Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 02 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Avaste soo päikesetõusul (3).JPG

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 12:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natural_scene.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sun set with darky background natural scene from Rajbiraj-5, Saptari, Nepal --Tulsi Bhagat 06:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Horizon is tilted, lots of noise and JPEG artefacts --Florian Fuchs 05:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I don't get JPEG artefacts-- Tulsi Bhagat 17:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo--Jay chaurasia 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted and noise reduction has created artifacts in the sky and lack of crisp detail for a photo less than 3 Mpix large. Lens flare in the middle. Title and description in file page too vague. (and considering that foregound underexposure is a desired effect) --C messier 10:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per C messier. As I repeatedly mentioned, a smartphone lens can hardly deliver quality that is sufficient for QIC. --Cccefalon 15:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 10:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Capra aegagrus (Chèvre sauvage) - 61.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wild goat in Ardèche --Medium69 18:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I'd like to discuss this photo, for me the only in focus is the head of the animal due to DOF too shallow but I'm in doubt if the quality in general is good Ezarate 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 12:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Rhinocypha bisignata male-Kadavoor-2015-08-20-001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rhinocypha bisignata, male --Jkadavoor 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose sorry, absolutely too dark. --Hubertl 11:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Are you reviewing the background or the subject? Do you know this is a black damselfly with highly fluorescent wing marks? Every bits of his wings and eye details are captured here. This may be the most funny review I ever get. (This is a hip bath shot inside a forest stream and the background is dark soil. Here it is stone and I'm not lowered that much; so an inclined view.) Jkadavoor 11:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment please, be patient and calm down (and don´t argue personal), maybe I´m absolutely wrong, maybe not. I looked at the picture with a calibrated monitor, it´s daylight. Maybe this is different to your monitor equipment. There is another problem too, the head is completely out of focus. I send it to CR, ok?. Nothing happens yet... --Hubertl 11:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry for my quick response. I'm more of a subject enthusiast than a photographer. So how I see my subjects may very different to others. And what important to me may not a concern for others. That's why add more info. Here this is an endemic species with many interesting features. It is black with highly reflective wing marks. The wings have wrinkles; it is not plane and flat like most others. It's habitat is inside the water stream; not on sides. Regarding DOF: Shallow DOF and OOF are different. It's quite natural that DOF will decrease when we approach close. I uploaded two more images in reverse order how I photographed it. here reasonable DOF; even legs are in focus. But it is only a 1:8 or less magnification macro. Here more closer; so less DOF. The current nom is an uncropped straight out of camera frame. High magnification showing details not visible to eyes. So it is a macro. (I think I explained a lot. Now I don't care whether it is declined or not.) Jkadavoor 12:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I do not know if what I write is fun, and if you do not care then withdrew the photo! However I think it is a special case and you can accept--Livioandronico2013 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 14:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 16:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I fully understand, that this picture is a rare subject in a special situation. But that is not, what QI is about (if it would, many other declined pictures should be accepted). Regrettably there is no award for the "Special subject picture", else you would deserve it. Denis Barthel 06:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There is nothing special here. I've only a laptop. But I rechecked my settings with en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Header#Is my monitor adjusted correctly?. I can see three circles in "shadow detail" section and almost three in "highlight detail" section. I can see all parts of this damselfly. In fact, details in black parts are more clear than in my old natural light shot. Only difference here is dark background which can't be brightened. Let me know if I miss something. Jkadavoor 07:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "[On laptops,] correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position." This might me my issue. :( Jkadavoor 08:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a brightened version; removed two reflecting dust particles collected on his furs too. The four marks on his wings are a bit overexposed for me now. Better? Need opinions, please. Jkadavoor 10:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 Support Way better now, go for it. Thank you. Denis Barthel 16:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --Christian Ferrer 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Your words, Jkadavoor: This may be the most funny review I ever get. No, this not at all a funny review, especially not my comment. It's not fun to deal with such answers during a nomination process. As Denis said already and I demanded, it's far better now. --Hubertl 03:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hubertl, I don't want to comment/apologize again on a matter I already done ("Sorry for my quick response"). But it seems there is difference in our monitor calibrations (from your comment on a Neopithecops zalmora here). My monitor is much tolerant to shadow details though magnifies highlights. :) Jkadavoor 05:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn´t critisized the quick response. I was talking about the background, which was too dark. --Hubertl 07:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Dark bg is common problem when flash is used. It is because flash will reflect from the subject and recorded by sensor; but there is only farther objects in bg which can't reflect any lights. People overcome it either by increasing the ISO or by using slow shutter speed. First will add noise unless we have a pro camera. Second will cause double exposure affecting sharpness as described here. I'm trying my best to learn the tricks. Thanks again. Jkadavoor 08:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The last version is very beautiful! And it's an interesting dragonfly too. What about FPC? I would support it immediately. --Hockei 17:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Hockei. Yes; this is one of my best shot so far. I've a few more photos to process taken in last week. Not of this species. After that I will nominate it. Just shared the RAW to Christian and waiting to know any more improvement is possible. Jkadavoor 17:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. --Hockei 18:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Edited by Christian and nominated for FP. Thanks all for the valuable suggestions. :) Jkadavoor 16:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 12:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Duvenstedter_brook_moorsaal_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Birch trees and bog in the nature reserve Duvenstedter Brook near Hamburg --Dirtsc 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Pudelek 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad quality. --Hockei 17:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, and artifacts probably by noise reduction. -- Smial 08:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 12:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Lsg_westerhever_schafe_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Westerhever in north-frisia, two sheep on the dike --Dirtsc 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ummh, not really sure that it is a QI, there are artifacts, some areas are overexposed, sharpening halos, the right guy is unsharp due to shallow DoF, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 20:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Poco a poco says. Denis Barthel 22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Poco. Sorry, bad quality, but nice with better composition: it's tilted--Lmbuga 12:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise reduction and sharpening are in conflict. DOF and composition are ok. -- Smial 08:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 12:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)