Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 28 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Stoer_Head_Lighthouse.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stoer Head Lighthouse, North West Scotland --DeFacto 21:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is a strange gray halo around the silhoutte of the lighthouse building --Poco a poco 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    •  Comment, I don't know what the halo is or whether I can remove it - can anyone advise please?. DeFacto 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I think that is what comes from overly aggressive CA correction...--Godot13 03:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me OK for QI --A.Savin 23:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not to me, sorry. --Poco a poco 07:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
     Support now the new version, much better Poco a poco 21:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Barely noticeable, I had to stare at it for over a minute before I even knew what he was talking about. --King of ♠ 06:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin. The halos are quite distractive; thick, brown lines around the edges of the building and chimneys, especially on the right side. It almost looks like somebody went at the image with a pen in Paintbrush.--Peulle 07:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

*  Oppose Really strange halos. Visible at 100%, pixelpeeping not necessary. --Smial 09:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  •  Comment, @Poco a poco, Peulle, and Smial: I don't want to flog a dead horse here, but as a post-processing novice I wanted to see if I could do a better job. So I reset all the post-processing on the image and started again from the clean raw, and have uploaded the result. I think the problem has gone now - please see what you think. DeFacto 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better. It's a go for promotion from me.--Peulle 10:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Small remains of CA not really disturbing. --Smial 11:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Poco a poco 21:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:US_Custom_House_New_York_October_2016_005.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Great Hall Rotunda, U.S. Custom House. --King of Hearts 04:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I'm afraid it is too noisy/unsharp. I know, difficult shot, but not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 06:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: Please take a look at the 2000px version, it is pixel-perfect. And this is not the type of easy-to-take picture where anything more than the minimum 2 MP should be demanded. --King of Hearts 06:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Send to CR --Smial 09:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too unsharp and noisy, but is it truly unimprovable? What happens when you try to sharpen and denoise the photo somewhat? -- Ikan Kekek 08:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm with Poco on this one; as technology improves, standards do as well. More is expected from a QI now than 10 years ago. This then is just too noisy for today's standards. I also think the top crop disqualifies it.--Peulle 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek and Peulle: I'm all for increased standards. But what really bugs me is that if I had uploaded a downsampled version, chances are someone would have just taken one look at the 100% version and promoted it. --King of Hearts 03:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Perhaps someone would (I wouldn't), but would that make you happy? After all, this isn't a competition where we're trying to get as many QIs as possible, is it? To me, this is about contributing with genuinely good images to the world for free and unlicensed use; if someone here thinks the QI guidelines aren't quite met, that doesn't deter me from continuing those efforts. Keep working. :) --Peulle 07:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Peulle: I guess I'm just a stickler for consistent standards; I'm not really offended that that my image isn't being promoted, just that this is yet another example of the downsampling dilemma we have here at QIC (which used to be pretty bad at FPC as well, until more people finally started opposing borderline 5 MP images recently). --King of Hearts 01:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    And besides, if all I cared about was getting images promoted here, I would have actually done that instead of complaining about it. I'm rather philosophically opposed to downsampling and do it very, very rarely. --King of Hearts 01:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
     Comment I felt that way too, initially; some images with tight crops were promoted while others were not. What I learned was that the people here interpret the guidelines slightly differently and also bring in their own opinions (the judging is not 100% objective). Hence the need for QR - we can see democratically if more people agree with you or not. It's not perfect, but works OK. :)--Peulle 10:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Kolonialforretning Vognmannsgata 9.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grocer's shop from Vogmannsgata (no: "Wagon man's road") no. 9, Vaterland, Oslo, 1800-1850/ca. 1900. Later moved to the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History. --Peulle 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • All nice and good except for the little burned out branches sticking up in the small "sky part". One way of dealing with this is to clone those out entirely. W.carter 19:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I could do that, but since the branches really are there behind the house, are you sure that would make it better?--Peulle 23:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's just one of those little things that's irritating in an otherwise very good pic. I think it would be better to loose them. W.carter 07:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment After thinking about it, I have decided not to clone out the branches behind the house. It would feel like manipulating reality; the branches are there in real life, as a photographer I don't feel comfortable removing things that are actually there. I'd like to hear more opinions in CR; guys, what do you think?--Peulle 13:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, editing out the branches is unnecessary IMO. --Tsungam 07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Tsungam. I understand cart's point of view, but the problematic area is so small and unemphasized that I consider this a solid QI, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek 08:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 09:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Lower part of Cetho Temple, 2016-10-13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lower part of Cetho Temple, Karanganyar Crisco 1492 00:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment IMO the image needs perspective fix, it's leaning out. --XRay 05:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Barely any straight lines to follow, but I think I've fixed it. Crisco 1492 07:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Please have a look to the tower at the right. Is this real? --XRay 09:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment I overcorrected last time, but yes, the tower is not quite straight. It is on a slight angle in all of my photographs at Cetho, on both lenses. Crisco 1492 10:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment Have you tried to correct it with Lightroom or ShiftN or a similar tool? --XRay 15:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
            •  Comment Yes, this has gone through lens correction in Lightroom 6 and in Photoshop CC. Crisco 1492 07:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry, the leaning out tower on the right is too disturbing. If you disagreee, please set to "discuss". --XRay 11:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment As stated, the tower is not straight in real life. Please discuss. --Crisco 1492 06:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very nice temple pic. I take you at your word that the tower does look like this in the flesh. -- Ikan Kekek 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm afraid I don't; both masts on the right are leaning, and the one on the far left is leaning the other way. Also, isn't there green CA here? Look at the trees.--Peulle 13:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)