Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 21 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Ehemaliges_Franziskanerkloster_Hof_20220522_HOF02558.png[edit]

  • Nomination Image of the former monastery in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 16:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment IMO, you should check the verticals of the monastery. --Sebring12Hrs 08:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Info I have made a small correction. However, I suspect that due to the age of the building some lines are crooked (similar is the case with the town hall tower in Hof and the Michaeliskirche). As reference I used the window frames, so that should work :) --PantheraLeo1359531 18:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support High resolution and very sharp. No relevant, disturbing tilts. Good quality in my eyes. --Milseburg 13:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's too much disturbing to me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK. The verticals in the background are OK. --XRay 04:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Sidzinka,_Tyniec,_Kraków,_20221007_1604_1654.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sidzinka stream among the meadows, Kraków --Jakubhal 17:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose good composition, but severe DoF issues - sorry --Virtual-Pano 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfectly OK to me, no drastic DoF issue to my eyes at all. -- Ikan Kekek 08:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Use of DOF appears intentional. --Smial 12:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Chandelier_in_Rathaus_Stralsund_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Electric chandelier in the room in front and right of Löwnescher Saal Rathaus Stralsund, Germany --Kritzolina 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jsamwrites 18:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good but the skylight (I think it is a skylight) must have its verticals vertical IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 08:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the perspective corretion (which is fixable) combined with the out of focus lamp shades disqualify this shot as QI from my point of view --Virtual-Pano 22:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others and blown-out highlights --F. Riedelio 16:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Bad_Berneck_Schlossturm-20221002-RM-170708.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Ruin Old Castle --Ermell 07:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I want to support ! But there are artifacts on the contours of the clock tower. I would like more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 06:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review.--Ermell 19:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 16:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Auswandererdenkmal_-_Bremerhaven_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Auswandererdenkmal, Bremerhaven --Llez 05:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
     Oppose Blown out sky. --Hillopo2018 07:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
    As the faces are directed to the north, a contre-jour shot was necessary, but I dont think, the sky is blown out, please discuss --Llez 07:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
    If you look in Photoshop there are definitely bits that are RGB(255,255,255) i.e. pure white (e.g. right at the top, just left of centre). Should be fixable though and would be worth it as the detail on the sculpture is good quality. BigDom 08:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Highlights removed --Llez 18:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  •  Comment Your radical edit of the sky changes the day from bright and partly sunny to dark and rainy. I can't support that and would have to oppose if you don't show a truer representation of what you saw. But in either case, see if there's just a bit of a halo on the man's left hand. -- Ikan Kekek 09:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for the comment --Llez 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support I really like the dramatic original better, but if this is what you want to go with, and you think it's sufficiently true to life, I am willing to accept it. But are you changing it just to get the QI designation or because you believe this version is the best one? -- Ikan Kekek 23:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm always glad to get hints to optimize my pictures. I learned a lot in the past years by the criticism and suggestions for improvement, and here I tried to darken highlights and your comment led to the development of a method for smoother darkening as I did before. Thanks --Llez 05:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, glad to be helpful. -- Ikan Kekek 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Over-processed, aliasing. --Sebring12Hrs 11:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Question What does aliasing mean? -- Ikan Kekek 06:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • [1] Look at the head of the woman. I'm not an expert Ikan Keke, but I think this image is over-processed. There are also blue areas ont the contours. In addition, I'm french native speaker, so it's not easy for me to talk about the issues I'm seeing. --Sebring12Hrs 07:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Au contraire, you expressed yourself very well! However, I think you have a finer eye for these details than I do. -- Ikan Kekek 16:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Uitzicht_vanaf_Kapelle_St._Jakob-Caplutta_Sogn_Giacun_richting_Dardin._19-09-2022._(d.j.b)_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Changing cloudy skies above the mountain peaks around Breil/Brigels.
    --Famberhorst 05:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Certainly a composition that not everyone finds good. --XRay 05:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very sorry, but I disagree. There is a strange blue color every where on this picture. There is too much dark area at right, a bit too much noise. --Sebring12Hrs 06:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
    Remark: Blue glow removed + various corrections. Photo was taken with neutral density filter and backlight.--Famberhorst 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colour noise in dark trees. Charlesjsharp 16:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise and lack of detail. --Tagooty 13:18, 14 October 2022
  •  Oppose Sorry: Bad color balance (violet tint), luminance noise, foreground too dark --F. Riedelio 16:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Plaun_las_Steilas._19-09-2022._(d.j.b)_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Plaun las Steilas. View of the clouds over the north side of the valley.
    --Famberhorst 05:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much dark and blue IMO. The blue isn't realistic to me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    Blue glow removed. Would like more opinions.--Famberhorst 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 09:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is colour noise in the trees. Charlesjsharp 16:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose WB semms still slightly off to me plus leaves of right hand tree show motion blur --Virtual-Pano 12:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad color balance (violet tint), motion blur, luminance noise, foreground too dark. --F. Riedelio 16:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)