Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 13 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:St. Antony - Urtijëi - 06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pulpit of the church St. Antony, Urtijëi, South Tyrol --Llez 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • This one looks overprocessed to me. --Berthold Werner 19:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, overdone, not a QI --Poco a poco 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
     Support A different world :) Poco a poco 17:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info Please discuss, I made a completely new version with another method --Llez 21:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks very good now, thank you very much for the new version! --Granada 07:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 17:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Speke's Gazelle - Gazella spekei.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Speke's Gazelle. --Sanjay ach 20:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Comment Is the unclean retouch at the bottom fixable?--Ermell 22:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    You mean the out of focus at the bottom? The distance between the camera and the animals was large and there seems to be have been a barrier/wall which is what you are seeing. The picture has not been retouched. If you meant something else do let me know. Thank you. --Sanjay ach 23:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I find the cut off feet irritating and I wasn't sure if this is retouched. That's not a QI for me, but maybe other people think differently about it. --Ermell 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    I'm gonna send this to CR as with the argument of the invisble feet we start to judge the composition of images way too hard (which I would wish to be made in other cases more often). Technically the image is very good. It's sharp, it's well lit and contrasty. It's shot at a reasonably wide opened aperture (f/4.5) to have the gazelles sharp all over and to blur out the background to make them stand out against it as it has nearly the same color (the reason why gazelles are mostly brown ...) . --Granada 10:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I don't understand why most of the unsharp background isn't cropped out, but the gazelles are sharp enough, IMO, and I think it's OK in an action shot for two of the feet of one of the gazelles to be cut and the other one mostly blocked out by another foot, since we see the rest of the gazelle and the other gazelle is fully viewable. -- Ikan Kekek 03:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I might have cropped it a bit tighter to get rid of that "thingy" in the top left (when cropping I always try to keep the original aspect ratio in first place), but apart from that and as stated by me earlier this is a good picture. The main subject is sharp and the background is non distracting. --Granada 07:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 17:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)