Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 15 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Making_a_nail_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blacksmithing demonstration at the farm museum Jexhof, Bavaria - Making a nail --Kritzolina 11:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry. Even the tong is out of focus. --Peulle 13:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me and interesting. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred, subject not in focus --Jakubhal 04:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good moment. But the hole image is unsharp due to motion blur. --Augustgeyler 07:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Camera shake. --Smial 18:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Church_in_Autumn.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Martin (Nörten-Hardenberg) in Autumn. --Tesla 06:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 07:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think this is worth a discussion. It's not quite a silhouette, there's a lot of color noise, and the blurry leaves with borders are a really disturbing foreground. -- Ikan Kekek 08:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
     Info Thank you for the feedback, i'll fix theese issues soon. --Tesla 11:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    ✓ Done removed color noise, but the leaves are intentional: The are like a natural frame to express the theme "autumn". --Tesla 17:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Although intentional, the blurred foreground is awkward -- Basile Morin 06:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 Comment in the guidelines there is only the rule, that "Objects in front of the subject shouldn't hide important elements", what isn't the case. But of course, I don't want to argue your vote! Maybe there are other votes?--Tesla - 💬 15:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Composition: "The arrangement of the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject, not distract from it. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting." These blurred leaves are just intrusive in my view. It could be anything like garment edge or a plastic bag -- Basile Morin 04:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Image title: "Church in Autumn". It's clear that this are maple leaves in autumn, so they support the image theme. "The arrangement of the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject", witch is the case in my oppinion. Without the leaves the theme of the image would be gone. Nobody would think of a plasic bag... --Tesla - 💬 08:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A plastic bag yes, a piece of cloth or a flag, anything of this kind, very possible in autumn too. This level of blurriness is absolutely awful in my opinion, and I find the foreground more than distracting: repulsive like a mistake -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, its abselutely likely that plenty of dark-yellow plastic bags and clothes are hanging from trees in autumn and I would have chosen them as a motif... ;) The discussion rounds in circles, I would appreciate more votes!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesla (talk • contribs)
  • You have chosen this motif that gives me this impression exactly, sort of dirty bag or something strange orange and blurry that should definitely not be included within the frame. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find the foreground elements too disturbing.--Peulle 13:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle --Jakubhal 19:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

File:44-b Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt. Main building.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wing: 44-b Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt, Petrogradsky district, Saint Petersburg --Александр Байдуков 02:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 21:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky and window at the right. --A.Savin 03:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 08:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin.--Peulle 13:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Estergebirge_in_blau.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Raven in front of the Estergebirge, covered in the blue cold of winter --Tesla 09:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 10:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Oversaturated. This electric blue is unrealistic, especially at this time of the day (12:51 according to the metadata). The first version was probably overprocessed, and the history clearly shows the saturation has been pushed excessively later on ("vignettierung, Farbton geändert" means "vignetting, hue changed"). This is a current nomination for the photo challenge "natural's blues" of this month (apparently more artificial than natural though), that has gained votes already. However it should not be promoted QI in state. Please read our guidelines (section Color): "Quality images must have reasonable colors" --Basile Morin 01:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I changed color temp to the original version and I can ensure you, that no other saturation corrections were made. It was just the color temp, but i've reverted this now. It was a winter day and with a long distance, objects seems to be blue. So it's a real natural blue.--Tesla 07:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The sky might be blue, not the snow (at 12:51) -- Basile Morin 23:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I apologize, but it's not believable to my eyes. The trees are also blue. It's also not really advantageous in a portrait of a raven for most of what we see to be so dark. -- Ikan Kekek 08:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
*thank you for your evaluation. I forgot, that i pushed the dust-removal slider so the blue color got stronger. The original is blue too, but not strong enough for me.--Tesla 08:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I read the guidelines again, you didn't cite the whole phrase: "Quality images must have reasonable colors [...] Note that this does not necessarily mean natural colors." It's not exactly natural, but in my oppinion not oversaturated. When I took the picture, my impression was a blue landscape. To underline this, i pushed the dust-removal so the effect is clearer (see my last revision of the file). Therefore, I open the discussion again.--Tesla 16:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are absolutely right. That's why I think this image is defiantly QI. --Augustgeyler 21:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't consider the colors reasonable. -- Ikan Kekek 23:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basile.--Peulle 13:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural colors --Jakubhal 05:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No resonable colors. --Milseburg (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Bienenfresser_übergibt_Beute_im_FFH-Gebiet_Kaiserstuhl.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Two European Bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) looking like one feeding the other in the special area of conservation Kaiserstuhl. By User:Hwbund --Tomer T 08:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 08:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Surely a great scene but the head of the left bird is below the bar IMHO --Poco a poco 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that Smial got a point here Poco a poco 21:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, especially because it's a difficult motif -- Tesla 07:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support We allow images down to 2 MPixels if it is difficult to take the photo. This has about 20 Mpixels and has really minor flaws, only to be detected f the viewer is pixelpeeping. Viewed in A3 size there is no visible unsharpness. Some colour channel clipping in small, bright highlights is tolerable. --Smial 13:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Riga_Landmarks_67.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Latvian National Theatre entrance pinnacle sculpture with Riga COA --Scotch Mist 05:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Doesn't seem sharp enough to me. --Ikan Kekek 07:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review - have attempted to sharpen and forwarded for other opinions --Scotch Mist 09:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is sharper. Are those green CAs on the left and right? -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: The areas to which I think you are referring have not been 'processed' and exist on the original image - it appears that the 'light green' aged copper roof cladding, which is clearly visible along roof edges (also in the photos of others), is also probably the source of reflected 'colour' into some of the neighbouring shadows --Scotch Mist 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, cool. I still feel the sharpness is marginal and not good enough. Let's see what others think, as I hope there will be other opinions. -- Ikan Kekek 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is still not sharp enough and has very low detail, perhaps due to hard noise reduction. --Augustgeyler 07:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Your comment of 'very low detail' seems quite subjective, or do you have photos you can reference that were taken after restoration work was carried out that shows such detail? (If anything, in slightly sharpening without noise reduction I was more concerned with perhaps creating artificial detail rather than removing it!:) --Scotch Mist 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am with you. I see what you mean. But in real live even the best renovated façades of buildings have a visible structure at the surface caused by the plaster used to build it. That's what I can not find here. --Augustgeyler 21:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: @Augustgeyler: Reluctant as I am in general to post-process images, I have attempted to sharpen this image further in order to seek out your opinions as to whether further increased sharpening has been effective or has comprised QI? (This should help me to decide whether in such instances it is advisable to engage in post-processing to improve the quality of images or not!:) --Scotch Mist 17:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It improved: pre-processiong resolution could be a bit higher and noise a bit lower. But it shows more detail now. --Augustgeyler 21:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it's a bit oversharpened now, as most clearly shown by the textures of the golden areas. See if you can reach a happy medium by dialing back the sharpening just a bit. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: Thank you for your patience through repeated reviews but am struggling to find a compromise that would seemingly satisfy both sets of opinions expressed here - perhaps all I can add is that possibly the gold surfaces are not quite as smooth and regular as one might suspect (as best I can judge from limited third-party photos!:) --Scotch Mist 17:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Current version looks fine to my eye (full-screen on a calibrated 34-inch 4K monitor). With the sun at that angle, surface detail would be harder to pick out, but I do see texture in a number of places (cracks in the paint, a slightly rougher surface around the flower pattern in the columns, a sculpted look to the faces at the top). The shadows have possibly been pushed a little far, as the noise in the shade is higher, but this is only visible at 100% (which requires getting absurdly close). Overall I'd say that the exposure looks good, composition is clean, the colour appears natural, and the detail is sufficient. --Bobulous 20:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I still don't like the golden areas, but at this point, I'm going to abstain and leave the decision up to others. -- Ikan Kekek 23:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Burial_ground_crypt_Town_of_the_dead_Dawn.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination North Ossetia. The Village Of Dargavs. Dawn over the necropolis of the 14th-18th century. Above-ground tombs --Александр Байдуков 19:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Bwag 21:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Large areas of the mountain are blown. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I love that composition but have to vote with Ikan. --Augustgeyler 14:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose there is a better version nominated which is a QI. --Tesla 17:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)