Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 01 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:FDR_memorial_quote.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Inscription at FDR Four Freedoms Park/National Memorial on Roosevelt Island (Manhattan). --Rhododendrites 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice composition and touchy light well managed --Daniel Case 00:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Loss of fine details. Typical low quality of a smartphone. --Cccefalon 07:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. There are minor problems with noise reduction vs. chroma noise and slight overexposure in the sky in the background. Both flaws do not affect the main object. Sharpening artifacts are also not disturbing, less than in many images made with "big" cameras already promoted here. The photographer has done nothing wrong and got the best out of his camera, good composition, colours appear natural, etc. -- Smial 08:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Queensboro_Bridge_and_LIC_from_RI_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Queensboro Bridge as seen from the east side of Roosevelt Island, looking towards Long Island City, Queens. --Rhododendrites 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice detail and color for this time of year --Daniel Case 00:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Artefacts in the water. Tilted. Lack of details. Smartphone quality is in general problematic for QI. --Cccefalon 06:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Cccfalon. Very nice composition, though. -- Smial 08:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File:FDR_memorial_view_of_East_River.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination FDR Four Freedoms Park on the south end of Roosevelt Island (Manhattan). View of the East River, looking SW. --Rhododendrites 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice perspective and mood --Daniel Case 00:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted ccw. --Cccefalon 06:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done straightened. Rhododendrites 21:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I don't want to be the killjoy, but I really don't think, that a smartphone is delivering sufficient quality to meet the criterias concerning overall sharpness, fine details and structures. When watching your images in full resolution you see everywhere the shortcomings of a photo, that was not developped from RAW and that is suffering the limitations of a suitable lens. --Cccefalon 07:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Cccefalon: No worries. When I looked at a bunch of QIs before nominating my first the other day, I guess I got the impression that the smartphone's quality level of is somewhere in the lower levels of acceptability (i.e. just barely), but I can appreciate that that's a nuanced gray area and that my evaluation based on that cursory review might not be in line with consensus. Time to search the Christmas sales flyers, maybe :) It's also helpful to get this feedback because I work for the Wiki Education Foundation and sometimes work with instructors who have students upload photos. I'm semi-active on Commons myself, but wanted a better handle of how the QI process works and what to expect should an instructor decide to nominate a student's (or if students nominate their own). Given most students would be taking pictures with smartphones, too, it's useful to know to set expectations accordingly. Rhododendrites 15:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice shot, but in this case the camera was at its limits and could not handle the high contrast. -- Smial 08:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Summer garden in Saint Petersburg allegory of truth.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marble statue allegory of vanity in the Summer Garden in Saint Petersburg --Moroder 09:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Jacek79 20:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jacek79: do you mean the background. --Moroder 21:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Not only! Parts of the face are also slightly blurry. --Jacek79 20:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is perfectly on that object in the hand of the statue. DOF could have been somewhat higher. But there are a lots of artifacts by blurring the background (or sharpening the statue) at the edges in the right part of the image. Masking error. -- Smial 12:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Truely I don't see these artifacts and there can't be a masking error since I didn't any sharpening or marking or whatsoever, The image is exactly as it came out of the camera --Moroder 19:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Then Nikon seems to have massive problems handling harsh contrast situations. Or your raw converter. -- Smial 00:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Smial: Could you please kindly put an annotation on this image where there are these "massive" problems you mention?--Moroder 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far too much unsharpness. Daniel Case 20:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment What nice image! --Christian Ferrer 16:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Honestly, I agree with the others, however it's exactly the kind of image that make me agree with Colin on the fact that a quality image is of quality principaly because of its visual appearance. This one would not be ridiculous in a photographic book. Just my point of view. --Christian Ferrer 21:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 23:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)