Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 16 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Tramway_ligne_18,_place_Neuve,_Genève.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tramway ligne 18, Neuve square, Geneva. --Yann 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Most of the tram is too soft; the sky is overexposed; there is a perspective correction hole at the very left. --A.Savin 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I sharpened and cropped it. There are very few pixels with 255, so it is not really overexposed. --Yann 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with A.Savin on the tram. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Yarra_River,_Melbourne.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yarra River near the Crowne Plaza Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia --Bgag 01:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it's too soft at 100% view, no QI for me... --A.Savin 16:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Ermell 08:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 4metoo --Christian Ferrer 10:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A week  Support, just good enough --Michielverbeek 06:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a general problem of kit lenses and superzooms: most not-so-expensive lenses (and most compact or bridge cameras regardless of their nominal sensor specs) provide acceptable resolution for about four to eight MPixels. This hasn't changed much since the beginning of DSLR photography. You need rather expensive equipement and often a rock solid tripod even in bright lighting to achieve the full resolution of those DSLR with 36 or 50 MPix (FX) or 16 to 24 MPix (DX/crop). I believe, we shouldn't exclude images made with such lenses if uploaded in native resolution and if the photographer did not obviously made something wrong. Here we have a wide angle image, ISO200 (ok), f/9 (ok), 1/200s (ok for freehand). There are some sharpening halos which could be done better, but I believe, the image is "good enough", so also weak  Support. --Smial 13:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Newly_plowed_field.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Newly plowed field. --W.carter 21:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose AF cought the foreground. Machine and house are too unsharp IMO --Ermell 22:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahem, that was intentional. The pic is actually focus stacked to get the reeds, field and the telephone poles sharp, while keeping the background soft in the hazy slanting light. No AF was used. ;) W.carter 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Doesn't satisfy my own aesthetic sensibility, but  Support per cart's explanation. -- Ikan Kekek 22:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sadly, some parts are very mushy, especially at the left side. Details are completely lost --Shansov.net 22:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ermell: Since I have a lot of material for this pic, I have inserted a sharper house and tractor, per request. W.carter 15:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support visualy fine for me, or at least enough --Christian Ferrer 10:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject (newly plowed field) is well in focus. Interesting too though I may be biased (as a farmer). Jkadavoor 04:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)