Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 07 2013

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Photographer_at_Bright_Angel_Point_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Photograpgher capturing the sunset at Bright Angel Point, Grand Canyon North Rim. --Dschwen 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --JDP90 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    Very nice, but please remove CAs (see note). --Tuxyso 22:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
     Not done and bit unsharp. Mattbuck 20:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Hamburg Europapassage-Blick-SO-DSC 0251w.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Europapassage, Hamburg (shopping mall) --P e z i 20:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Not a QI in spite of the nice composition, too much noise --Poco a poco 23:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment strange, twin of this picture (File:Hamburg Europapassage-Blick-NW-DSC 0255w.jpg) was promoted on 17th of Sept. --P e z i 00:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    Well, I didn't promote the other one, and to be honest, wouldn't have. If you disagree, please, move to CR Poco a poco 07:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    That was me a few days ago. In this case - it's an indoor image - we shouldn't overrate noise that much - imo. In order to keep shutter speed at a reasonable level - if we want to avoid motion blur - it seems necessary to increase ISO. So let's discuss it --Martin Falbisoner 12:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise and detail --Lmbuga 20:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC) ..., but nice--Lmbuga 20:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Hamburg Europapassage-Blick-NW-DSC 0255w.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hamburg, Europapassage --P e z i 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    Very noisy, see comment to same image a couple of days above. --Dirtsc 11:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Just for the record: It's not the same image but a similar one; view direction is 180° --P e z i 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Nice, but noise and detail--Lmbuga 20:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:南海观音像.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Guan Yin of the South Sea --Shizhao 14:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is tilted Poco a poco 19:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Some minor blown parts but overall OK for me. --Kreuzschnabel 16:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still tilted --Poco a poco 07:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment The statue itself is straight. The building underneath is leaning because it’s not shot from the exact frontal direction. --Kreuzschnabel 21:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Mattbuck 20:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File:070_Malmö_centralstation.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination East façade of Sweden's 3rd busiest train station Malmö Central --Sanyambahga 11:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Need sharpening and  Underexposed --The Photographer 17:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    Blurry. Mattbuck 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sharpened and improved exposure. Sanyambahga 08:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely convinced, let's send it to CR. Mattbuck 18:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 ok --Vamps 09:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo May 2009-2a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Main square of Porto Covo, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Blur (see notes), trees cut --The Photographer 17:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Mattbuck 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me too. --Kreuzschnabel 06:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obviously the photo was stitched from several single shots, which have either different sharpness or are affected by decreasing sharpness from the centre to the periphery of each image, which is common for many lenses. The tree in the middle and the objects in the same region are crossed by a stitching seam, thus they are half sharp (right) and half unsharp (left). This is too disturbing for QI. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Johannes Robalotoff: Detail quality and composition is nice, but the unsharp area within the panorama is too crucial for QI. There is also a small stitching error at the left door (see note). --Tuxyso 13:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Capela_a_Maria_Costadedoi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Mary chapel at Costadedoi in San Ciascian --Moroder 17:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm afraid I find the light very bad. It was not the good time of the day with this back light. We need a third opinion, IMO.--Jebulon 19:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 20:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Jebulon is right that this is not the best time of the day. But every part of the image is exposed well, details in the shadows are good, no overexposure. --Tuxyso 12:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support per Tuxyso --Steinsplitter 11:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to haloing. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Malbork,_Polonia,_2013-05-19,_DD_27.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Malbork Castle, Poland --Poco a poco 16:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Underexposed See notes --The Photographer 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    I have uploaded a new version, but I want you to think twice about it. According to LR there was no undexposure and therefore the pixels were not artificially darkened, lightening that up makes the picture to me further from reality, shadows are natural and they are dark Poco a poco 20:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    Pienso que el contraste es muy fuerte, pudieras tomar de nuevo la fotografía en horas con un sol suave, por ejemplo, al amanecer o al atardecer --The Photographer 13:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    Are you telling me that it cannot be QI because the sun was too strong and the shadow in the early afternoon too dark? I understand this comment in FP, but this issue has nothing to do with quality. I'd like to discuss it. Poco a poco 19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. This is dark brown wood in the shadow, it must be very dark, no underexposure. -- Smial 10:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 21:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Unbalanced light - partly overexposed sky (blown up elements on the roof) and underexposed well. --Iifar 09:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lifar.--Jebulon 23:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With lifar: Dynamic range is too high for a single shot. Other time of the day, or an HDR had been better. --Tuxyso 12:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Dortmund_St_Martin_IMGP0839_wp.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Katholische Kirche St. Martin in Dortmund, Gabelsberger Straße --Smial 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Oversaturated, overpolarized sky --Daniel Case 04:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, I do not own a polarizer for that lens and always used the "natural" setting with that camera. Maybe there are other flaws, please discuss. -- Smial 09:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good, though the small cloud at upper right is a little bit irritating (but real). --Dirtsc 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support, weak: Considering the tiny image size quality is at the low QI end, but imho barely OK. Light is nice. --Tuxyso 13:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)