Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 21 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:At_Manchester_2018_097.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Faraday Building, Manchester, UK --Mike Peel 09:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Can you remove the leaves/tree brunch from the right-middle part ? --Fabian Roudra Baroi 23:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Fabian Roudra Baroi: Thanks for the review. I've cropped the image slightly to remove them. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Ok, but the crop at the top is too tight and perspective needs to be improved. --Sebring12Hrs 18:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
      • @Sebring12Hrs: Not much more I can do, see the 1st uploaded image for the original version. If these are issues, probably best to oppose? Thanks. Mike Peel 21:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I disgree. --Sebring12Hrs 17:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is impossible to make from this position a QIphoto because it is impossible to get a good perspective. Take more distance to the object or standing in a much higher position might be the solution. --Michielverbeek 07:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Oh, User Sebring12Hrs disagrees. Interesting. So let's have a look at this masterpiece of quality: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tourcoing_usine_masurel_rue_de_paris.jpg Since nobody cropped branches there, because really sharp big fat shadows on buildings are quality, I'll go here for pro. However you can arguee about the perspective, since it's not really sharp on the top.--Der Angemeldete 08:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose with Michielverbeek --Augustgeyler 15:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose crop too tight --NorbertNagel 18:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you have time, I'd suggest removing the tree brunches using lasso tool in photoshop, rather cropping it as many people are opposing the crop --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
    • @Fabian Roudra Baroi: Thanks for the suggestion, I tried doing something like that to start with, but it didn't work too well. I think it's the crop at the top that's the issue, rather than at the sides, anyway. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 19:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Puer_tea,_Chinese_tea,_Rostov-on-Don,_Russia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An assortment of ripe and raw Pu'er teas from Yunnan province of China. --Argenberg 13:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The shadow in the foreground spoils the image, apart from that shadow on the right and lack of PC --Poco a poco 17:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree. To me the shadows do not spoil the image but rather add drama and intensity in these lighting conditions. It does not have to be sterile. Also I see no problems with perspective here. How could it be with a 50mm equivalent focal length? A balanced perspective of a 50mm (around 47 degrees diagonally) always gives a natural-looking perspective. I would like other reviewers to take a look. --Argenberg 18:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Given that this is a "still life" shot with inanimate objects placed on a fixed position, I think the lighting should be better. The shadow in the foreground is especially distracting.--Peulle 08:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Sharpness and colours seem ok, but unfavorable frontal lighting with very hard shadows, shadowing in the foreground, disturbing table edge. --Smial 12:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much disturbing things: Shadow in the foreground, edge of the table, shadow at the right, verticals not Vertical, lighting. --XRay 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The “verticals” are not expected to be “vertical” here. They are shot from such an angle that their inclination is natural in the frame. Of all the issues raised in the discussion I can only second the table edge, less so the foreground shadow on the table. --Argenberg (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support As the son of a still life painter, I find this fine. I don't know what the intention of the shadow in front is, but it has a psychological effect of encroachment to me, and I think the artist has license to do that. Everything is sharp, a black background is fine and the perspective of a still life is whatever the artist wants it to be. I guess the conventions in photography may be different from the freedom painters have. Also, the various packages are interesting, although I hope they don't run afoul of packaging copyright laws, which are a very annoying cause of lots of deletions on this site. -- Ikan Kekek 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO the image would be o.k. without the shadow in the foreground, but this shadow really ruins the composition. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)