Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 28 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Stenhuse_Gård.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stenhuse Gård en Sanda, GotlandEu, como posuidor dos dereitos de autor desta obra, pola presente publícoa baixo a seguinte licenza: --Beninho 08:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Perspective correction is needed and visible red and green chromatic aberration should be removed. --F. Riedelio 07:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uncalibrated color space (sRGB recommended). --F. Riedelio 07:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @F. Riedelio: You are mistaken about these uncalibrated color space comments, please stop. The embedded color space here is ProPhoto RGB. EXIF has an obsolete tag which can be set to either sRGB or "uncalibrated" (binary choice rather than an actual color profile description), but it also allows embedding a color profile (like ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB, ...) and those are completely valid and work better than sRGB in many situations (though not all because JPEG is limited to 8-bits, hopefully we are moving away from it soon but that's irrelevant here). As far as the picture, I believe it needs some CA removal, perspective correction, and an English description. --Trougnouf 10:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Trougnouf: Thank you for pointing this out. To ensure an objective evaluation of the photos, I follow the requirements of the guidelines. Because the sRGB color space is recommended there and there, I have noted this as a comment (not as a evaluation) in the review. If the EXIF data is incorrect or outdated according to your opinion, then this must be corrected in the guidelines. How else can someone check the for accuracy? By the way, the data type of ColorSpace is not binary but SHORT (16-bit unsigned integer).--F. Riedelio 10:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment For those whose first language is not Englsih, or don't have degrees in Computer Science, "binary" in this context means a dichotomy, not a data type. IOW, colour space is either sRGB or nothing. You could express that as a data type (TRUE/FALSE, 0/1) but thata's not the semantic of "binary" here. Rodhullandemu 13:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment For Exif-Standard V2.32 please see here. --F. Riedelio 07:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Per Rodhullandemu on the binary wording. The information you pointed is outdated (I started a discussion topic on their respective pages), I believe all recent web browsers and operating systems support embedded color profiles, and it is no longer the case that a "tiny minority of internet viewers" can view AdobeRGB; wide gamut screens are pretty common today (probably not in low-end devices so still not a majority but prevalent enough that we should provide it when useful just like we aim to provide the highest spatial resolution a camera can capture. In any case it's not something we should actively discourage.) --Trougnouf 14:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • What do you decide then? I'm just going to say that my mom liked the photo on Facebook, so it will have some quality. --Beninho 05:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely has quality, but as I said it needs chromatic aberrations removal, perspective correction, and preferably an English description for QI. --Trougnouf 06:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The discussion above was getting so long that I was getting confused, and I couldn't see whether there were any actual votes on this, so I sent it to CR for a decision.--Peulle 07:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many green and red CAs (see the marks). --Steindy 10:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:The_roadway_of_the_western_section_of_the_Bolsheokhtinsky_Bridge_at_night.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The roadway of the western section of the Bolsheokhtinsky Bridge at night, Krasnogvardeysky and Central districts, St. Petersburg --Александр Байдуков 02:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's tilted, and the highlights are way overexposed. --A.Savin 11:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin. --Y.ssk 07:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Outblown lights and tilted. --Steindy 09:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:2018_Tarnów,_Rynek_19-20-21,_Renesansowe_kamienice_10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Renaissance tenement houses, Market Square 19, 20, 21. Tarnów, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Brightness should be increased. --Tournasol7 07:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New brighter version uploaded. Hope it's better now. --Halavar 13:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 18:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:2018_Tarnów,_Ratusz_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall. Tarnów, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Brightness should be increased --Ermell 21:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  OpposePer Ermell, its too dark. --Tournasol7 07:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I uploaded a new fixed version. Hope it's better now. --Halavar 13:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Still not perfect but ok for QI --Ermell 18:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective correction is too extreme. --Zinnmann 09:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Zinnmann 09:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Grupo de sargos picudos (Diplodus puntazzo), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 42.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Group of sheephead breams (Diplodus puntazzo), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal --Poco a poco 08:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, too blurry and unsharp. --Hillopo2018 09:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I can crop out a portion on the left and ask for further options. The quality at the center/right is acceptable to me. Are you aware of the challenges and expections of underwater photography? --Poco a poco 14:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you have special underwater photography equipment or is it an aquarium snap? --Hillopo2018 07:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a SCUBA diving photo, I believe. He uses his standard Canon in an underwater housing.--Peulle 10:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Hillopo2018: the equipment I use is descibed in my userpage (section "My equipment"), the housing is this one, but that's just the beginning (add another handle, lens ports, adapter, arms, lighting,...). If it were an aquarium image I woudn't write in the title and description that it belongs to a natural park --Poco a poco 07:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Good enough for QI. --Steindy 09:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Steindy. As a photo of a school of fish, rather than an individual fish, I think it's sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 18:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Nossa_Senhora_do_Pilar_sanctuary_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nossa Senhora do Pilar sanctuary in Póvoa de Lanhoso, Portugal. --Tournasol7 09:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Isiwal 09:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please add more sharpness. --Halavar 10:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me --Moroder 08:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality IMO. --F. Riedelio 09:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --Halavar 13:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. -- Ikan Kekek 21:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Image quality is good enough for QI --Hillopo2018 07:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:St_Mary_church_in_Chateauneuf-la-Foret_(17).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stained-glass window in the Saint Mary church in Châteauneuf-la-Forêt, Haute-Vienne, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 15:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Slight horizontal perspective error needs fixing. Rodhullandemu 16:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, minimal error --Moroder 10:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder --Kritzolina 06:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Moroder --Smial 10:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek 18:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:G-TAJB_hovers_over_Pier_Head_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination G-TAJB hovering over Pier Head, with buildings in the background. --Rodhullandemu 19:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    I'd go for a tighter crop at the bottom --Poco a poco 21:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Difficult to know where, though. If you crop out all the bridge, you're left with a narrow strip of a picture. Half of it, and someone will complain that it's cropped. Perhaps you could put an annotation showing where you think it should be? Rodhullandemu 22:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    I added a note as a proposal --Poco a poco 06:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, I go for  Neutral and ask for further reviews --Poco a poco 06:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me for QIC, but I prefer Poco's suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I accept it as is --Moroder 10:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder. --Y.ssk 07:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)