Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 21 2013

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:IAA Frankfurt 2013.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz at IAA 2013 in Frankfurt -- Der Wolf im Wald 01:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 08:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Biopics 09:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose One of main subjects overexposed. --Kreuzschnabel 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 20:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:St Peters Church 2011.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Landmark church in Albany, NY -- Daniel Case 05:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Good quality. --JDP90 08:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose noise in sky and foreground, sharpening halo around gargoyle, what is the line hitting gargoyle and church tower? --P e z i 11:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but I hadn't noticed it before (it's not a picture I took) Ouch! Daniel Case 05:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 20:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Axel Arnbak-IMG 9036.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Axel Arnbak at the Congress on Privacy & Surveillance (CoPS213) at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. -- Rama 19:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 SupportGood quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose CA on letters, unsharp --A.Savin 21:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose As Savin. F/3.5 and iso 3000 not appropriate for this type of image--Lmbuga 22:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 Support Please don't be nitpicking. This is not a studio shot with tropods and flashes and reflectors and visagists and hours of time to optimize lighting and camera settings. There are some small clipping areas on the letters - ineglible. CA is longitudal which is typical for lenses like the one used and cannot be avoided or repaired easily. Sharpness is not perfectly on the eyes, but I still can count the hairs at brows and eyelashes. f/3.5 - 1/125s and ISO3200 does not look like there was bright sunshine. What should the photographer do? F/1.8 and ISO800 would lead to more unsharpness (low DOF) and CA. f/8 ISO 3200 and 1/20s would reduce CA - but has the risk of motion blur. f/8, ISO100 and 1/1000s would lead to a somewhat dark image. -- Smial 10:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 Support Per Smial. Pleclown 11:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Not sharp enough --Hockei (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 Support Not crisp sharp but sufficient for QI, CA on letters is entirely negligible IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 08:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 20:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Labrang_2012,_Xiahe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: In Xiahe, China --Shizhao 13:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Too noisy. Please read QI guidelines. Don't be discouraged to nominated other (better) images. --NorbertNagel 20:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    excuse please but to me its no too noisy. But where is the monument? --Ralf Roletschek 16:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment It's true that it's noisy, where is the monument?!? you are in it, it's a big-big monument (Labrang Monastery --Christian Ferrer 13:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:130713 Abashiri Prison Museum Abashiri Hokkaido Japan63s3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Abashiri Prison Museum --663highland 13:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Without HDR technique you cannot achieve non-burnt highlights and details in shadows at the same time. But here you have overexposed parts and remarkable areas with 100% black (reason for decline). You can also work on the perspective. --Tuxyso 15:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree. Perspective corrected, highly atmospheric shot with very good composition. --Smial 11:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Highly athmospheric and very good composition does not necessarily mean QI (probably FP). The massive loss of details in the shadows could have been avoided easily by using a fill flash thus it is a quality issue. --Tuxyso 18:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment A fill in flash would for shure not "easily" fix the problem, it would lead to something like this and disturb the atmosphere completely. -- Smial 16:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • If you use the fill wrong, you're right. But in your example the corridor is much narrower. Besides Nikon (and I guess also Canon) gave such cool things like Advanced Wireless Lighting to us for triggering a speedlight from your camera :) --Tuxyso (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Do you have a suggestion where to place the flash in such cases? -- Smial 23:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        • All around the floor :) It is not as "easy to fix" as I have claimed but I had the idea to use a moderate fill to bring some light to the darker areas. --Tuxyso 09:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 20:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Kirche_Nieblum_Südansicht.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church St. John in Nieblum on the island of Föhr --Dirtsc 07:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment I think it needs perspective correction. The are disturbing boughs. The foreground is dominating. Sorry. --XRay 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    New version uploaded. --Dirtsc 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed IMHO, see annotations. --Kreuzschnabel 08:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Vruchten van kastanje (Aesculus).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Fallen fruits of chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum).--Famberhorst 05:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --AmaryllisGardener 01:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    species missing. Biopics 10:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    *** Vruchten van Aesculus hippocastanum.--
    Famberhorst 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} In my opinion the image needs a crop (see note). Not sharp enough and not QI IMO: the detail is not good--Lmbuga 21:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Correctie --
Famberhorst 05:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  •  Weak support Better now--Lmbuga 19:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 20:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Caerphilly_Castle_0493.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Caerphilly Castle --Lewis Hulbert 00:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice colors --Azusa 10:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    You were going to promote this? It's completely unsharp, the left hand side is overexposed and there's a load of chromatic aberration. Mattbuck 23:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


:Oh, I guess not. I thought the overexposure was just fog in the hills without observing properly and I didn't notice the aberration. I noticed it being unsharp, but I thought it could be ignored and still meet QI. With the two points I didn't notice, it'd be safe to say that this isn't a QI. --Azusa 02:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Too unsharp, sorry. As Mattbuck--Lmbuga 20:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 20:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Church of All Saints, Odiham 1.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of All Saints, Odiham --Lewis Hulbert 08:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

     Request Perspective correction --Moroder 11:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Promotion It's unsharp anyway. --Mattbuck 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the last point, lets have more opinions. --Dirtsc 06:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    I think it's sharp enough. --Bahnfrend 05:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version reworked (sharp, noise, perspective, ca, colors...) --Christian Ferrer 13:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

 Support Nice! --Moroder 15:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support QI IMO. It's unsharp but 5,773 × 3,949 pixels. I think that it's not unsharp with 2 megapixels--Lmbuga 20:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support due to the fact that it is a little bit unsharp. But all in all a great photograph. --High Contrast 19:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 20:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Skansbergets_fornborg_September_2013_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hill fort Skansberget. Adelsö, Ekerö municipality, Stockholm County. --ArildV 07:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Comment  Support Nice composition but monotonous dark shadow, would improv imo by lightening it up about 15-20% --Moroder 12:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose bad composition: bright background, shadowed subject. Mattbuck 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree --Moroder 11:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done. Thank you.--ArildV 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 Weak support I don't like the composition, and shadowed subject, but otherwise good quality IMO--Lmbuga 20:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 20:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Grande_Mosquée_de_Sousse,_30_septembre_2013,_(15).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great Mosque of Sousse, Tunisia --Dyolf77 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline THere seem to be burned out lights in the sky (pink regions). --NorbertNagel 20:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment ✓ Done, new file uploaded! Dyolf77 21:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    Unsharp. Mattbuck 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the last point, lets have more opinions. --Dirtsc 06:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    I agree it's unsharp. --Bahnfrend 13:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. See note. -- Smial 10:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed --Dyolf77 13:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it's ok --Christian Ferrer 19:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 12:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 20:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Großglockner von der Lucknerhütte aus fotografiert.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grossglockner as seen from Lucknerhütte --Florian Fuchs 08:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline * CommentIMHO not sharp enough (especially compared to the others shots). Were the conditions such different here? --Tuxyso 08:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see where the picture is unsharp. Maybe my hand was shaking a little bit when I took the picture. So I used the new filter in photoshop to make it sharper and uploaded a new version. --Florian Fuchs 11:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    Definetely no improvement - in contrary. Maybe someone else may take a look. --Tuxyso 16:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Seems oversaturated and showing artifaction in the bottom left. Mattbuck 09:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low contrast areas remain blurred, high contrast borders are oversharpened. This PS filter did not do good work. --Smial 15:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Not the best sharpness, but sufficient IMO. BTW, it doesn't look like motion blur at all, though it could be diffraction at f/11. --King of Hearts 12:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems oversaturated and as Smial--Lmbuga 20:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Los_Angeles_Aerial_view_2013.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Los Angeles --Tuxyso 14:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Lack of details. The camera is probably not capable to cope with QI demands. --NorbertNagel 11:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree with every point of your statement. Let's ask for further opinions. Your statement about the camera cannot be meant seriously, does it? Every camera > 2 MP is "QI capable". The camera here is an XZ-1 at the same level as the reference compact model Canon S100. Please consider such shots with regard to the resolution and shooting situation. If you take a look on the building in the foreground I see no lack of details. The unsharper building in the background come from foggy air in Los Angeles. --Tuxyso 14:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
     Support Meets QI criteria IMHO. @NorbertNagel: Have a look at Category:Taken with Olympus XZ-1 to see if that camera isn’t QI capable. There are some QIs taken by me in it, too :-) --Kreuzschnabel 14:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment To clarify my critique: I don't care about the reason for the reduced quality, but the sky is noisy and there is a lack of details (and also some noise) on the buildings, which can be seen very well at the skyscapers. --NorbertNagel 19:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
     Support Regarding the conditions (distance, pollution, light) it is a good image. --Dirtsc 20:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blue cast and lack of detail (especially on the background). --Vamps 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The current amount of haze in LA is pretty much unavoidable. --King of Hearts 12:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Support A fill in flash polarizer could have helped to increase contrast resp. decrease haze somewhat. -- Smial 14:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Spaßvogel :) --Tuxyso 09:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Polfilter kann aber wirklich helfen, wenn auch nicht so gut wie ein Gelb- oder Orangefilter zu Schwarzweißfilmzeiten. -- Smial 14:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Im hiesigen Fall wäre es schwierig gewesen, da ich mit einer Kompaktkamera fotografiert habe. Das "Spaßvogel" bezog sich vielmehr fill in flash - da musste ich schon ordentlich grinsen, vor dem Hintergrund unserer "can be easily solved by using a fill"-Debatte :) Ich hatte gedacht der Gag war auch so gemeint :) --Tuxyso 09:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice shot of LA. The haze is what it is and at 8MP there is plenty of detail to put this above the threshold. --Dschwen 23:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 20:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Prignitz 07-13 img09 Bad Wilsnack Kirche.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Nicholas Church in Bad Wilsnack, Prignitz, Germany --A.Savin 13:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support very good --Carschten 13:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Needs ca. 0.5 to 0.6 degrees CW rotation --Smial 10:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my opinion it's a bit tilted CCW and, later this correction, it needs a bit of perspective correction. The signs on the right are not worth as reference (IMO): Reference lines are the lines of the building--Lmbuga 20:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)  Comment still, I could vote promoting the image--Lmbuga 20:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done tilt is corrected --A.Savin 08:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As Carschten: Very good--Lmbuga 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now. -- Smial 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Alcacer September 2013-3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of River Sado from alcácer do Sal, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too much sky, dust spots, feels tilted. --Mattbuck 17:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Dust spots removed; no tilt that I see from the vertical lines of the buildings; I like the sky. -- Alvesgaspar 21:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I've uploaded a slightly corrected version (tilt&shift), please review. Btw: should have had somewhat more sky & clouds ;-) -- Smial 12:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment QI for me if you fix the dust spots, see notes--Lmbuga 20:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO--Lmbuga 19:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 20:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)