Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 20 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Refuge_de_Presset-Lac_de_Presset-Pierra_Menta-2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination De gauche à droite, le refuge de Presset, le Roc de la Charbonnière et la Pierra Menta vus du nord-est, depuis le lac de Presset. --B-noa 15:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, low quality. Total image might be oversharpened; only the clouds are well done. Why f-value 11, 5 to 6 would have been enough. --Michielverbeek 18:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This is an automatic selection. --B-noa 19:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If you would like to make Q1photos you have to learn to select manual (change f-value, ISO and focus constantly). Please make photos in extension RAW, JPEG is JBAD. Most Wikimedia-photographs use Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop to develop the photos. BTW: your compositions are good, sometimes even really beautiful. --Michielverbeek 21:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Great motif and composition and in my eyes it technically reaches QI level. --Milseburg 22:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I very much disagree that the diffraction caused by f/11 is enough to disqualify an image. The sweet spot of many slow lenses is f/8-f/11. --King of Hearts 04:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support To me, this is a clear QI and possibly a borderline FP with that great composition. -- Ikan Kekek 09:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. There are some small remains of CA and the sharpness could generally be better. Exposure is ok, composition very nice. f/8 to f/16 is not a bad choice for an aps-c camera with the cheap set lens. Most of those lenses are suitable for 6 MPixels, not more. With such lenses it is very difficult to decide, when diffraction begins, it becomes really visible probably at f/32... Btw: Many Wikimedia photographers do not own Adobe LR or PS. --Smial 13:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Supermoon_with_halo_over_Tunis.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Halo around the supermoon of November 14, 2016 over Tunis --IssamBarhoumi 16:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. Yes, I can see the halo. The moon is overexposed. IMO the composition must be better. --XRay 16:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree.
  •  Support When photographing a halo the moon or sun will inevitably become overexposed or burned out, it's the only way to capture the usually rather faint halo. Please compare with other QIs and FPs of the phenomena. Super-moon and halo that's a 'Support' from me. --W.carter 23:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm OK with the overexposed moon, but the photo is quite unsharp as it is out of focus. The stars to the left look more like bubbles than actual stars. --C messier 09:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. Sorry but it is possible to do much better with a normal camera. Alvesgaspar 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 17:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Schule Alter Teichweg (Hamburg-Dulsberg).Treppenhaus.Detail.3.22669.ajb.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stairwell of Alter Teichweg school building in Hamburg. --Ajepbah 06:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Great abstraction, but why shoot at such a slow ISO? Why make it so noisy? --Daniel Case 02:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Daniel Case: Thank you for review, please have a look again, noise was reduced (high ISO was made due to bad light and freehand). --Ajepbah 20:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 Support I like it now. Daniel Case 19:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question Could I have another opinion for the changed version? - Thank you! --Ajepbah 22:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Still a little noisy, but I think this is a QI now. -- Ikan Kekek 09:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft for a QI. Alvesgaspar 16:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm with Alvegaspar on this one. It looks ... smudged. --Peulle 20:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Alvesgaspar. --Basotxerri 21:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Tombe_d'Adrien_Lachenal,_cimetière_des_Rois,_Genève.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tomb of Adrien Lachenal, Kings Cemetery, Geneva. --Yann 01:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sorry: the main focus should have been on the stone and inscription. But the latter is blurred, whereas the bushes in the background, which are unimportant, are sharp enough. --A.Savin 15:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin.--Peulle 21:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin, and also all the unsharpness, especially in the foreground, is very distracting. It's quite legitimate to disagree, but that's my reaction. -- Ikan Kekek 10:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)