Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 18 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Rosneft_headquarter_(1902).jpg

[edit]

File:Rosneft headquarter (1902).jpg

  • Nomination Rosneft headquarter building and Kremlevskaya embankment --Юрий Д.К. 16:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Outer parts (especially left side) are to blurry. --Augustgeyler 20:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Digital sharpening did improve it. But I think it is still just not sharp enough. Let's see what other reviewers think. --Augustgeyler 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Plozessor 08:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 13:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree with Augustgeyler here. – Aristeas 13:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Warning sign Warning Once again the user simply deleted the whole image. --Augustgeyler 18:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Bunker_26_--_2024_--_0052.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bunker 26 in the Dülmen-Visbeck special ammunition depot, Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Improper use of wide angle lens / perspective problemes here: The high point of view combined with downwards tilted camera leads to an unrealistic representation of the object. --Augustgeyler 08:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Makes me smile a little: wide angle. No. It's the fixed lens of the drone. The angle of view is elevated and not comparable to shots from the ground. Nevertheless, I have aligned the verticals and hope that it's okay. --XRay 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Improved. Sorry for this. But 6,72mm – even if unaware of the sensor size – looks like wide angle, doesn't it? I was not aware of the fact that it is a drone shot. Is the EXIF data the only place where I can find the information about the drone? --August Geyler (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Plozessor 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Now the image is technically correctly corrected for perspective, and it looks completely wrong from a bird's eye view. Such a 100% correction does not always improve the "natural" representation. --Smial 14:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's a question that always moves me. It also comes up in my photography courses: What is a natural representation in photography? Naturalness is the view with our eyes from a very specific angle. However, the eye only composes the overall picture (yes, the brain also plays a role) from many individual components, photography has a harder time and only knows one representation. A "long exposure" with the eye is not possible, nor is a photo with many different apertures for individual areas (yet). The same applies to the angle of view. Of course ;-) the slanted lines are more or less normal, but there are also tilt-shift lenses that correct this. Are verticals unnatural from certain angles because they run vertically (parallel)? --XRay 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps an example will better explain what I mean: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Smial/correction_of_perspective,_good_and_bad_examples#Views_from_above --Smial 17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)