Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 17 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Cimitero_monumentale_Fantiniano_mausoleo_Comini_Seccamani_Brescia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Funerary monument of the Comini Seccamani family. --Moroder 07:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good but there is chroma noise int he dome --Poco a poco 14:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don’t think it bothers anybody --Moroder 12:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am nobody then? sometimes it's quicker to fix and issue than to discuss about it, this is the case here. --Poco a poco 18:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't see anything to fix here. Maybe some green-bluish pixels you see here are lichen covering the roof. Btw what I like on QIC is not taking orders but the discussions --Moroder 21:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I also enjoy discussion but if I point something out, that is obvious to me (yes, I talk about those green and blue dots all over the dome, which don't belong there), and you affirm that nobody cares about that. I've then to wonder why I spend my time reviewing your pictures and describe what I suggest as an improvement. --Poco a poco 10:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I appreciate and am grateful that you review my images, but please allow me that I not always agree with your notes. In this case: imho there is no chroma noise but at the most it's the lichen which covers the monument --Moroder 12:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Disagreeing is more than fine, I was just disappointed by your comment wondering who cares after I pointed that out (obviously I care). Let's get other opinions, no problem with that. The issue is visble and easily fixable to me, that's not lichen. --Poco a poco 12:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Can see both arguments expressed here but in principle feel I should be guided by the photographer on what is essentially a good quality photograph --Scotch Mist 07:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I see what you see, Poco, but it's not clear at all to me that it's CA, rather than real. -- Ikan Kekek 07:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question I could not find these CAs. Poco a poco, Could you please mark them? And Moroder, the only thing I could detect was the not straight and curved lines at the lower part of the building (see markings). Are they natural? --Augustgeyler 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Thanks for the note. I checked on the RAW file and it's there. I'll have to check on the monument but at present I'm "lockeddown" home :-(( --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Moroder: In that case I'd suggest to withdraw your nomination, as long as you could not check it. Or do you have another shot, taken from another angel to check these lines? --Augustgeyler 09:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've added a note, it isn't CA but chroma noise, red and green dots in the darker surface, which was probably ligthened up significantly Poco a poco 09:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are pixel-peepers but I, pardon me, think of pixel-stalkers. Take it easy :-) --Moroder 17:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am a pixel peeper, too, but IMHO the chroma noise is still OK here because, when compared with the high resolution, it’s not excessive. But the distortion, i.e. the curved lines spotted by August are a problem. It’s a pity, because overall I like this photo very much. --Aristeas 08:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chroma noise in dome. If the noise is corrected, I'll support. --Tagooty 04:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 11:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Tallinn_Landmarks_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wall Towers and St Olaf's Church in Tallinn --Scotch Mist 06:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness, and some highlights on the buildings are overexposed. --A.Savin 15:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review - @A.Savin: have attempted to sharpen image before seeking discussion --Scotch Mist 17:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Well composed. But the green trees are looking unsharp and oversaturated. --Augustgeyler (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support This version looks like a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 11:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with August that the foliage looks oversaturated (suggestion: reduce the saturation of greens a bit), but this is probably a matter of taste (photos which such greens are very common here), so OK for QI. --Aristeas 17:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated. --Smial 14:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Milseburg 15:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Probably too much contrast, resulting in nearly black shadows, like the wall next to the bottom house, and slightly blueish IMHO. Fixable. --C messier 18:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review - brightening the wall in shade only reveals characterless vegetation overgrowth and IMHO contributes little significant detail to the image and could perhaps simply distract from the subject of the photograph --Scotch Mist 16:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @C messier: Am not convinced of the merits of processing to this extent but have attempted contrast reduction in lower portion of image in the knowledge that can revert to previously uploaded version if the new version does not address concerns of too much contrast and oversaturated foliage?:) --Scotch Mist 15:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me now. --Palauenc05 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment As these dark information seam to be already lost, the edit was not an improvement but made it worse. Don't you have a raw that kept this information? --Augustgeyler 00:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yeah, the current version is not good. I've struck out my supporting vote for now. Please revert, or I will have to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 07:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Ikan Kekek: Have reverted to previous image - suspected that this 'processing' might not necessarily be an 'improvement'!:) - @Augustgeyler: nothing has been "lost", the 'shady area' of the reverted image is effectively 'raw data' as it has not had any processing (it is very dark because in reality, relative to the subject of the photograph and the rest of the image, it is very dark!:) --Scotch Mist 08:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment So I think the dynamic range of this real scene was too high to be taken without multiexposure. Just my opinion / perhaps taste... --Augustgeyler 14:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 15:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)