Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 27 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Rocks_at_La_Corniche_-_March_2021_-_E.jpg

[edit]

 Oppose Overprocessed IMO --Lmbuga 01:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination you're likely right. Christian Ferrer 05:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes, there is some processing, but not overly disturbing in my opinion. Not a reason for withdrawing… Nefronus 07:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question If this is overprocessed, what about all the other photos in this series? Wherein lies the alleged overprocessing? I think we'd benefit from having more of an actual discussion about this, as I'd like to know what I'm supposed to be disturbed by. -- Ikan Kekek 08:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is not within the same serie, it was taken another day. "Overprocessing" may be somewhat subjective, I always work a long time on my photos and all my photos are edited in a different way, sometimes the result is natural, sometimes a bit less, sometimes I am successful, sometimes I likely do a bit too much. But in all case the photos I upload are the result of an artistic arbitrary choice from me, and here I guess I'm not "too" wrong as your first comment was "Beautiful". Wether "Beautiful" is enough to be a QI or not is, as far I know, not within our QI guideline. If someone like it, I'm happy, if it is QI, I'm happy, if it is not a QI I don't care. I withdraw because Lmbuga is IMO a quite good and careful reviewer since a long time and I tend to trust his judgement. I have nothing more to say. Regards, --Christian Ferrer 09:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Sorry--Lmbuga 15:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think you were a little hasty in withdrawing the image. To me it seems a little oversaturated and if you pixelpeep you'll find some minor sharpening artifacts. I would have supported it. --Smial 11:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?  I withdraw my nomination --Christian Ferrer 16:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trollius_altissimus_TK_2021-05-22_1.jpg

[edit]

 Comment IMO clipping in photography is not particularly an issue, however loss of detail may be an issue especially when the lost details are on the main subject. Sadly to edit an area where the details are lost don't make come back the details, at best the white becomes grey but nothing more. --Christian Ferrer 05:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Sorry, the flowers seems a bit overexposed ---Lmbuga 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Nefronus 17:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Nefronus 17:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centaurea nervosa at Col de Tavaneuse (4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Centaurea montana at col de Tavaneuse in Saint-Jean-d'Aulps, Haute-Savoie, France. --Tournasol7 06:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 13:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. This is Centaurea nervosa, not Centaurea montana --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Renamed, Tournasol7 18:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support All good now. Nefronus 07:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Acanthus_plant_in_the_garden_of_the_Casa_della_Nave_Europa_(Pompeii).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Acanthus plant in the garden of the Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii) --Commonists 20:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, not straight, background confusingly intrusive. Rodhullandemu 22:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The plant isn't straight.....and don't think the background is a problem. Please discuss. --Commonists 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I guess the background is sufficiently out of focus --Moroder 05:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor sharpness and random compo. --A.Savin 18:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A. Savin. --Nefronus 18:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Русецкая_Маргарита.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Margarita Rusetskaya (by Svklimkin) --1Veertje 18:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 21:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is too noisy for QI, and when nominating you have to attribute the uploader (unless it's your image). --A.Savin 12:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy. ISO 2500? Why? Seven Pandas 00:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good portrait in nice available lighting situation. Rule of thumb: f is 200mm, shutter speed used: 1_250s. Perfect choice! why f_4 instead possible f_2.8? somewhat more DOF, that simple. Why ISO 2500? It was obviously too dark for a lower sensitivity setting when you just need f_4 and 1_250s. Under these conditions and for the fact that a Canon was used, the noise is even surprisingly unobtrusive. --Smial 08:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose soft, poor lighting, downsized. Charlesjsharp 14:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment Too soft? Really? You can count every single eyelash. Please don't confuse high contrast from hard lighting with image sharpness. Downscaled? How do you know? For one thing, in difficult lighting conditions, moderate downscaling is usually accepted here. For another, it may be cropping, because the image has definitely been cropped somewhat, at least in height. The photo also has more than 6 MPixels. In any case, that is good enough for a portrait that was not taken under studio conditions. Badly lit? It is actually quite excellently lit - the soft light may not be very exciting, but it is advantageous for the reproduction of the skin. --Smial 07:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •  Support QI IMO--Lmbuga 18:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The format of the nomination needs to be fixed so as to credit the photographer, but I would support and don't understand the criticisms. I'd second Smial's points. -- Ikan Kekek 09:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Smial has defended this photo very well, and I agree that all camera settings seem very reasonable for a portrait photo. I would prefer some more microcontrast on the eyes, but many people believe that some mild softness is very appropriate for portrait photos (else people just begin to count wrinkles and pimples ;–). The background bokeh is very good. --Aristeas 10:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per above. -- Ikan Kekek 19:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 12:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per smial Rhododendrites 13:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)