Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 04 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Endeavour_Condominiums_--_Houston_Clear_Lake.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Located near the Johnson Space Center, Endeavour Condominiums is on the Clear Lake waterfront in Houston's Bay Area --Jim Evans 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The view is beautiful, but digital processing artefacts are visible at full resolution, JPEG compression looks too high. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 20:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Let's discuss your review comments. If you're referring to the waviness in the lines of the windows and balconies. I wondered about them too. They were not caused by digital processing. They're in the original image. The only processing I did to the lighted part of the building was removing tilt and cropping. There was processing done to bring out shadows on the dark/left side. I wondered what caused the distortion. This was shot at circa 400mm over water. All I can guess is it's atmospheric distortion. Perhaps I oversharpened, but no unusual JPEG compression was used. -- Jim Evans 21:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The nominator asked for discussion -- Did you process original RAW file or camera JPEG? --LexKurochkin 23:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment In this case it was a JPEG but at the highest quality. I'm not sure I understand your question about processing? -- Jim Evans 01:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Let me explain my opinion. Yes, thin high contrast elements and edges are wavy. There are also several other signs of overprocessing. For example, look at the thin dark line on the left side of the building above the green tree. It has sharp high contrast edge but the surroundings are not that sharp and lack details at full resolution. These effects cannot be produced by means of optics. It is something digital. On the other hand, JPEG always means some digital processing of raw image data. Some devices hide it from a user, but that does not matter, do you control the process or not. If the original JPEG file produced by software embedded in a camera already had wavy edges it was not of high quality IMHO. -- LexKurochkin 16:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The distorted edges on the building are probably due to thermally induced air turbulence. This is unavoidable. But the photo has too much color noise overall, especially in the sky there are disturbing gradations in the color tones. --Smial 10:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 22:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Lille_hotel_bellevue_cote_gd_place.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bellevue Hotel, Lille, France --Velvet 07:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I think people roaming had degraded the image quality. --Junior Jumper 10:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to disagree, cities are filled with people (very few in this case, considering it is the main square of the city) --Velvet 16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I absolutly disagree, people is part of the city, good quality for sure ! Beautiful eclectic building. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, and the people are not bothersome and as Sebring12Hrs said, normal to see in front of the bottom of a building in a city. -- Ikan Kekek 08:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, the people don't bother me that much --Navneetsharmaiit 10:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 22:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Almodóvar_del_Río_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Almodóvar del Río and the castle of Almodóvar del Río. --Kallerna 07:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 08:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: unsharp. --A.Savin 21:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  SupportNoise reduction settings a bit high, so some fine details are unnecessarily lost. But still sharp enough to be printed at A3 size or larger. --Smial 12:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp --Commonists 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial – not really unsharp, rather a bit too much noise reduction, IMHO still OK. --Aristeas 10:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough IMHO. --C messier 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose On the whole, I agree with the critics. Maybe noise reduction is more of an issue than unsharpness, but the result is that there are areas that I find displeasing to look at. -- Ikan Kekek 06:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Palauenc05 12:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough --LexKurochkin 09:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Milseburg 22:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)