Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 04 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Campamento_de_ganado_de_la_tribu_Mundari,_Terekeka,_Sudán_del_Sur,_2024-01-28,_DD_41.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cattle camp of the Mundari tribe, Terekeka, South Sudan --Poco a poco 06:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 22:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
New version, looking better, I believe. Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 09:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Can't decide. Not bad enough to decline but not good enough to promote. --Plozessor 05:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The very soft natural lighting ensures that the contrasts in the details are also very soft. This is often mistaken for blurring. But I think that the focus is correct and the motion blur in the hand should not be seen as a technical flaw, but rather as a positive contribution to the image composition. A highly atmospheric and at the same time informative snapshot with good exposure and, in my opinion, natural-looking colours. I would be very happy if I could have taken a picture like this. --Smial 17:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It looks soft, but the scene is very interesting, and in overall, over the bar IMO --Jakubhal 14:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Caterpillar_D6K2_XL_bulldozer_on_a_job_site.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Caterpillar D6K2 XL bulldozer on a dirt lot job site in Campbell, California. --Grendelkhan 09:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose overprocessed --Nikride 11:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nikride --Jakubhal 12:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Note that this has not been postprocessed at all; it's straight out of the camera. Grendelkhan 08:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Your photo has really peculiar Exif data. No camera name, but an exposure time of 171/500,000 seconds at ISO 57 and a highly unlikely subject distance of 4,294,967,295 m. Did you take the photo with a smartphone camera? I assume that post-processing might have been done automatically by the camera software on your phone. By the way, things like this can also happen with "normal" cameras that may produce heavily overprocessed photos, especially if sharpening is not reduced to the lowest possible level. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
     Info Even more interesting IMO that 4.38 mm lens was recalculated to 27 mm for 35 mm film. Usually it means a smartphone or bridge digital camera --LexKurochkin 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
     Comment It is indeed from a smartphone; I've added a {{Taken with}} note. I'm uploading from my Google Photos account on my phone by sending to the Commons app, and some EXIF data does and does not make it through in an annoyingly unpredictable fashion, but the workflow is otherwise very smooth, so here we are. Grendelkhan 07:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
My Pixel 6A does similar crap. It's great for taking clearly recognisable documentary snapshots under the most impossible shooting conditions, but there are apparently numerous, often unpredictable image degradation algorithms at work inside it, which the manufacturer believes customers absolutely want. In my opinion, these are not really good photos that I would present here. --Smial 17:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 20:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Kruger_National_Park_(ZA),_Elefanten_--_2024_--_0623.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Elephants in Kruger National Park, Mpumalanga, South Africa --XRay 03:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Not perfectly sharp, but it has very high resolution and is adequately sharp at lower (still high enough) resolution. --Plozessor 04:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp, foreground overexposed --Charlesjsharp 09:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Sharpness and foreground (a little bit) improved. --XRay 05:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good now.--Ermell 10:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 20:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Glyderau_o_Pen_yr_Helgi_Du.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Glyderau range from Pen yr Helgi Du. By User:Erwynj
     Support Good quality. --Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)  Comment Reset to nomination since User:Llywelyn2000 is the nominator. --Milseburg 11:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 09:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
     OpposeIt's a very good image, but not a good image to illustrate the mountain range (fog, distracting foreground). Could be promoted with a different description. --MB-one 09:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support: good for QI. --The Cosmonaut 01:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks detail, not a good depiction of the mountain range. --Tagooty 06:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Tagooty --Nikride 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 20:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC))