Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 17 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Travellers at Wedding Cake Rock, December 2014.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Travellers interacting with Wedding Cake Rock in the Royal National Park. (Renomination, sharper version) PhilipTerryGraham 04:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline Please don´t nominate already declined photograps again. Thank you for your understanding. --Ermell 08:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment If an image has been significantly improved since the previous attempt, there should be no reason why it cannot be renominated. I will move these to the CR section in case Ermell doesn't see it.--Peulle 11:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      •  Comment Sorry, my fault. I didn´t notice that the images have been significantly improved.--Ermell 15:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm opposed; it's difficult to get a photo good enough using a mobile phone camera and it has not succeeded here, IMO. The faces (especially the person in the middle) are not sharp or clear, and there are compression artifacts all over the image.--Peulle 09:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Wedding Cake Rock and the White Cliffs, December 2014.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the White Cliffs from Wedding Cake Rock, in the Royal National Park. (Renomination, sharper version) PhilipTerryGraham 04:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline Please don´t nominate already declined photograps again.Thank you. --Ermell 08:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Ermell: is there a procedure to getting images renominated for QI? Surely they must... it can't be just one time and that's it, especially when the image has been improved to the request of the previous commentator... PhilipTerryGraham 09:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      •  Comment If an image has been significantly improved since the previous attempt, there should be no reason why it cannot be renominated. I will move these to the CR section in case Ermell doesn't see it.--Peulle 11:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
        •  Comment Sorry, my fault. I didn´t notice that the images have been significantly improved--Ermell 15:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as the other one; I don't think the image itself is good enough for QI standard, the faces are not sharp or clear, and there are compression artifacts all over the image.--Peulle 09:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiesa del Redentore isola Giudecca Venezia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Facade of the Il Redentore in Venice at sunset --Moroder 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unsharp, noisy, and has perspective issues --Daniel Case 06:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree on noise and sharpness, ✓ Done fixed perspective --Moroder 14:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 21:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support from me; losing sharpness on the right side but otherwise I think it's OK.--Peulle (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Giudecca_Palazzo_Mocenigo_Fondamenta_San_Giovanni_Venezia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Mocenigo on Fondamenta San Giovanni on the Giudecca island in Venice --Moroder 19:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unsharp in the middle and at the left --A.Savin 01:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why having a 36 MB camera puts me in the position to elevate te QI standard of my pictures way above the average --Moroder 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Excellent response, Moroder! Definitely it's time to rename COM:Image guidelines into COM:Image guidelines for photos taken with cameras with a resolution of less than 36 megapixels. LOL --A.Savin 16:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Please Savin , don't be silly. What I am saying that reviewers should look at the pictures and not at the cameras they were taken with and that they should be evaluated according to an average standard of Quality --Moroder 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment @Moroder: Maybe you should admit that the reason why you are corrupting my username and insulting me as silly, is that you don't have any further arguments on the issue. Erbärmlich... --A.Savin 23:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I' never think of insulting anyone here, but your irony is silly--Moroder 05:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
btw I'm just calling you by your last name, what's wrong with it? If you are offended please pardon me.--Moroder 05:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Moroder: Here's how I think the guidelines see it: as technology improves, the bar for image quality is steadily moved upwards over time. Logically, a camera with 2016 technology can take better images than a camera from 1995, and a 36 Mpx camera shoots better than a 7 Mpx camera. Why then do the QIC requirements increase over time? It's a stimulus: trying to encourage people to upload quality images, better and better as technology improves. If we set the standard at year 2000 technology, I would easily be able to shoot great images using 2016 technology. Commons want their contributors to shoot the best images possible, so we'll have to evaluate each image according to the technology used to shoot it. :) --Peulle 17:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well than A. Savin is right with his irony that new guidelines should be set for the use of different technology. Cheers --Moroder 18:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Qi is not a forum to find out who owns the better camera equipment and it is not a lens test forum. In my opinion, the point here is to promote decently photographed pictures, which have no avoidable technical errors. Most of the available lenses are not capable of displaying sharp images with these cameras with 36 or 50 MPixeln resolution (or 16 to 24 MP pixels with aps-c). Thus, it is inevitable that images from such cameras can look more blurred when pixel peeping than images from cameras with a lower sensor resolution. These sensors also show the weaknesses of a lens, which are simply not visible at lower resolution sensors. My wide angle zoom was rather great on my old 6-Mpixel camera, but using it at 16 or 24 Mpixels (APS-C) is quite unsatisfying, so I need to scale down to six to eight MPixels. --Smial 09:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This is absurd! Look at Poco a poco's photos for example: 50 megapixels, taken with usual zoom lenses, and nonetheless most are sharp, much crisper than this one. Having a high-res camera is not an excuse for poor focusing. --A.Savin 12:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I'm wrong and a moron. Farewell. --Smial 19:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So are you using a new lens with an old camera, so that the sensor cannot handle the lens? I had the reverse problem; my camera was too good for the lens so I had to upgrade. The questions in QIC I guess is which piece of tech to judge from. Clearly, we decline many mobile phone photos because they're not good enough, so it's the photo itself and not just the camera it was shot with that counts.--Peulle 09:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a 1700 Euro Nikon lens and IMHO the settings and focus for this picture are perfect.--Moroder 11:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No. I'm using a lens introduced in 2005, used it on a camera from 2004 with 6 MPixels. It was quite nice then. Today I own a camera with 16 MPixels. The enhanced sensor resolution now shows errors, which were not visible in the old camera. No, the lens is not defective, on the old body it still works fine. If you have a look at dxomark you can find many lenses from many manufacturors that are not sharp enough for 36 Mpixles or 50 MPixels. --Smial 12:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough in 100% view. 100% with that camera equals 200% view (also called "pixel peeping") compared to "six-Mpixel-are-always-enough-images" and 400% view compared to the minimum required resolution of 2 MPix. --Smial 09:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. About the discussion: I understand Moroder's frustration because I admit that I normally look at the pictures at 100% view and it's much more probable to see unsharpness at this resolution. However, there are images that are really unsharp because the focus wasn't the right (or the image motion-blurred or whatever). Some way we'll need to learn how to differentiate both. --Basotxerri 20:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial and Basotxerri. Looks fine at 100%. Sharpness isn't a problem in my opinion - you can even clearly read the text on the side of the boat, the sharpness is that suprisingly good for a 7360px wide image. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)