Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 30 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Courtyard_and_colonnade_of_the_Basilica_of_San_Paolo.jpg[edit]

File:Pickering railway station MMB 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pickering railway station. Mattbuck 07:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Much too dark. No QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 08:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    Why discuss? Anyway  Oppose Too dark --Livioandronico2013 08:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  InfoFirst: It is not the sense of CR to send photos immediately there. Second: It is good practice here to give a chance to the people when there is a possibility to fix the problem. Brightening is always worth a try. --Cccefalon 09:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    Dear Cccefalon butMattbuck don't give never chance,anyway normally the people leave a review and don't go directly to CR. I'm here from a few of time and something i know... --Livioandronico2013 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Livioandronico2013: if you have a problem with the way I review images then why don't you use my talk page and tell me rather than being passive-aggressive like this. Mattbuck 18:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Because ,Mattbuck, I want that everyone see what I think of your bad way of doing, not just those who read your page.I don't like to hide. --Livioandronico2013 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've brightened up the image and removed some color noise. How does it look now? Ram-Man 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem and Livioandronico2013 - too dark, also without colors and contrast. Not a QI. --Halavar 17:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed --The Photographer 09:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support not a sunny day but nothing underexposed --Christian Ferrer 20:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the edit I made makes it bright enough. It could be made a little brighter, but it seems fine to me. Ram-Man 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ram-Man --Hubertl 14:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, but without the people on the right side it would be better. You only have to wait some moments... --Steindy 22:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe not underexposed but the buildings are too dark anyway. Not the best light to take the shot. Alvesgaspar 18:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like it was exposed for the sky instead of the rest of the scene, sky draws the attention from the subject. That was just not the right moment to take the shot. --El Grafo 12:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 15:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC))

File:Walls_of_Temple_of_Diana_in_Nemi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Walls of Temple of Diana in Nemi --Livioandronico2013 21:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose The vast area of the photo is out of focus. Also, some parts are overexposed. --Steindy 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    out of focus? Others please --Livioandronico2013 22:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have make some annotationes that you can see it yourself. --Steindy 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically the QI review rules require review at 100%, which makes the right third of the image "out of focus". Of course it's perfectly fine under reasonable standards, but you should still use a smaller aperture next time. As for the overexposure, I fixed that and uploaded a new version. -- Ram-Man 03:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Your version ist better, but the problems are further existing. See my annotations. --Steindy 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus for me too. As suggested by Ram-Man, a different exposure solution with a smaller aperture (and higher ISO setting) would have solved the problem. Alvesgaspar 14:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Somewhat more DOF would have been nice, but the main parts are sharp enough. -- Smial 16:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Livioandronico2013 10:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Panoramica_del_Centro_de_São_Paulo.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Panoramica del Centro de São Paulo --The Photographer 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Noise everywhere,not very sharp --Livioandronico2013 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Could be nice underestand more the noise concept when the picture is taken with a Nikon D300 and you have a super size image. Thanks --The Photographer 21:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Understand? Would be better and more interesting to understand your concept of noise, super images are exempt? And Nikon D5000,D4000 etc...what change? --Livioandronico2013 21:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Again. Due to the size of the image, I think that is enough for QI--The Photographer 21:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Repeat...for me not. Big o small,there's noise --Livioandronico2013 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Makes no sense to have small images that meet the minimum requirement without noise. The noise is not everything, it's important to have pictures with more information .--The Photographer 22:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support For some it's not about the size/resolution, but 100% magnification. For me, this is more than acceptable. I find the stitching errors to be quite minor and the "noise" is insignificant. Ram-Man 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Given the size of the photo image noise is acceptable. --Steindy 21:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Livioandronico, this is certainly not a QI. Large size does not mitigate the extensive noise and lack of detail. It looks as if the original photo were upsampled. Alvesgaspar 14:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 Comment @Alvesgaspar: but you are forcing me to apply downsize, this is a panoramic of 25 images --The Photographer 22:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Where does that strong noise come from? A panoramic cannot show more noise than the source images do. Have they really been that bad? --Kreuzschnabel 12:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Problem Solved, Downsizesing had been applied. Thanks for nice reviews and recomendations --The Photographer 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment Are you kidding? Barely above the 2 mpix limit now, way too small for such a shot. It’s still a bit soft due to the noise. And have a brief look into the right bottom corner. --Kreuzschnabel 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Now is too small for me --LivioAndronico talk 17:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I ask myself, for what size requirements, if nobody respects that when reviewing a picture. --The Photographer 23:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I appreciate your attempt to make a statement, but I seriously doubt it will work. Just change it back and if they refuse to support, just move on. It's a good photo for sure and still useful regardless. Ram-Man 01:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I applied rollback to supersize version, I preffer a big size with nosie than a small size without noise, This forces me to apply downsize in my future work. I'm not talking about your comment, I much discouragement when comments that do not help, especially when take into account noise and no great effort to make a panorama of 25 pictures with a camera of 8 years old are made making 104mpx image. --The Photographer 16:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise clearly improvable --Lmbuga 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done @Lmbuga: , @Kreuzschnabel: , @Kreuzschnabel: and @Alvesgaspar: , I've removed the noise considerably, please let me know if now you agree. --The Photographer 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don’t. Noise is still much worse than today’s standards even with simple cameras. Especially a panoramic is not supposed to show significant noise, since it consists of several lo-res images which can be taken noiselessly. The source images of this one seem to be noisy beyond repair – you cannot remove noise from images without impairing detail. Besides, the right bottom corner is still gray (I mentioned this issue half a week ago). Generally it’s a nice shot but technically far below QI for me, despite its high resolution. And I am not going to have another look at this nomination, since I am getting the impression you are playing games with the community. Please go to the workshop for further improvements, and re-nominate a better version should this one be declined. --Kreuzschnabel 10:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It would have been great to have seen a single note from you indicating noise or gray corner. Your comments seem to be more demanding than in FP. I actually made a considerable effort to remove noise on smooth surfaces not subtract any details. Playing games with the community?. Such comments really discouraged me. --The Photographer 11:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I was mentioning the strong noise at 12:15, 23 November 2014, and the corner at 21:42 the same day. "Playing games" means the upload of another version now an then, downsizing, reverting … sorry, it’s bothering. This is NOT the place for optimizing pictures, so please refer to the Photography workshop. --Kreuzschnabel 14:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- This is a nice and useful panorama but noise is still visible everywhere. The high ISO setting, necessary to respond to poor light conditions, is to blame. Alvesgaspar 18:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 Question Thanks for your response and feedback, I have a question, @Alvesgaspar: We must apply the same qi rule for all noise images in all conditions?. Thanks for your answer in advance --The Photographer 19:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That is what I do The Photographer, as you can see in my evaluations here. However there is noise ... and noise. A slight noise in the background and dark parts is normally acceptable for me. Alvesgaspar 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 10:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, due to high ISO setting.--Jebulon 21:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Jeb nex time if your change something leave yor firm in the responseand change the result in nomination,promotion o decline. Merci.Clin--Livioandronico2013 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
IMO your are wrong. This picture is in CR, under "Discuss" status, and should have a yellow frame. Blue frame means "unassessed". But anyway, actually I don't care...--Jebulon 00:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --LivioAndronico talk 21:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Fulmer_Falls_Wide_View_3000px.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fulmer Falls Ram-Man 04:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Discussion was getting a bit long, so I moved it here where there is more space. Ram-Man 14:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Please remember to change to /Discuss, or it'll get nuked as soon as QICbot runs! Mattbuck 15:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't know that. Thanks for the info! Ram-Man 16:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tilted cw. Slight magenta fringing in the foreground water part. All fixable. Please fix the redlink category. --Cccefalon 07:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I fixed the tilting and the category. I don't have the tools to fix the fringing, but if someone else wants to take a shot, go for it. Ram-Man 13:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Info still tilted; the single water streaks still don't follow gravity law yet. --Cccefalon 13:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The water streaks are being ejected under pressure from the water behind it and from bouncing off the rocks. You can see how the water curves out from the rock before somewhat straightening, showing it is not falling directly downward. This is easier to see in this version. The direction of the water streaks are not directly at the camera, so of course it would not appear to fall straight down. The image is flat where the rocks meet the water line. Ram-Man 14:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • So far, I did not declined the photo but just left comments. How can it be, that this photo appears in CR during the afternoon? --Cccefalon 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    See above. Ram-Man 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, I didn't noticed that insertion. --Cccefalon 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Big  Support Very beautiful! I particularly like that the water is not frozen. Looks like a painting. --Steindy 21:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. Very good. -- Spurzem 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic noise (please see note). Seems a bit over processed, and I don't like the water does not look natural (Exposure time, sorry Steindy, my opinion)--Jebulon 11:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I respect your opinion, but I see the best of intentions no chromatic noise. I only see the dust of the water. --Steindy 01:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Its ok IMHO for QI. Nice quality for a E8700 --The Photographer 09:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    The 8700 was my first digital camera. I loved it, and for a point-and-shoot produced really high quality (sharp) images that would contest my later Nikon D50 SLR. Of course it was no good anywhere but outdoors in bright sunlight due to its poor noise performance (and the other minor faults pointed out by reviewers). It was also a slow camera. But this is one of many very good photos I got from it and 8 years later it is still getting votes for a QI. Not bad. -- Ram-Man 01:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a very nice Camera. lately, QI seem vote by the cameras, rather than the ability of photographers --The Photographer 10:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 22:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 10:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)