Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 12 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:עין_עבדת_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination By User:Nis101 --IamMM 15:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Support Good quality. I changed my vote because the overexposition --Wilfredor 21:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now, until the very evident magenta chromatic aberration on the edges on the right side is gotten rid of. There are also some blown areas that might merit the highlights being dialed down somewhat. -- Ikan Kekek 22:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt highlights in essential areas. -- Smial 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 19:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Haardt_an_der_Weinstraße_Mandelring_9_004_2020_09_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Half-timbered building of the Renaissance and Baroque
    --F. Riedelio 11:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Blown highlights. Sorry. --Ermell 19:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    ✓ New version The highlights are not blown. They have brightness values of about 98%. Nevertheless, I darkened the area to brightness values of about 90%. --F. Riedelio 07:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    Solved quite well. Thank you. Unfortunately, the picture is a bit noisy. Also, there is still CA at the gutter and especially at the gutter it gets quite blurred. --Ermell 14:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment I can't see CA on the top gutter, but I can see the burrs. --F. Riedelio 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo --Moroder 06:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks good to me. I sure don't see much noise. I don't see CA, either. You're seeing it where exactly, Ermell? I guess my only question would be whether the photo was downsampled. -- Ikan Kekek 06:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment The photo was exported from Lightroom at a size of 6 Mpx (2,578 × 2,327 px). The original size is 3,923 x 3,541 px. --F. Riedelio 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please upload the full-size photo. -- Ikan Kekek 23:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I usually don't have a problem with photos being scaled down in an appropriate way, but with an image from a 24MPixel camera cropped and downsized to just under 6MPixels, I really expect crisp sharpness. That's missing here. --Smial 13:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version File uploaded in original size, lens flare reduced. --F. Riedelio 13:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think a little bit of unsharpness or glare on part of the roof and so forth at this size makes this less than a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you for uploading the full resolution! It’s OK, and while it is not an outstanding photo, this is IMHO just a result of the mediocre light. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 19:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)