Commons:Kandidat gambar berkualitas

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 24% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
Lompat ke nominasi

Terdapat kandidat yang akan menjadi gambar berkualitas. Perhatikan bahwa ini tidak sama dengan gambar pilihan. Terlebih lagi, apabila Anda hanya ingin mendapatkan umpan balik mengenai gambar Anda, Anda dapat memperolehnya di kritik fotografi.

Tujuan

Tujuan dari gambar berkualitas adalah untuk mendorong orang-orang yang merupakan dasar dari Commons, pengguna individu yang memberikan gambar unik yang mengembangkan koleksi ini. Meskipun gambar pilihan memperkenalkan seluruh gambar yang terbaik yang dimuat ke Commons, Gambar berkualitas memperkenalkan dan mendorong upaya pengguna dalam memberikan gambar berkualitas kepada Commons. Terlebih itu, gambar berkualitas harus menjadi tempat untuk merujuk pengguna lain ketika menjelaskan metode untuk memperbaiki sebuah gambar.


Pedoman

Semua gambar nominasi harus merupakan karya pengguna Commons.

Untuk nominator

Di bawah ini adalah pedoman umum untuk Gambar berkualitas; kriteria lebih detail tersedia di Pedoman gambar.

Syarat halaman gambar
  1. Status hak cipta. Kandidat gambar berkualitas harus diunggah ke Commons di bawah lisensi yang tepat. Persyaratan lisensi lengkap ada di Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Gambar harus mengikuti kebijakan dan kebiasaan di Commons, termasuk Foto orang yang dapat dikenali.
  3. Gambar berkualitas harus memiliki nama berkas yang bermakna, harus dikategorikan dengan baik dan memiliki deskripsi yang akurat dalam halaman berkas dalam satu atau banyak bahasa. Deskripsi dalam bahasa Inggris lebih disukai, namun tidak diwajibkan.
  4. Tidak ada iklan atau tanda tangan dalam gambar. Informasi hak cipta dan kepemilikan dari gambar berkualitas harus diletakkan dalam halaman gambar dan dibolehkan dalam metadata gambar, namun tidak mengganggu isi gambar tersebut.

Pembuat
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Gambar harus dibuat oleh seorang Wikimediawan agar memenuhi syarat untuk status GB. Ini berarti gambar yang berasal dari, contohnya, Flickr tidak dapat memenuhi syarat. (Catatan: Gambar Pilihan tidak memiliki syarat ini.) Reproduksi fotografi dari karya seni dua dimensi, yang dibuat oleh Wikimediawan, dapat memenuhi syarat (dan harus dilisensikan PD-old sesuai dengan pedoman Commons). Apabila sebuah gambar dipromosikan meskipun bukan dibuat oleh seorang Wikimediawan, status GB harus dicabut segera ketika kesalahan ini diketahui.


Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }} to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }} to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives Agustus 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives Agustus 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 24 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 15.03, 24 Agustus 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


August 24, 2024

August 23, 2024

August 22, 2024

August 21, 2024

August 20, 2024

August 19, 2024

August 18, 2024

August 17, 2024

August 16, 2024

August 15, 2024

August 14, 2024

August 13, 2024

August 12, 2024

August 11, 2024

August 10, 2024

August 9, 2024

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:The_shore_of_Arabian_sea_from_Cabo_de_Rama_Fort.jpg

  • Nomination The shore of Arabian sea from Cabo de Rama Fort--I.Mahesh 00:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is not QI. The bad crop with plants in front, bleached, red halo over plants. --Nino Verde 08:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor processing --Georgfotoart 11:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple issues, with halos around rocks (from too low blue threshold in CA removal) the most prominent one. --Plozessor 11:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Breakway_in_Simacourbe_climb_of_Tour_de_France_2024_stage_13.jpg

  • Nomination Breakway in Simacourbe climb of Tour de France 2024 stage 13 --Shougissime 19:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose You have to look too closely to see where the tiny sharp main object is. Sorry -- Spurzem 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment that's the aim of the picture to look closely on the main topic of the picture. the breakway is small, 2 guys but all around you have the crowd, race vehicle, ambiance and scenery of what is the Tour de France. Main topic is in the focus and other elements are not in DOF but part of the picture because those elements contribute to the race. Moreover, this picture is already used on some wiki pages (not integrated by myself). --Shougissime 15:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Therefore the left and right parts and some at top and bottom would have to be cut out to work as composition for this goal. --Augustgeyler 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Панорама_Волчий_Водопад.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view of mountains near Wolf waterfall, Ebita, Kazakhstan. By User:Islamova.art --Екатерина Борисова 06:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The sky is very dark. --ArildV 07:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done. --ArildV 14:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great athmosphere. Foreground quite sharp. Some gradations in clouds, but still good to watch. Ziko 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment seems unnatural, the sun is on the right in the picture but on the left there are clouds and mountains also in the light --Georgfotoart 11:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colour banding at the sky, especially at the clouds. --Augustgeyler 11:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Great picture,  Oppose only because of the extreme colour banding in the cloud in the upper right corner. --Plozessor 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Muzeum_Śląskie_-_new_buildings_01.jpg

  • Nomination New building of the Silesian Museum in Katowice, Poland --Kritzolina 18:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but sharpness and level of detail are too low here. --Augustgeyler 19:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 19:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Stopping down to e.g. f/5.6 would probably have increased general sharpness, but good enough for an A4 size print. --Smial 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough. IMO those glass windows are blurry themselves. --Plozessor 04:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Trier_BW_2022-06-22_07-30-13.jpg

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Main market with the church of St.Trier Gangolf --Berthold Werner 09:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 10:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA on the edges of roofs and on the poles. --Mike1979 Russia 14:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment As I said above: Good quality. We should not overdo with our requirements. -- Spurzem 07:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Georgfotoart 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per spurzem. Possibly a little too much noise removal, but overall good enough for an A4-size print. Very nice lighting and composition, hardly any disturbing objects in the picture. --Smial 12:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with you. It's good foto. The places that disturbing me I marked by comment on foto. I thought that it's easy to fix them. But if you shure that they are minor and unimportant OK. --Mike1979 Russia 12:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
 Comment It's always a question of weighing up the various technical requirements for QIC and creative aspects and also the respective shooting conditions. I also pixelpeep when something in a photo seems suspicious to me. But I tend to look at whether fundamental mistakes were made when the photo was taken rather than whether someone has actually repaired every microscopic error. Of course, I also grumble about CA, which is already disturbing at A4 size. If you give an oppose because of the CA, that's completely ok for me, because your judgment is factually justified, only your weighting is different from mine. --Smial 16:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image and very usable in article. Maybe the remnants of that building on the right could be cropped away. Ziko 16:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. Could be sharpened slightly (and converted with a bit less NR) but still ok as it is. Some one-pixel-wide CA/halos but IMO these are not disturbing. Related, @Mike1979 Russia, you should not use image annotations to mark defects, see Commons:Image_annotations#Examples_of_inappropriate_and_not-informative_notes. --Plozessor 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is temporary to show disturbing places. I'll delete them after the discussion. --Mike1979 Russia 13:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 19:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Carved_Beams_Poomukhamalika_Padmanabhapuram_Palace_Mar24_A7C_10108.jpg

  • Nomination Carved roof beams and ceiling, Poomukhamalika, Padmanabhapuram Palace --Tagooty 01:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 01:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is lacking sharpness in the lower part, looks slightly over-sharpened and has a composition error by being weirdly rotated. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per August, lack of DoF, and perspective (should probably be skewed so that it looks rectangular). --Plozessor 04:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_-_intérieur_-_vitraux_(Chartres).jpg

  • Nomination Stained glass windows of the Notre-Dame de Chartres Cathedral (Eure-et-Loir). --Gzen92 05:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 05:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective somewhat overcorrected. Depending on the lighting conditions, architectural details can sometimes be deceptive, but the cables from which the lights are suspended should actually follow gravity and hang vertically. --Smial 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perspective correction corrected Gzen92 10:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thx, looks better, now  Support --Smial 11:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The sharpness in the upper part is not the best but enough in my opinion. -- Spurzem 17:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle,_WA_(August_2024)_-_79.jpg

  • Nomination Drip Drip Coffeehouse, Seattle --Another Believer 04:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 05:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is  Overprocessed and lost most texture and detail. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Hm, I think the judgment is a bit too harsh, this is a typical "good enough" photo for me, where the Apple optimizations (denoising, contrast manipulation, sharpening) don't interfere too much. --Smial 14:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, I think there is a reason why we call this process here Quality Image but not Good Enough Image. --Augustgeyler 15:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I like to use "good enough" here on QIC as a synonym (or abbreviation) for "has no obvious defects and overall decent quality at a usual, normal viewing distance, for example an A4-sized print that you don't forensically examine at nose-to-nose distance". --Smial 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically it's "good enough for QIC" but it's clearly tilted (right side is fine but left side is heavily leaning out). --Plozessor 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Jindřichov_-_autumn.jpg

  • Nomination Autumn in Jindřichov, Czech Republic --Pudelek 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Very nice image. But please give a more precise description where exactly this is. --Augustgeyler 18:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done --Augustgeyler 21:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support No need to knwo what exactly it is. I add a short description. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Georgfotoart 10:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are guidelines requesting a proper description. This description here is giving not where this is or what path we see or which kind of tree or park is in the frame. --Augustgeyler 16:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support We know that is in Jindřichov which is a village with 1500 inhabitants, so I think it is just precise enough. The picture could be use to illustrate an article about the village. But it would still be very useful to have more precise location ('near house XXX', 'west of the church', something like that). --Plozessor 04:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Vängåvan.jpg

  • Nomination Main fountain in the park Vängåvan in Sundsvall, Västernorrland County, Sweden. Listz3 19:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The building in background is completly distorded. --Sebring12Hrs 20:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The buildong was corrected somehow but it isn't looks like "completely distorted" - compared with this image for example Sundsvalls Enskilda Bank building 45.jpg --Екатерина Борисова 22:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Listz3, the image shows perspective distortion. Additionally it looks  Oversaturated and level of detail is too low due to over-processing. --August (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Smial 12:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted (needs perspective correction), halos around the roof and other parts (probably from too strong CA removal), unnatural colors (too much blue / too much dynamics), in general not very sharp. --Plozessor 04:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Difficult to decide. In general a good composition, and usable for an article. But the iPhone put a little bit too much of its processing magic into the image, in my humble opinion. Ziko 16:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Αγίου_Νικολάου,_Γέρμα_0491.jpg

  • Nomination Church of Agios Nicholaos in Germa, Laconia. --C messier 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 18:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)}
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration should be removed here. --Augustgeyler 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, distorted. --Nino Verde (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise is borderline but IMO acceptable, and I think it's the church, not the picture, that is distorted. However, there is clear CA around the tower. Still, nothing that could not be fixed with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 13:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Removed fringes. --C messier 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, good now! --Plozessor 04:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, some noise, but in general nice job in difficult situation. Ziko 16:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable quality. Юрий Д.К. 20:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Αγίου_Δημητρίου,_Χρυσάφα_1124.jpg

  • Nomination The bell gables of the church of Agios Dimitrios in Chrysafa, Laconia. --C messier 18:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Somthing went wrong with perspective and tilt here. The tower in the middle looks tilted cw while the rest is vertical or leaning into other direction. --Augustgeyler 20:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Support I think that all the buildings are simply crooked. --Plozessor 03:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Plozessor --Tmv 03:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  no response --Augustgeyler 14:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image somehow looks slightly distorted. If you would pull it below to the right, the large tower would probably get in the right position. But I have no suggestion for the tower in the background. In short: The photo is not bad, but I would not rate it as a quality image. -- Spurzem 16:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Made some corrections. --C messier 04:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 13:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Airbus_H120,_AERO_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(1X7A4392).jpg

  • Nomination Eurocopter EC-120 B at AERO Friedrichshafen 2018 --MB-one 03:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A tight crop, but good quality. --Mike Peel 16:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. --Augustgeyler 23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Indicivise. Sharp and in general recognizable object. The crop is tight, but most of the object is in the image. The background though is a little bit distracting, also because of the people. Ziko 16:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Foundation_series_Cybertruck_at_dusk_in_San_Jose_dllu.jpg

  • Nomination A Foundation Series Tesla Cybertruck seen in south San Jose. --Dllu 01:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; composition is good, but especially the rear is not sharp and somehow washed out. --Alexander-93 10:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Yes,somewhat low DOF,but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 13:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alexander. --Benjism89 20:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 14:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 20:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_rue_du_Fort_66_-_2024-08-05_-_01.jpg

  • Nomination Charleroi (Belgique) - Maison située rue du Fort numéro 66. --Jmh2o 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Left crop isn't optimal. --Sebring12Hrs 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Jmh2o 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong PC led to unrealistic proportions here (see the elliptic traffic sign on the left) --Augustgeyler 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello, I actually retouched the image. But I don't think the proportions have become unrealistic. I uploaded the original image to compare with the edited image. Sincerely. File:Charleroi - rue du Fort 66 - 2024-08-05 - 01 - original.jpg (Google translate) --Jmh2o 07:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jmh2o, I’m sorry to say this, but seeing the original image was quite surprising for me. I hadn’t expected such a drastic difference. The unedited image clearly reveals how challenging the original perspective was: the camera angle was very close, positioned high up, not centred, and slightly tilted. To create the final image, a significant amount of processing was needed. In my opinion, we should invest more effort at the location (in this case, perhaps waiting for the car to be moved, or using a tripod for a higher angle) rather than relying heavily on post-processing. Alternatively, if it's not possible to achieve a geometrically accurate image due to the circumstances, we could consider nominating it as a Valued Image instead of a Quality Image. In this case, the result appears  Overprocessed. --August (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment When you see Velvet or Tournasol7 pictures, this is the same thing. You can't take good pictures in thoose very tight streets. You need to correct the perspective. --Sebring12Hrs 09:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • If so you have to except that we can sometimes not get QIs form some objects. But in this special case the original image was taken without doing everything to get the best possible. It was not even taken from a centred position. --Augustgeyler 09:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: merci pour les conseils. --Jmh2o 17:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Le 5 août, j'ai eu plus de chance (Category:Rue de la Science (Charleroi)). Une seule voiture dans la rue. Mais, c'était les vacances scolaires, et derrière moi, il y avait une école. --Jmh2o 17:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • [Translated with AI] Oui, Jmh2o, la plupart des autres images de la catégorie semblent nettement meilleures. Il semble qu'il ait été nécessaire de faire moins de corrections sur celles-ci. En plus, tu as pu te placer dans un point de vue central pour de nombreuses maisons, ce qui aide beaucoup. Cependant, le meilleur résultat ne peut être obtenu que si tu pouvais également élever la caméra à la moitié de la hauteur du bâtiment, par exemple en photographiant depuis le premier étage de la maison en face :-) . Mais je sais que cela n'est possible que dans des cas très particuliers, lorsque ce type d'accès se présente par hasard. Merci pour ton engagement à documenter toutes ces rues. --August (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: merci pour le conseil, mais hélas, avoir accès à l'étage d'un immeuble privé est très difficile. Concernant mon engagement, je vis dans la ville que je photographie. J'y suis membre d'une très ancienne société (fondée en 1863) qui est attentif au patrimoine. "Photographier à tout prix" est pour moi important. Et revenir régulièrement sur les mêmes lieux pour voir l'évolution de celui-ci. Et puis, publier. Sur Wikimedia Commons, car cela me semble la solution libre la plus durable. Bien à toi. --Jmh2o 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Merci pour ton éclairage sur ton travail. Lorsque je formule une critique ici, ce n’est pas pour critiquer (par exemple) cette photo en tant que telle. Elle est déjà précieuse pour les raisons que tu as mentionnées. C'est pourquoi il est souvent judicieux de désigner de telles photos comme "Images de valeur". Cependant, dans nos discussions sur les candidats pour les "Quality Images", il s'agit d'examiner au cas par cas si une photo, dans les conditions données, a été réalisée avec suffisamment de soin pour répondre aux exigences de qualité des QI. Malheureusement, il y a des situations où des photos précieuses de bâtiments historiques ne peuvent pas être prises sans beaucoup de moyens : un accès à un bâtiment voisin, une grue ou un drone, par exemple. En effet, une correction excessive des perspectives verticales devient difficile au-delà d'un certain degré si l'on veut maintenir une reproduction précise. Et lorsqu'une correction intensive de l'axe horizontal s'ajoute, comme c'est le cas pour cette photo, je pense que l'image ne répond plus aux exigences des QI. Cependant, comme tu peux le constater dans la discussion, cela est interprété de manière très différente. Merci beaucoup pour tes contributions.
    English: Thank you for sharing insights into your work. When I offer criticism here, it's not to criticize (for example) this photo of yours as such. It is already valuable for the reasons you've mentioned. That's why it's often a good idea to designate such photos as "Valued Images." However, in our discussions about candidates for "Quality Images," the focus is on whether, in each specific case, a photo has been created under the given conditions with enough care to meet the quality requirements of QI. Unfortunately, there are situations where valuable photos of historical buildings can't be taken without considerable effort—such as access to a neighboring building, a crane, or a drone. Extreme perspective correction of vertical lines becomes difficult beyond a certain point when precise reproduction is the goal. And when, as in this photo, there is also significant correction of the horizontal axis, I believe the image falls short of QI standards. But as you can see from the discussion, opinions on this matter vary greatly. Thank you very much for your contributions. --Augustgeyler 14:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK now. Contrast could be better, but it's acceptable. --XRay 07:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The vertical distorsion (due to correcting the fact that the picture was taken from street level) isn't bothering me so much here, but the horizontal distorsion (due to an uncentered point of view) is what makes me weakly oppose : the different width of the two central windows, for instance, creates something strange. --Benjism89 20:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 20:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

  • Jum 16 Ags → Sab 24 Ags
  • Sab 17 Ags → Min 25 Ags
  • Min 18 Ags → Sen 26 Ags
  • Sen 19 Ags → Sel 27 Ags
  • Sel 20 Ags → Rab 28 Ags
  • Rab 21 Ags → Kam 29 Ags
  • Kam 22 Ags → Jum 30 Ags
  • Jum 23 Ags → Sab 31 Ags
  • Sab 24 Ags → Min 01 Sep