Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 07 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Miradouro_das_Rocas_2023-03-13-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Miradouro das Rocas, Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal. --The Cosmonaut 00:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 01:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching issue. Blurry frame at the right of the white car. --Basile Morin 02:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great shot but unfortunately a few blurry frames inbetween, there's also something that looks like a stitching error a bit above the frame mentioned by Basile. Not 100 % sure that the stitching around the wind turbines in the right background was correct too. --Plozessor 04:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, before nominating at FPC it should pass here. --Milseburg 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ornamental_writing_desck_in_Münchner_Residenz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ornamental writing desck in Münchner Residenz --AuHaidhausen 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Question It is slightly  Underexposed – fixable? --Augustgeyler 13:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, now it got too bright, you should not just brighten it, but increase exposure, to save the dark parts. Additionally you seamed to add some PC. That produced white stripes at the side. Please fix that as well. --Augustgeyler 16:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@Augustgeyler: Please excuse me, but I have the impression that you want to annoy me in a know-it-all manner and show what a great expert you are. Best regards -- Spurzem 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I reviewed here to help improving it. But to get such negative statements back feels very bad. Not willing to invest any more time and moving to CR. --Augustgeyler 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too bright now (darkest pixel is at 17 %) and white stripe in the uper left corner. --Plozessor 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: The photo was criticized for being too dark. Now if anyone else had brightened it up a bit, it would be good. But since Spurzem tried to improve the photo, it is bad. -- Spurzem 09:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: No, it is not bad because you modified it. It is bad because whoever edited it (you apparently) just increased the brightness so that some things are too bright now, instead of raising shadows/mid-tones/highlights individually and/or using contrast stretching. A picture like this should have its darkest parts near 0 % and its brightest parts near 100 %, this one has nothing darker than 17 %. --Plozessor 13:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment New image,thank you --AuHaidhausen 14:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Brightness is good now, but doesn't it have a blue tint? --Plozessor 15:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
 Weak support Yeah, background is still a bit noisy, but given the light conditions I think it is ok now. --Plozessor 04:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality (latest version). --Benjism89 08:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I'm surprised that the picture is suddenly good. Because I can't imagine that the floor is actually blue, but in front of the desk it's beige. And the shadow at the left would be too dark to me. -- Spurzem 22:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 04:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Jesi_-_Palazzo_Pianetti_1637.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Palazzo Pianetti in Jesi, Italy. By User:Phyrexian --Lvova 09:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but isn't sharp--GoldenArtists 14:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Plozessor 10:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Fixed Please have a look. Please feel free to revert image version if not ok. --Gpkp (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Definitely better, still borderline so remaining  Neutral, let's hear other opinions. --Plozessor 04:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gpkp: thank you, but I think contrast and colours are too diiferent, in this case I would prefer to upload a separate file. Feel free to do it and nominate it here if you want. :-) I will restore the image and the vote from Plozessor. --Phyrexian 06:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I have no idea which version shows the more natural colours, but both are sharp enough for a good A4-size printout. --Smial 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp --AuHaidhausen 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough IMO. --Benjism89 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Stage_20_Tour_de_France_2024_Col_de_la_Couillole_22.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Valentin Madouas and Guillaume Martin on stage 20 of Tour de France 2024. --Kallerna 07:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice shot! --Granada 08:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose He is far from focus point. Time 1/250 isn't fast enough for cycling, despite "Action program (biased toward fast shutter speed)" --PetarM 11:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus is on the second driver's vest, everything else is blurry. Would have been better with higher ISO and shorter exposure I guess. --Plozessor 14:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1/250s can be quite suitable in such a situation if you want to use blurring as a design element, as you can see in the spokes of the wheels, for example. But unfortunately, the focus here is on the second person, whereas it should be on the rider in the foreground. --Smial 15:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are all right! Once in a lifetime at QIC I did not pixel peep into the shot. It looked nice and as a semiprofessional sports photographer I know that it's not always easy to take a spot at the inside of a curve, so I voted in favour of the photo. --Granada 04:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree. I know it is not perfect technically, but it's quite an unique shot - Madouas and the supporting group of Pinot... --Kallerna 09:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Peugeot_e-2008_Facelift_Autofrühling_Ulm_IMG_9300.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peugeot e-2008 Facelift at Autofrühling Ulm 2024 --Alexander-93 20:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a persons face visible and there is no sign that this person did agree on publishing this image. --Augustgeyler 22:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am sorry, did not see this in the first place. --Augustgeyler 07:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There's no problem with someone's face being visible in a QI. Good quality overall. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    Considered as "Beiwerk", so identifiable face is no problem --PantheraLeo1359531 09:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good sharpness. --Smial 12:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
     Question What is the reason for the opposing vote? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The only positive aspect I noticed, and that wasn't enough for me. ..Smial 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Blown highlights + pink hue in the background -- Basile Morin 06:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Maria_Rain_Kirchenstraße_61_Pfarrkirche_Mariä_Himmelfahrt_Inneres_27072024_5242.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the pilgrimage and parish church Assumption of Mary on Kirchenstraße #61, Maria Rain, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 02:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the picture composition is "strange": The backside of the last bench ist most present. --2015 Michael 2015 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The image looks a little distorted. For example, is the big bench (?) in the foreground really as crooked as it seems? -- Spurzem 08:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Composition (with the prominent bench and the floor in foreground) ist probably not ideal but acceptable. However, it seems to lean out on the left side. --Plozessor 03:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The impression of the leaning out bench on the left side was lifted and improved. —- Johann Jaritz 05:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cutting off the lower part makes the picture better, otherwise good --Georgfotoart 11:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment @Georgfotoart: Thanks for your review. Lower part was cut off. —- Johann Jaritz 07:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The latest version is OK to me, although the composition is not ideal. --Benjism89 08:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Georgfotoart 10:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Michael. --Augustgeyler 11:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --August (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)