Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 10 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:16-04-04-Jerusalem-Straßenbahn-WAT_6246.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Scene in Jerusalem tram during rush hour --Ralf Roletschek 13:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality. (And unclear purpose) --A.Savin 17:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interresting shot, but nothing really sharp. Btw: "purpose" is not criteria for QI. -- Smial 10:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Uspenskiy sobor (Eniseysk).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral in Yeniseisk --Мельников 03:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good lightning, wonderful architecture. -- Archi38 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry no... Bad perspective and unsharp --A.Savin 19:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bottom crop, disturbing power lines and road sign, perspective. Sorry --Moroder 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The framing is fine. The power lines are incidental, this isn't FPC. The sharpness is perfectly fine given the constraints of the camera used, or even in general. The unsharpness in the corners is in the least important part of the photo. In all, it's fine. It could probably do with some barrel distortion fixing, but the perspective is fine. Ram-Man 01:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks! Power lines are realy incidental. In ahother perspective we see power lines with electric poles.. --Мельников 03:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ram-Man: I really didn't know that we had different sharpness standards depending on the camera used. --A.Savin 06:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a big difference between a photographer that makes a correctable mistake and a photographer who does the best with the equipment he has. Consider the Holga. I can see the forest for the trees. I'll never pixel peep. It is a QI according to my standards. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion, unsharp at top. Nice building and place, good lighting though. The power lines are inevitable (especially in Russia). For very special cases, it could be interesting to remove them by cloning out, with GIMP for instance. But it needs time and patience....--Jebulon 09:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support correct perspective --Ralf Roletschek 18:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a lie. Shame on you. --A.Savin 18:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Jeder Kunststudent Erstsemester lernt Fluchtpunkte. Bei nicht waagerechtem Blick müssen die Linien stürzen. Diese Unart auf Commons, Fotos kaputtzuzerren, nur um falsche Senkrechte zu erzeugen, ist eine Modeerscheinung und Unsitte. --Ralf Roletschek 18:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Es kommt immer drauf an. In other words: It depends. -- Smial 09:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective, barrel distortion, high contrast not well handled with burnt areas. The very slight CA and the unsharpness in far corners can be accepted, not really disturbing. Such photos can be taken in portrait orientation, and cropped, to address perspective problems. -- Smial 09:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Photo needs a small perspective improvement. I have tried and it is fixable. However it is not really sharp, but acceptable for a Q1photo. I don't understand why f-value 8 is used. At this moment a week decline --Michielverbeek 07:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Five meters back, I think even ten meters would have been possible, and everything would be fine. But it´s a kind of bad practice not using the available space while taking pictures. The zoom lens will do it. This is just sloppy in my opinion and is not more than a snapshot with basic qualities, because of the good weather- and light conditions. --Hubertl 17:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)