Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 29 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Patella_tenuis_tenuis_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of a true limpet, Patella tenuis tenuis --Llez 19:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the right slice is totally out of focus. --Steindy 20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It is not. Please have a close look on the surface structure, the fine lines and the dust particles are completely sharp! Perhaps you got the impression of unsharpness on the first sight, for the inner surface of the shell is very smooth. --Llez 21:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, then my flatscreen must have a defect. I see only in the outer region of some structures. --Steindy 22:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, exactly. We have good visible structures in the periphery, the rest is completety smooth (with some very fine, barely visible lines, the dust particles and and small scratches (white) are completely sharp). Have you ever seen such a shell in reality for comparison? BTW, all views are made by focus stacking, see [1] --Llez 05:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Okay, when I see these photos, I do not hesitate to withdraw my comment and like to apologize for the misunderstanding. Sorry that I have caused you problems. --Steindy 20:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support It really looks like out of focus but I believe in Llez, who in an expert on these creatures... Alvesgaspar 18:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Out of focus??? is better that you change monitor! In my 27 inches is absolutely perfect! Llez is perfect as always. --Livioandronico2013 07:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 09:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks! --Llez 21:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I promote it as the only opponent withdrew --Livioandronico2013 23:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rheinberg,_St._Peter,_2014-08_CN-15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Organ gallery in the Catholic Saint Peter Church in Rheinberg --Carschten 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • See my two annotations please --Cccefalon 21:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Carschten 11:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't like the crop - there's too much at the bottom for it to be of the organ, but too little to be a general shot. Mattbuck 18:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completely unnatural equalization in an effort to get the vertical lines vertical. In addition, the window is toal outshines top left. --Steindy 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC
  •  Support. Good quality for me! Don't forget that we here have not to vote about featured images and please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Half Support The (lack of) crop is fine, sometimes I like a little context to my images. But the angle is very awkward, causing a rather distracting perspective. But the base quality is very good: sharp, good exposure, excellent color balance, and perhaps most importantly, it's illustrative. It has the look of a downsampled image, but the EXIF is missing (intentionally?). If so, the original full size image should be uploaded, even if it leads to inevitable opposes. -- Ram-Man 04:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support This is fine to me although I would prefer it cropped in the bottom. Alvesgaspar 13:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 13:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:USO-CAB_-_20131130_-_Régis_Lespinas.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination USO-CAB - 20131130 - Régis Lespinas --Pleclown 11:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice pregame portrait-he keeps our attention despite the guy behind him --Daniel Case 04:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not accessible sufficiently sharp and especially to strong noise. --Steindy 20:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Weak Support{{neutral}} This is a borderline image, so I'm going to think about this. I agree that the composition is unusual in that the person in the background is not very distracting. The resolution is not high and the noise level approaches unacceptable, but that is not atypical for this type of "sports photography", so I think it might just be fine. Ram-Man 04:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very small (I assume a downsampling), very noisy, chromatic noise in the hair, sharpness beyond the limit IMO.--Jebulon 10:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality and composition. Alvesgaspar 13:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise and size acceptable for sports photography. (I remember PierreSelim's comment in an earlier FPC.) Jkadavoor 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise reduction has gone too far imo. I prefer more noise with a bit more sharpness. Very slight CA. -Kadellar 12:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support For QI enough.--Hubertl 12:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support For QI enough.--Ralf Roletschek 13:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 13:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 12 158842.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 158842 at Nottingham. Mattbuck 07:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I like the idea (would have cropped a bit tighter, though), but I think it's not sharp enough. --El Grafo 10:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems fairly sharp to me - you can read the unit code quite clearly. --Mattbuck 18:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dark,sky overexposed,CA,noise --Livioandronico2013 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    It's not overexposed as it's not #FFFFFF. I can't see any CA even on zooms over 300% and it's actually remarkably not noisy. Mattbuck 23:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    For me is as above....the rest are words... --Livioandronico2013 08:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Neither do I see CAs, nor is there any noise. The sky isn't blown out as well. But I'm not sure whether the composition is ok for QI or not since most of the picture is nothing but pure black. Anyway I think I am not experienced enough to make a clear decision. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of some of the QI-regulars here. --Code 18:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I've been hesitant to weigh in and cast a vote because it is so different than the typical images we see. At first glance the clarity isn't great, there is a lot of "dead space", and I wanted to reject out of hand. But not all photos have to have the same technical and compositional attributes. This image is really about the lighting. You get the glow on the train, the glow on the tracks, the glow from the lights in the tunnel, and the glow off the building. It's actually quite a thematic image and visually aesthetic. Why can't an image show it's subject primarily through light instead of detail? It is a very impressive use of light, and regardless of the outcome of this vote for QI purposes, I want to compliment the photographer for a superb job. -- Ram-Man 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- I can't oppose this pciture because I like it a lot although I recognize that image quality in on the poor size: little detail probably caused by an agreessive de-noising? Alvesgaspar 14:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, just an older camera. Mattbuck 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support interesting. --Ralf Roletschek 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I see some noise, but not disturbing, some oversharpening, big black areas, and an interesting contre-jour photo. -- Smial 15:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support As Smial, Roletschek and Ram-Man. It is not overexposed! --Hubertl 14:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 13:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:St._Verena_in_Rotwand_Ritten_Westansicht.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: St. Verena in Rotwand church in Ritten. --Moroder 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Perspective correction is needed. --Halavar 22:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the hint. The cross is tilted. Regards --Moroder 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNot really crisp enough IMO. Mattbuck 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not agree. QI for me --Halavar 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Unlike many other building shots, this has perfect lighting/exposure/dynamic range, proper depth of field, it's sharp, and the composition is slightly interesting. It looks good even at 100%. As for the perspective I wouldn't mind if the cross were straight, but it's the only thing I don't care for in the image. Ram-Man 03:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. For me, the first version was better, because it corresponded to the natural vision. --Steindy 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distortet. --Ralf Roletschek 12:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp, no disturbing artifacts. @Ralf: Gegenüber anderen Entzerrversuchen ist das hier aber mal noch durchaus im Rahmen. Mit einer Shiftlinse oder einem waagerecht gehaltenen 17er (unten dann entsprechend viel abschneiden für denselben Bildausschnitt) sähe das ganz ähnlich aus. Du weißt, daß mich zwanghaftes Senkrechtzwingen ebenfalls nervt, aber hier geht es wirklich noch. -- Smial 16:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find, with Ralf, that the bell tower perspective is overcorrected and this make the picture looking unnatural.--Jebulon 22:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    •  Question What is "overcorrected" and what does "overcorrected" mean? --Moroder 13:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      •  Comment Overcorrecting means straightening the verticals on every expense. With images taken from small distances, this usually leads to distorted proportions in other respects. --Kreuzschnabel 22:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon --Livioandronico2013 23:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 13:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(10).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Pleclown 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    White balance needs adjustment. --Mattbuck 07:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. --Halavar 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice --The Photographer 12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 12:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(12).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The judges and viewers. Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Pleclown 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    The white balance is not correct here - everything's green/yellow. --Mattbuck 07:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. --Halavar 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Its QI IMHO --The Photographer 08:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 12:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Belinskogo_Bridge_SPB_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belinskogo Bridge in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 20:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Combination of bad foreground lighting and wires obstructing the best part. --Ram-Man 01:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Wat? No-no, you have mistaken, it's not FPC, I require the arbitral tribunal. :) --Florstein 19:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Ha, funniest thing I heard all day! It's true that I may emphasize composition more than some others, so let's see what they say. Incidentally, this is an example where the red-channel clipping is unimportant. Ram-Man 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The lighting in my opinion is unbalanced and the image seems to be a bit pressed. -- Spurzem 21:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Extreme wide angle perspetive is a bit irritating, but quality is acceptable. -- Smial 15:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support A very nice image, highly evocative of Saint Petersburg. The wires are not a problem - there are lots of trams and trolleybuses in Saint Petersburg - and I think in any case they assist with the composition. I also like the wide angle look. --Bahnfrend 12:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 12:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Zespół_klasztoru_Gandan_(01).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gateway. Gandantegchinlen Monastery, Ulan Bator, Mongolia. --Halavar 20:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilt, tight crop.--Jebulon 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon --Kreuzschnabel 18:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice facade detail. -- Smial 13:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree, but here we are talking about technical qualities of pictures, not beauty of subjects.--Jebulon 00:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, of course. The detail is very well depicted with good sharpness, colours and lighting. So we see nice facade details. If I want to show a detail, I do not need to show the complete thing. And I do not need to do a perspectivic correction if I want to show a special perspective. My special view as a photographer would be broken then. -- Smial 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --Ram-Man 20:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. --Kadellar 13:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon.--Lmbuga 14:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I join the opinion of smial. No votes without firm
  •  Support Ok, a thight crop. Still an QI. I absolutely agree Smial. -- DerFussi 09:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 18:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche_--_2014_--_2781.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Holy Cross church, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Distortion and CA at upper right; sky seems overexposed --Daniel Case 05:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your review. Distortion and CAs are fixed.--XRay 16:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don’t like the strong distortion of the tower, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Kreuzschnabel. Yann 13:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distortet --Ralf Roletschek 12:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 12:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Żelazno,_Kościół_św._Marcina_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Saint Martin in Żelazno 1 --Jacek Halicki 18:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I've looked at this four times. There are so many noisy shadow areas, the lighter areas are not tack sharp. It's underwhelming. Ram-Man 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sky looks unnatural indeed. This may in this case be the result of a low JPEG quality. Can you upload another version with better JPEG quality settings? --Code 10:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. QI! It is the lack of many good photos that colors are more beautiful than in reality. But this is no reason to decline. Further I can not see that the image would be too noisy. -- Spurzem 18:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Spurzem--Livioandronico2013 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 12:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Pottendorf_-_view_heading_west.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ruins of palace Pottendorf and chapel. View heading west. --Herzi Pinki 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Distracting foreground elements. --Ram-Man 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, for me QI --Hubertl 13:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the composition is acceptable. --Code 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice, but unsharp. --Carschten 15:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition but unsharp Alvesgaspar 17:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness could be better, but it is acceptable for QI. However, there are two sensor spots to eliminate. --Steindy 01:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown sky, posterizing clouds, and most of the subject is unsharp. Sorry, I don’t think it was possible to take a QI by single shot in this lighting. --Kreuzschnabel 08:44, 21

November 2014 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 11:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)