Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 25 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Christuskirche_(Mainz).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Christuskirche, Mainz. It´s rather difficult to find a free prospect on this church in the narrow city. --Milseburg 20:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Nice. I find the pixellation of the license plates very distracting, though. If there's really an important reason to do that, please find a less distracting way to do it. -- Ikan Kekek 21:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Don’t think these distracting cars and the traffic sign make this a great photo. There surely are better ways to take a good picture of the church --Moroder 21:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think your specific points are clearly made, but on great photos: Photos don't have to be great to be QIs. That's for FPC. No offense to you, as you have shot many wonderful photos (some of which I've been delighted to nominate at FPC), but do you think all your QI photos are great? Ikan Kekek 00:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
      •  Comment Maybe Moroder got carried away by a [return coach]. I agree with Ikan. This conditions is unfavorable for FP but it´s enough for QI and authentic. I went around this church and didn´t found a better place.--Milseburg (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
        •  Comment First of all, this is by no way a return coach. I'm too many years on QIC and FPC to do such things and I didn't pay attention to the author's name of this image. Now, please Ikan don't be personal, we are talking here about this picture not mine. "Great photo" was probably not the best answer to your comment "nice", but my point is that composition , albeit very subjective, is an essential prerequisite for a QI according to the guidelines "foreground and background objects should not be distracting". In conclusion I will not oppose QI but I'd like this candidate to be discussed on CR. Cheers and good light to everybody --Moroder 06:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Info@Ikan Kekek: I´ve been looking for further information: It is legal to show the license plates in this way, as well as random passing people. So I uploaded a new version without the hidden license plates. --Milseburg 12:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support very good, especially under this difficult conditions. QI, but obviously not a FP because of the cars etc. I think it's important to have images from every side of a relevant building in Wikipedia(/Commons), and therefore it should be okay to have cars and people on your photo, but for a QI it's the challenge to include them as “harmonious” as possible in it. That's fulfilled to me. --Carschten 19:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2018_-_Schweriner_Schloss_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Schwerin Castle, the city of Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state, Germany. --Moahim 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, nice composition. --GT1976 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Sorry, Size is to small. Resolution smaller then 2 MP. Anyway, a real nice composition, with PS Gimmick (shiny window) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 05:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It was 4.9 Mpx. I've uploaded larger version. --Moahim 06:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 Comment - Again, please stop downsizing your photos. That's a violation of QI rules and an excellent reason to decline your nominations. Always submit your full-sized photo - the first time. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, it is full size. --Moahim 09:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Image is of acceptable size now. I see the glare from the window too and while it's a little disturbing, I don't think it spoils the image completely.--Peulle (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As for me this glare is important part of image --Moahim 09:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I definitely think you're wrong there. Such a strong light reflection in an image like this is a flaw, not a feature.--Peulle 13:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Peulle. That degree of glare is definitely a flaw, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case 04:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Loire_River_in_Blois_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Loire River in Blois, Loir-et-Cher, France. --Tournasol7 05:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - I suppose someone would say this photo is "overprocessed", but to me it's painterly and beautiful. I would support this for FP, but I'd recommend for you to post to COM:Photography critiques and check what reactions you get before nominating it at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek 06:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not OK with the ghost buildings. See note. --Yann 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done, Tournasol7 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 Support OK now. --Yann 13:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support A really good work imho. Litte bit dusky, but "täts" your style. Much more then a snap. Greatǃ--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Significantly downsized; 7,6MP from a 24MP camera. Opposing per the Guidelines.--Peulle 10:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still artifacts in the sky. --Smial 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, new version uploaded. Tournasol7 18:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me now.--Ermell 07:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 12:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:KGS_3651_St._Ottilien_Buttisholz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kulturgut von nationaler Bedeutung in der Schweiz mit KGS-Nummer --Chme82 20:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Real good sidelight, good focus. But really strange clouds and noise in the sky.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree: Good quality. Weather conditions are unusual, but this should not be a reason for a decline. --Kritzolina 07:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good composition, and lighting, but weird noise everywhere, not only in the sky. --Smial 08:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Ps: The image noise was developed into a pattern. I've seen this kind of pattern here before, mostly with Nikon camera photos, but occasionally with Canon cameras as well. This pattern reminds a little of Runzelkorn (wrinkled grain?), as one could observe it with wrongly treated film in former times. I could imagine that this is due to some setting in the raw developer or in further image processing. I have tried to improve the noise with NeatImage, but this program has problems with the pattern, although it usually gives excellent results with statistically distributed noise. --Smial 08:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC) (trnslatet with DeepL translator)
    •  Comment"Runzelkorn" i now, from old b/w times ː-( should meaned as "pucker grain". It´s a shock in gelatine, with difference of more then 7-10 degrees (Liquids) in film development process.Pattern is a jpg-bug (not a feature), mostly here, not in print--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 09:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Kritz. I think the amount of noise in the sky is acceptable - the photo looks beautiful at 300% of my laptop screen. -- Ikan Kekek 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose beautiful, but too noisy. I don't understand the choice of ISO 800. --Carschten 11:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    much better. --Carschten 21:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment A hard nut to crack. So, what should be done? Shall I upload another version with less noise or shall I leave it as it is? I'd have another version ready. Some of you definitely will still find some noise in it others will miss some of the details. --Chme82 18:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment Try denoising it´s worth it.--Ermell 22:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      •  Comment Done. Thank you all. --Chme82 04:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  OpposeToo noisy. I would also like to see more foreground and less sky; less sky is possible, but more foreground?--Michielverbeek 04:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment Why? The building is now vertically arranged according to the rule of thirds, if you follow your suggestion, it gets centrally into the middle, which I would consider to be much less favourable. --Smial 11:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment A new version has been uploaded. Could you please reconsider your decisions. Thank you. --Chme82 06:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Full  Support now, very good rework without losing detail. Remaining noise in the sky is no more disturbing, and not visible in print. Have you figured out how the pattern came about and how to avoid it? This could also help others. As I said, I've seen this pattern in other pictures before. --Smial 11:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm not really an expert in RAW processing but I think this kind of weird noise was caused by sharpness settings in Adobe Lightroom. If you set the value of "Amount" to the maximum of 150, you'll get this reticulation (that's the English term for "Runzelkorn" I think) like effect. I've just tried this with several pictures of different cameras (Nikon and Sony) and always came to the same result. The higher ISO has been set, the earlier the effect seems to appear. If Lightroom-presets (there's a preset for sharpening of landscape pictures) have been used (as I did), the value (which would be 40 with in this case and which is said to be a standard value for sharpening) will already be to high. I definitely need to pay bit more attention to that. Others too probably. --Chme82 19:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Many thanks for the explanation! I do not use LR so I never got such results. --Smial 14:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me --Uoaei1 10:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 15:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Cine_Cervantes,_Borja,_Zaragoza,_España,_2018-03-30,_DD_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cine Cervantes, Borja, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 20:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: loses too much sharpness and detail towards the edges. --Peulle 21:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Sharpness is adequate, but there seems to be some rainbowy (magenta/green) CA on the roof, especially on the right side. It's pretty, but it probably shouldn't be there. When that's addressed, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek 07:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Poco a poco 17:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Still a small amount of CA on the upper right part of the roof. Can you eliminate it completely? -- Ikan Kekek 22:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Sorry, I overlooked that Poco a poco 12:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks. Good enough now, I think. -- Ikan Kekek 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Really weak support per Peulle, but I feel this is still an acceptable borderline. GerifalteDelSabana 01:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 15:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)