Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 26 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Aston Martin DB4 in Morges 2017 - Film Washi D iso800.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An Aston Martin DB5 in Morges, Switzerland (Analog photograph) --Akela NDE 12:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Behind the front wheel the car is not sharp. Further the image is very dark. No QI for me. -- Spurzem 22:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
A matter of taste, certainly, but this is intentional (focus on the rad grille, and high contrast film). --Akela NDE 09:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Spurzem. Artificial blur. --Smial 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Small, unsharp file -> decline. -- Ikan Kekek 09:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like a photo taken in the 1960s.--Peulle 10:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Sellagruppe_in_Gröden.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Sella group, in the Dolomites UNESCO World Heritage Site. --Moroder 09:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment please sharpen. The D850 has no anti-aliasing filter and images need to be sharpened in post. --Granada 11:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Moroder 14:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I've checked the image again and it's quite unsharp on the left border and on the top of the tree on the right. I would appreciate other opinions. --Basotxerri 15:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Large file, so I think it's sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 20:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Could easily be downsized and thus made sharper. --Cayambe 07:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good sharpness, and quality, regarding the high resolution. --Smial 09:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Front_loading_garbage_truck_loading_a_dumpster.webm[edit]

  • Nomination A front-loading garbage truck picks up a dumpster, deposits its contents into the truck, then puts the dumpster back down. --Grendelkhan 22:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposure at the sky and the walls. And anyway, which are the criteria for a quality video? Can we promote videos as quality images? --C messier 16:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course we can promote videos as QIs, it's been done many times before. Videos are judged the same ways as most photos, perhaps with the exception of size because of the very large file-size required for a video. This video has some overexposed parts, so I don't think it's up to QI standard. --W.carter 09:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Actually, I think it looks quite good as far as sharpness and resolution are concerned. Since we're judging by the QIC standards, though, the overexposure may be a problem. But honestly, I've seen TV broadcasts with the same problem.--Peulle 13:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ...and most TV series have CA and films have lens flares (You know you spend too much time at Commons when you notice such things.), but they are not up for QI. ;) --cart-Talk 15:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I haven't see a front-loading garbage truck before, so that was quite interesting to me. I don't think I'll take a view on whether it's a QI or not, though, because to me the question is whether the interesting subject takes so much of the viewer's attention that some overexposure on the sides isn't important. -- Ikan Kekek 04:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Video shouldn't be judged on the same standards as still images as it's much hard to edit raw video, and the exposure is appropriate for the main subject. -- King of Hearts 06:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting. --Smial 11:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I've changed my mind; Commons should be about what the average skilled person can do with a good camera, and if professional TV crews are struggling with the same thing, I think this problem is fairly minor here. After all, the subject is well lit - it's the background that's overexposed.--Peulle 10:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment If professional TV crews struggle with lighting in a live interview and/or live reportage (single event) it is of course tolarable. In an instruction video or documentation, in any kind of video that can be composed and repeated it is not. In this video the background is overexposed and the main subject is underexposed. This is bad lighting, and a better lighting situation should be chosen. There is no real difference to stills photography, which also needs to be repeated under better conditions, if possible, to get QI status. --Smial 07:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment You're making good points, but the thing for me is the difference between a photo and a video: a lot of the exposure problems in a photo of this could be handled in post. In fact, we keep asking nominees to do exactly that; brighten the shadows, tone down the highlights. Doing this to individual frames in a video, though, should that be expected as well? I'm trying to focus on what we should reasonably expect a normal non-professional person to do. Granted, FP is a class of its own - "one of the finest on Commons" - but I'm thinking QI status should be possible to obtain without raising the bar too high.--Peulle 11:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Recoding (somewhat darker, somewhat less contrast, somewhat lower gamma) needed less than 2 Minutes: File:Front_loading_garbage_truck_loading_a_dumpster_2.webm. Of course the burnt highlights could not be restored. --Smial 16:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done video. It grabbed my attention completely. -- Johann Jaritz 03:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Of course the video is of high value and useful. That is not my point. --Smial 08:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)