result in an undifferentiated image, not a really useful photo. -- Ikan Kekek 09:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There's no contrast without light. And with light also come colors, volumes, textures, etc. Here's an example of correct light for a statue, and IMO very "useful" to show the subject as it is, on Wikipedia, or any other projet. The difference is like day and night -- Basile Morin 12:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Basile Morin: the subject is too dark, the light comes from the wrong direction and there is too much blue sky. Greetings --Dirtsc 08:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Basile Morin je suis très amateur en photographie et j’accepte ce que vous dites mais il ne faut pas aussi exagérer les choses c'est très offensant, je les prenne très au cœur. Je peux mettre quelques exemples de bad quality images. La même statue ou bien ça еncore un exemple--Armenak Margarian 18:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear Armenak Margarian, at least I agree with you these files are rather bad. But you are certainly able to take good quality pictures of statues (1, 2, 3, 4). Just this one is not, in my subjective opinion -- Basile Morin 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dark, per others. Daniel Case 07:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 13:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)