Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 16 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Paulina_Matysiak_Sejm_2019.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paulina Matysiak. By User:Jacek Halicki --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Quite noisy due to very high ISO --MB-one 10:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info Original photo by User:Boston9 --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. Of course if I look the photo more than life-size it is noisy. -- Spurzem 08:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose is noisy sorry --Cvmontuy 18:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy for a portrait, imo.--Peulle 08:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Noisy, but useable in A4 or letter size or even larger. Probably not a studio shot. --Smial 14:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose. If this was a 1 Megapixel photo, the noise would actually not be that bad. In the default Commons preview (0.4 Megapixels), the picture looks fine at first glance. But anything below 2 Megapixels is not a QI, and at 27 Megapixels, the picture is too noisy, despite (well-visible) repair attempts. This would have easily been a QI with ISO 100. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --Sandro Halank 19:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Just noise, far from QI Poco a poco 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Разлив_на_реке_Шавла.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shavla river, Altai. August 2012 --Veteran hiker 08:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, no detail --Poco a poco 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree.  Support QI for me. --SKas 18:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Massive, irritating oversharpening, probably also somewhat high colour saturation. A pity, because the composition and the lighting are really nice. --Smial 10:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Are these problems correctable? I'd like to support this photo, if the issues described by Smial could be addressed. -- Ikan Kekek 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 Comment An oversharpening, especially if it is combined with a noise reduction, cannot really be undone afterwards. Normally, the only way to do this is to edit the original from the camera, preferably if a raw file is available. --Smial 10:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Shrine_on_Mt_Aaron.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A 14th century shrine built on top of the supposed grave of Aaron on Jabal Hārūn in Petra, Jordan. --Joneikifi 23:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Not very sharp, wrong camera settings, sorry. --Moroder 01:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
     Comment Now I'm quite curious to find out what's wrong with the settings, considering 80 is the lowest ISO on the camera model, f/4.0 is near optimum aperture for the lens (7.1 starts hitting diffraction limit), 1/1250 should freeze any motion, and I can easily see one pixel sized details all over the image. --Joneikifi 03:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    FixedUploaded a new higher resolution version with random other minor changes since I don't have access to my old settings from 2009. --Joneikifi 03:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don’t think you need a exposure of 1/1250 for a still image, therefore you should optimize aperture. --Moroder 04:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support The new development has somewhat dull colours compared to the first version, but sharpness, composition, noise etc. are ok. Thankfully no disturbing oversharpening. @Mordoder: This is a small sensor camera, and Joneikifi is absolutely right regarding the aperture setting. f-stops beyond f/5.6 kill details by diffracton and are mostly useless. --Smial 10:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The amount of contrast and other adjustments would have resulted in quite a vivid picture had there been any green plants present. The overall color of the place was very dull. White balance was the most difficult thing to choose since all the white surfaces, including the clouds, have various degrees of reddish orange tint from the famously reddish sand surrounding the area. --Joneikifi 10:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial, nominator. -- Ikan Kekek 00:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 19:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Scotch Mist 16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version is definitely QI, I wouldn't have supported the first version for its small size Poco a poco 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Северо_Чуйский_хребет._Вершина_Карагем_баши_(3962_м).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The North Chuya ridge, Altai. September 2015 --Veteran hiker 07:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Ercé 07:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Can we discuss this? Especially the bottom part looks washed out or without details like too much luminance has been applied --Podzemnik 21:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Impressive motive but missing quality--Ermell 09:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, it does look overprocessed.--Peulle 10:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral looks ok, lacking some details and could be a bit sharper, I would support if the right settings were used (ie no unnecessarily high ISO, comes from a reasonably large sensor) but exif data is not available. --Trougnouf 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

File:20191213_Cow_dung_fuel,_Himtasar_1143_8405.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cow dung fuel stored behind a house in Himtasar village near Bikaner --Jakubhal 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 02:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much distortion imo. --Kallerna 04:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna --Sandro Halank 20:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna --Trougnouf 14:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Teatro_romano_sulla_Piazza_Municipio_di_Terracina_(LT),_Lazio,_Italy_-_2020-07-17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ancient Roman theatre in town Terracina and sea in the background --Mænsard vokser 18:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Grainy, little detail, too much sky, underexposed on the main subject. --Kallerna 04:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna. -- Ikan Kekek 09:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 10:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna --Trougnouf 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Hatzerim_280616_Raam_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Israeli Air Force 69 Squadron F-15I Raam taxiing at Hatzerim AFB. By User:Poliocretes --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose foreground plane --Charlesjsharp 21:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Form is OK for me. I'd think of this as a "natural" foreground for the plane, and it doesn't block or IMO detract from the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 09:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles. The resolution is also rather small.--Peulle 10:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose low resolution --Trougnouf 14:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)