Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 03 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Vogtlandmuseum_in_Plauen_20192808_001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Vogtlandmuseum in Plauen (Saxony) seen from the front. --PantheraLeo1359531 22:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 05:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sorry but this image need a perspective correction. --Tournasol7 06:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ich habe das wohl gesehen, bin aber der Meinung, daß bei einem tiefen Kamerastandort in der Nähe eines Objektes die Umrissse nicht exakt vertikal sein müssen, sofern sie nur auf beiden Seiten mit gleicher Neigung nach oben zusammenlaufen. Das entspricht auch durchaus dem Eindruck, den auch das menschliche Auge wahrnimmt. --Manfred Kuzel 13:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tournasol7 --Milseburg 05:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ DonePerspective correction. Is it now okay? :) --PantheraLeo1359531 13:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not really, look for example how tilted the gutter is on the left. I'm afraid the crop is too tight for full perspective correction. It also become unsharp towards the top of the roof. --Milseburg 14:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The falling lines are even stronger now. I'm afraid there's nothing to improve. Sorry. -- Spurzem 17:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Roof not sharp. But I would really like to learn, how it is possible, that the roof has double contours looking like camera shake while the inscription in the middle of the image has not. I'm pretty sure, this can not be the wind... --Smial 09:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
     Comment No, definitely not the wind ;–). This is quite interesting; what could be the reason? Camera shake seems unlikely, for the reasons stated by Smial (image centre is clear). I have seen such “outlining” of unsharp contours in the out-of-focus areas of images created by some lenses, e.g. by my Loxia 35mm/2.0; maybe it’s related to astigmatism. Could this apply to the lens used here, too? In addition, the lens used here seems to have some field curvature, because the centre of the building is sharp, the left and right margins (which should be in the same plane of focus) are already unsharp; this makes the roof appear even more out of focus, and therefore enforces the outlining. So the reason could be a combination of insufficient DOF and of weaknesses of the lens. Maybe it would have been better to focus not on the centre, but on the midfield, to get a more uniform distribution of sharpness. --Aristeas 12:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Fischburg_in_Gröden_Südtirol.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The castle Fischburg in Gröden. --Moroder 19:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Most areas of the photo show outstanding sharpness and detail, the image is also well composed and the lighting conditions are very good. But the stitching error on the prominent tree in the left third of the image completely destroys it. --Smial 21:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree It's not a stitching error, it's the shake from the wind. IMO it does not ruin the image because the tip of the tree is not the main object and it is irrelevant. You can consider it as a bokeh --Moroder 06:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
If it is not a stitching error, you have selected an inappropriate shutter speed or the camera has shaken. This is in any case an avoidable error and the picture can therefore not be a QI. I don't think the argument with the wind is valid, because it must have been an enormous gust that turned diagonally from top left to bottom right, moving not only thin branches, but also, increasingly from bottom to top, thick branches and parts of the trunk, all at the same time around the same path in the same direction, if you look at the same image height. --Smial 12:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question @Smial: Do you see camera shake also on the roofs and buidings --Moroder 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure I do. Compare the metal balls on the tower roofs. On the right in the picture all crisp, the ones in the middle visibly blurrier. The grey mountain massif to the right of the shaky tree is also clearly blurrier than the mountains in the right half of the picture, the same applies to the background mountains to the left of the tree. I would normally ignore such a small blur, because it is a photo with a very high resolution. But you ask for proofs, so I deliver them. --Smial 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall very good. The unsharpness of the distant forest may result in some haze. The top of the left tree is indeed unsharp, but it's not disturbing until you view the image at full resolution. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Dirtsc. The unsharp tree at the left does not bother me; it really looks as if the tree was moved by the wind, because the unsharpness increases towards the top of the tree; and the main subject is the castle, so a wind-shaken tree is IMHO no problem. Of course the image would be even better if the left-top part of the castle would be as crisp as the rest of it, but considering the resolution and the overall quality this is an almost sophistic question. --Aristeas 18:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aristeas Seven Pandas 22:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Manfred Kuzel 04:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thus, an obvious error in the technical realization of a photo is tolerable, if only the image resolution is high enough? Lesson learned. I should probably urgently check my ideas of QI and read the QI criteria again... --Smial 10:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment Imho it is possible to tolerate a reasonable but small amount of technical problems in photos. E.g. if sharpness is lacking in some parts of the image, but composition and lighting is excellent, the image can be judged as QI. But of course, this is just my vote and here at CR the majority decides. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment It may be easy to take “almost perfect” photos of simple things, but the more complex the subject (motif) of a photo becomes the more difficult it is to take a good photo of it without some problems. In addition, the higher the resolution and quality of a camera/lens combination is, the more obvious some of these problems will become. (Examples: Even the same lens can show no CAs and almost no deterioration of resolution in the corners when used on a 12 MPx camera, but may reveal CAs and weak corners if used on a 42 MPx sensor; the same, small amount of camera shaking may be invisible when the photo was taken with a 12 MPx camera, but obvious when taken with a 50 MPx camera.) Therefore we cannot demand perfection in every regard from photos of complex subjects (motifs), else there would be very few QIs. IMHO we should, as Dirtsc put it, “tolerate a reasonable but small amount of technical problems in photos”. And in photographs taken with high-resolution camera/lens combinations (like this one) some of these problems are more obvious; we must accept this to some degree, else it would become very difficult (not to say: impossible) to promote any high-resolution photos as QIs, and we would practically punish photographers for using high-resolution cameras and uploading photos in high resolution. We can't want to do that, can we? --Aristeas 10:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
      •  Comment For the records: This argumentation shows a certain hubris or at least an inner contradiction. In the past, QI candidates presented in full resolution often were rejected due to low blur, although they were sufficiently sharp at "normal" viewing distances or magnifications. If the uploader then resized and resharpened the photo slightly, it was rejected because of the downscaling. @Poco a poco: can surely sing a song about it. With the picture shown here it is argued that with reduced display size the obvious technical error would not be noticed. A double standard, which I really don't get. --Smial 13:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Let’s come to the point. What makes a good image? Is it the pixels, the focus, the exposure time, the technical issues or is it the object, the colours, the composition, the ambiance? That is quality imo --Moroder 21:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment Look at the QI guidelines. All aspects you mentioned are valid QI criteria, except "object". The valid criteria can be weighted. If images are taken under difficult conditions, near technical limits, they still can be QI even with e.g. rather strong noise or low DOF. I wouldn't support strong noise in architectural photography, where use of a tripod could have avoided the problem. I don't accept unsharp images taken under bright lighting except the blur is intended to visualize "action". The kind of "object" is never a QI criteria. There are tons of "ugly" objects or situations all around, if depicted in a reasonable manner, they of course can be QI. --Smial 10:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)