Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 21 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Bohdan_Khmelnytsky_Kiev_2018_G1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Bohdan Khmelnytsky Monument in Kiev at Sunset (1) -- George Chernilevsky 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree Nice but paper cutting is rarely a QI --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 05:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Irrespective of my feelings about there being a monument to this individual, I consider this a solidly good picture at least, and definitely a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 08:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- George Chernilevsky 19:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Large_wall_(Lasiommata_maera)_underside_Sweden.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Large wall (Lasiommata maera), Domarudden, Sweden --Charlesjsharp 09:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose The head of the butterfly is hidden, not a QI to me like this, sorry --Poco a poco 17:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Only part of the head is hidden. I wouldn't support this in FPC, but I think it's good enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 23:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Smial 08:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- George Chernilevsky 19:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Valtenesi_Air_Show_Manerba_del_Garda_2018_Frecce_Tricolori.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frecce Tricolori 2018 in Manerba del Garda. --Moroder 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'll admit I wasn't sure about this one, given the distance and movement, but I do think the details are lacking.--Peulle 17:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    I disagree --Moroder 17:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
     Support - Good photo. I think that for this scene, the details are sufficient. -- Ikan Kekek 01:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan --Michielverbeek 06:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan --Smial 08:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Bildgestaltung ist perfekt. Mit der Auflösung und vor allem dem Dynamikumfang fällt es mir schwer. Einmal braucht das im web sicher niemand. Normale Monitore können das auch kaum auflösen, daher sieht es etwas "weich" aus. Wenn man sich den Himmel ansieht ist das sicher "echter" als alles andere was man normal sieht. Auf Monster-Plakat ist die Graduation ziemlich sicher zu "flauschig"."Rhein II" sieht digital, also ungedruckt, auch flach aus. In real auf der Fläche in einer Ausstellung, ganz andere Nummer. Wollte man hier zeigen, das man mit so einer Kamera auch Hochkant und mit schneller Verschlußzeit fotografieren kann?--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm totally confused with your comment. Guidelines recommend to upload the highest resolution images possible as long as they are below the 100 MB limit. I believe that this kind of photos have to be taken with fast shutter speed therefore I used 400 ISO. Cheers --Moroder 13:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)** Comment First of all, it looks not digital for me (That´s good), more then Dia(E6). Fast shutter, is like ISO, not the real issue, and not a matter. But writing time. How many shoots can the HaBla make (2 in a secʔ?, I don´t know. Airplanes have slow motion (at endless distance) and the important details are under approax. 3 percent of projection surface. Darauf muss man erstmal kommen, sind ja keine Vögel. Nice idea, and I given you a support. I only don´t catch the aim. Biggest Fine Prints needs higher contrast then thumbnails or web based images, newspapers raster it and it´s a big job to set the sky (dynamic range)--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 05:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC).
  •  Support --Architas 17:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- George Chernilevsky 19:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)