Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 23 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Lockheed P-38L Lightning N25Y OTT 2013 13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lockheed P-38L Lightning of the Flying Bulls (by Julian Herzog) --Gyrostat 10:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Reddish CA. Lower half of photo could be brighter. --Cccefalon 12:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see any CA.  Support Mattbuck 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 10:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok -- Smial 10:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Chicken_in_Margarita_Island.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chicken --The Photographer 03:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  OpposeThe chicken itself is fine, but the background is distracting --Uoaei1 13:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
     QuestionThere is no pro vote, so who has moved this to discussion without any remark?! --Uoaei1 06:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The main subject is well focused, rules for FP will leave them in that section --The Photographer 15:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Mind the rule: every change must be signed! This rule was not observed when changing my decline into discuss. --Uoaei1 19:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support main object is good, background dont disturb. --Ralf Roletschek 08:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The photo is very noisy (see bottom centre), and the background is somewhat distracting. Mattbuck 16:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above --Christian Ferrer 18:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Gorki-2014-victory-people-1974.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Festive evening «We inherited the victory» --PereslavlFoto 18:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Almost blurred. --Cccefalon 10:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
    • This blur is a tool to show there were plenty of people. --PereslavlFoto 12:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too much of the photo is out of focus. Mattbuck 16:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Casco_viejo_de_Dubrovnik,_Croacia,_2014-04-13,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Ploče Gate, old city of Dubrovnik, Croatia --Poco a poco 16:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Night photos are of course not that easy, but this one is nonetheless too dark I'm afraid --A.Savin 11:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    That's true, ✓ new version uploaded, Poco a poco 11:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    No reaction, please, let's discuss, to me now is good enough for QI --Poco a poco 17:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI imo. --P e z i 10:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Graphium 09:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 37 222012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 222012 at Nottingham. Mattbuck 08:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Underexposed, train is blurry. --Heuschrecke 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done new version uploaded, brightened and sharpened, Mattbuck, revert if you don't like --Christian Ferrer 11:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    Sharpened, but your version was way too bright. The exposure was intentional - it really is that dark, it's about a 20m tunnel with no interior lighting. Mattbuck 17:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)  Neutral I was not there but tunnel is a bit too much dark, at 20m it's not the night IMO, sorry --Christian Ferrer 17:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    JPEGs are limited to 256 levels of luminescence, and in to that we have to pack the whole of human experience. Reality is a lot bigger, and our eyes are a lot better than that. We can perceive things darker than #000000 and brighter than #FFFFFF, but a digital photo cannot. Here we have an extremely dark bridge, and a very bright day beyond. I chose the exposure to get the bright day, which is after all the subject, to be the right brightness. Yes, this means the foreground is almost totally black, but this is really not far off reality, and is the limit of what we can do until someone comes up with a better colour format. Mattbuck 21:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanations however here the camera registered details, I managed to find its and my version is IMO also not very far off reality. It's your choice of edition that's make me don't support, sorry. --Christian Ferrer 05:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @MattBuck; JPEG is not the be all and end all when *taking* photos. In my experience, if one is trying to recover (i.e. enhance) shadows or highlights, significantly more can be retrieved from camera RAW files. Partly because they're 16 not 8-bit (meaning less posterisation when brightening very dark areas) but also RAW files (from my camera at least) show highlight detail *above* the point where the JPEG was clipped (i.e. greater dynamic range). Your photo appears to have been taken with a DSLR, so I assume it does have a RAW option? Ubcule 12:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    That one I don't think did, the best it did was TIFF files. I use RAW occasionally, but not regularly - it's too time-consuming and space-consuming for standard use. Mattbuck 22:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Festiwal_Naadam_na_stadionie_narodowym_w_Ułan_Bator_18.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Naadam festival at the national stadium. Ulan Bator, Mongolia. --Halavar 09:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality.. OI for me. --J. Lunau 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    The colours are bad (no sky is that colour), there's B/Y CA on the wire, and I think the composition is generally too messy for QI. --Mattbuck 23:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
     Info New version uploaded. Hope it's better now. --Halavar 19:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support : QI for me. --JLPC 21:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

File:RheinFantasie (ship, 2011) 139.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Passenger ship RheinFantasie in Cologne --Rolf H. 09:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --J. Lunau 17:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    While this is not an oppose, I think the low levels need to be brightened. --Mattbuck 23:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Brightened. --Rolf H. 04:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It was the low levels I thought needed to be brightened, rather than the image as a whole. Mattbuck 08:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Portret_of_a_1_day_old_chicken.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portret of a 1 day old chicken --Uberprutser 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment I can see a computer monitor ... in the eye. IMO this should be fixed.--XRay 12:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)  Comment It's a reflection of a window and the flashlight and I'm not gonna bother photoshopping it out --Uberprutser 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    OK for me. Mattbuck 23:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Don't like the background colours, but in all other terms acceptable. -- Smial 10:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)