Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 28 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Torre_de_Hércules,_La_Coruña,_España,_2015-09-24,_DD_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hercules Tower, La Coruña, Spain --Poco a poco 08:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The tower is leaning to the left. --Hubertl 08:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} sorry Poco, but Jacek didn´t wanted to wait for your response. So I have to set this picture to discuss. Nice picture, QI after improvement. --Hubertl 21:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 20:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 20:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Andrés,_Calatayud,_España,_2015-01-09,_DD_031-033_HDR.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of St Andrew, Calatayud, Spain --Poco a poco 16:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 17:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to disagree, because of the too strong flare.--Jebulon 23:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
     Question What do you mean with "flare". Further to the left there is a window, so yes, there is a light source, but not a flare (that would be indeed a quality issues). Poco a poco 19:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    You answered your own question, and understood the reason of my oppose.--Jebulon 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a problem we unfortunately have often when taking pictures of oil-paintings. But a quality image should show nearly original colors. -- Spurzem 23:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The "flare" I see is not on the painting itself, but is due to the light source at left. It affects the whole left part of the image.--Jebulon 16:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The "flare" or whatever this light source may be is quite disturbing. I'm not really happy with the bottom crop as well. --Code 16:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

File:White-winged_swallow_(Tachycineta_albiventer)_2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination White-winged swallow (Tachycineta albiventer), the Pantanal, Brazil --Charlesjsharp 19:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Jpeg artifacts too strong, loss of detail in not-so-big image. --Kadellar 20:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment New version uploaded though couldn't see big issues with the original. See what another voter thinks... Charlesjsharp 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Previous version was better. A bit sharper, better WB. Anyway, still noisy, artifacts. --Kadellar 18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality,for me it's a QI. --El Golli Mohamed 09:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Although I agree with the critical suggestions, the overall quality warrants a QI promotion for me. If you ever get the chance to shoot again this bird, I would suggest a lower ISO, bigger aperture and longer exposure time, as well as higher JPEG quality (less compression). --Hendric Stattmann 15:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • From your comments cannot be familiar with photographing birds in a boat on a fast-flowing river using a handheld 400mm lens in limited light conditions. 1/800 F10 ISO800 meant I got reasonable depth of field. It's not like photographing landscapes. You have to anticipate the action. Try it sometime! Charlesjsharp 18:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 17:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Yellow-faced_parrot_(Alipiopsitta_xanthops)_green_morph.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow-faced parrot (Alipiopsitta xanthops) green morph, the Pantanal, Brazil --Charlesjsharp 19:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy or soft, specially concerning size. Jpeg compression artifacts too strong. --Kadellar 18:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality, It can't be at the same time too noisy and soft, for me it's ok: a QI for me. --El Golli Mohamed 09:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Just good enough to me. Color and sharpness is fine. I do see remaining color noise, as well as washed out details from the effect of denoising. It might have been better if a larger aperture was used, in order to reduce the ISO (f/5.0 and 200 ISO at 1/640s, for example). --Hendric Stattmann 15:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • From your comments cannot be familiar with photographing wild animals handheld using a 400mm lens in limited light conditions. 1/800 F10 ISO800 meant I got reasonable depth of field. You also must realize that birds do not remain perched for very long - it's not like photographing landscapes. You have to anticipate the action. Charlesjsharp 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 12:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)