Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 27 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Hertha_BSC_vs._West_Ham_United_20190731_(149).jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment @Peulle: I am amazed that you can see for sure how I took my photp and how I edited my photo. I find such clairvoyance very unfriendly! I can only tell you, they are wrong, which can be seen in the inserted original photo. I made this photo original with 5,472 x 3,648 px (this is the original resolution of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II) during the match ("live"). In fact, I have only made a correction of the colors and the photo for better compatibility with me usual format 2,000 x 3,000 px adjusted. I have not even increased the sharpness. For some other photos, I am not sure what "fixes" everything with fotoshop, or rather falsifies it. --Steindy (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC) PS: If you enjoy it, I'll withdraw my nomination...[reply]
  • I'm not clairvoyant, I'm just applying logic: you took a photo with 5,472 x 3,648 resolution and turned it into 3,000 x 2,000. This can only be done either by cropping (which means you have cropped out part of the man's head), by means of downsizing (which is a direct decline in my book), or by having the original shot cut the top and bottom, which is equally damning as far as my voting for promoting it is concerned. I don't see this as unfriendly, it's just my opinion. If enough other users find such issues trivial, they can still vote in favour of it - that's how the system here works. I think it would be a good idea if you begin to see people's voting against your photos not as an attack on you personally, but as an expression of their opinion. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they could be wrong. We'll see what the consensus of this one is once enough people have voted.--Peulle 06:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nagharekhaneh_Chahartaq_(LRM_EX).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nagharekhaneh Chahartaq By User:Nikon Sajjad salemi --Hanooz 14:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Impressive view, but noise and unsharpness visible even from preview size. --C messier 12:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
     Support For me is it a great image with satisfying sharpness. Please discuss -- Spurzem 15:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
     Support It looks good for me. --IM3847 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Also seriously deformed, please look to the left background --Michielverbeek 18:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Per others. Further more missing description, metadata and no meaningful filename. --Milseburg 20:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Too noisy for such a small resolution imo.--Peulle 07:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Porsche 356 No. 1 Roadster, 70 Years Porsche Sports Car, Berlin (1X7A3878).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 70 Years Porsche, DRIVE. Volkswagen Group Forum --MB-one 09:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Der Kenner sieht, dass es ein Porsche 356 ist (oder nicht?), evtl. auch der erste Roadster, wofür aber das Rad nicht zu sprechen scheint. Ist eventuell eine genauere Beschreibung des Bildgegenstandes möglich? Im Übrigen hätte ich die Stoßstange (Stoßfänger) nicht abgeschnitten. -- Spurzem 10:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is sharp. But what will it show me? Further the composition with the cropped bumper is not good. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. Also low DOF. At least the wheel as the main subject should be completely sharp, not only partly. --Smial 12:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree with the others in this case.--Peulle 07:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

File:31.Ulica_-_Studio_teatralne_Scena_na_Scenie_-_Opowieści_wiatru_-_20180707_1627_7065_DxO.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Onstage Theatre Studio in the show "Tales of the Wind" at 31. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 04:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Is it allowed to photograph children in public places in Poland? --Steindy 12:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Steindy - this is a picture of a public event in a public space. Under the current legal regulations in force, distribution of an image of a person being just a detail of the whole, such as a gathering, a landscape, a public event, requires no permission. --Jakubhal 17:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I can not believe that, but I do not want to decide that. No review. Other opinions please. --Steindy 22:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Ok, consensual review --Jakubhal 12:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Im öffentlichen Raum, noch dazu bei einer öffentlichen Veranstaltung, darf man fotografieren was vor die Linse kommt. Nur bei Personenfotos muss der Baustein „Persönlichkeitsrechte beachten“ gesetzt werden, was hier der Fall ist. --Manfred Kuzel 10:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Manfred Kuzel, if I understand you correctly, you are referring to the usage of template {{Personality rights}}. I do use it always for all public event photos and I also used in this case. Jakubhal 10:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Jakubhal, it is about the question of Steindy, whether it is allowed in Poland to photograph children in public places. My answer: "In public space, in addition to a public event, you can take pictures of what is in front of the lens. Only with photos of people the module "privacy rights" must be set, which is the case here." --Manfred Kuzel 05:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality seems OK. As for the personality rights issue, it is allowed to capture a scene or public landscape with people in it. Photographing people where they are the main subject is more of a problem; here, the children are the background to a scene, and they must take into consideration that when attending a public event, some people might take photographs of the event and capture them as well.--Peulle 07:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Pałac_w_Brodziszowie_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palace in Brodziszów 1 --Jacek Halicki 06:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry but this doesn't look very good. The sky seems way to bright and the building (and leaves) overprocessed. Don't know what happened here; camera shake with an attempt to correct in post, maybe? --Peulle 06:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC) --Peulle 07:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Good for me; the building is in focus, I don't see a camera shake. --Tournasol7 07:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support See below. --Smial 09:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 19:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --Carschten 08:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Pałac_w_Brodziszowie_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palace in Brodziszów 2 --Jacek Halicki 06:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Same problem as the other one; the building simply looks too smooth. Too much NR? --Peulle 07:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is good. Pro from me. --Tsungam 07:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The image looks a bit soft overall, but this can also be due to the very soft lighting. Photos with direct sunlight often appear sharper due to the high detail contrasts, even if the other shooting conditions (subject, camera, lens, aperture setting) have not changed at all. At least I don't see any of the typical annoying artifacts that occur with excessive noise reduction. --Smial 09:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 19:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --Carschten 08:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Pałac_w_Brodziszowie_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palace in Brodziszów 3 --Jacek Halicki 06:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 07:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it has too much NR.--Peulle 11:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Ralf Roletschek 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support See above ;-) --Smial 09:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 19:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --Carschten 08:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

File:বড়_আহ্নিক_মন্দির.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bara Anhik Mandir. --RockyMasum 14:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Looked like a very slight right tilt, perhaps not taken from the center? Still sufficient quality for QI --Axel Tschentscher 15:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but it also looks oversaturated. The green is just too much --Podzemnik 02:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective issues, pixelation --Carschten 08:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-06_BeachVolleyball_Weltmeisterschaft_Hamburg_2019_StP_0299_LR_by_Stepro-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2019 Beach Volleyball World Championships; Mariafe Artacho (AUS, Australia) celebrates her victory for place 3; bronze medal --Stepro 01:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Face is not sharp. --Ermell 07:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Photographic shots with high sensitivity settings always lose some of their sharpness of detail, which is in the nature of things. It is very pleasing that the photographer did not flatten the noise with the steamroller and thus achieved an overall very balanced image impression. Please note the difference between studio photography and action photography. --Smial 10:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know the difference between studio photography and action photography. For me it is not sharp enough and too noisy. --Steindy 13:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me -- Spurzem 19:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell, --Cvmontuy 17:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support wie Smial --Ralf Roletschek 10:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough and too noisy Charlesjsharp 15:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 Question In my understanding of the rules this pic should have been promoted 2 days ago? --Stepro 16:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial, but why is this still open für voting? It had 4 supportive votes four days ago. —Granada 17:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a close call, but Granada is pretty much the best sports photographer we've got here. If she says it's good enough, that holds good for me. As for the promotion issue, somebody has to actually execute the decision after 48 hours (after last vote); if nobody does, people are still free to vote.--Peulle 07:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)