Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 07 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Hide_from_each_other.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hide from each other in Egypt (by Summering2018) --Adoscam 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Cute photo, but boy is too unsharp - higher f-value necessary --Michielverbeek 21:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is a legal and well made photographic decision to show the "hidden" child out of focus and focusing on the other child looking for him. --Augustgeyler 22:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good use of DOF to tell a story. --King of Hearts 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Amen -- Alvesgaspar 10:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others.--Peulle 13:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per King. Very good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Bad_Dürkheim_Kirchgasse_16_004_2021_10_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Baptismal font of the protestant palace church in Bad Dürkheim --F. Riedelio 08:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Significant noise in the background. Font sharpness is borderline. Fixable? --Tagooty 07:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done within a week. --XRay 06:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry: ✓ New version Noise and sharpness improved. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 08:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Tagooty 07:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 11:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per August. --Peulle 13:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not inclined to punish a photo for being too big. Is that a valid criterion for voting against a photo at QIC? At merely full-page, the resolution of the font is already quite a bit bigger than the full resolution in most other photos. I'd like to hear others' thought on this. -- Ikan Kekek 06:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, sharpness lacking. --Palauenc05 22:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._SC_Austria_Lustenau_2018-04-24_(046).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 13:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:A_small_boat.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A small boat pushed by fishermen to get out of the water (by Summering2018) --Adoscam 12:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment It would be a great photo, but I don't understand why it is so blurred on the left side of the picture. I suspect that something happened during the image processing, because the shutter speed is too short for that. --Steindy 14:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks like an artistic decision to emphasize motion in the moment. I dunno, looks a bit weird to me for a quality image, as it wouldn't have been originally in the picture. --Ximonic 04:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The "motion blurred" part makes it not meeting the criteria for a QI in my opinion. --Goran tek-en 15:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support First I think the motion blurred boat in the background was fastly slipped into or out of the water at the same time and therefore became unsharp. Second, the boat in the background is the background – just adding some details to the scene like: There are some other boats slipped in at the same time. The main object is clear and the composition very good. --Augustgeyler 10:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Massive overprocessing. Furthermore, downscaled, although no technical reasons for this are actually apparent. --Smial 11:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support A good photo with an excellent composition. And, I believe, a promising candidate to FPC. I can't see the signs of massive overprocessing -- Alvesgaspar 16:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose far from QI per reasons above. --Milseburg 18:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me per others, but is there evidence that this was downscaled? -- Ikan Kekek 20:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment The perspective impression in the photo indicates that the angle of view of the lens used was fully utilised, i.e. there was no significant cropping at the edges of the image. The image has 12 MPixels, the camera offers 24. I consider this to be downscaling. --Smial 01:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, I'll defer to you on this. I looked at the photo at 200% of full size and wasn't satisfied with it. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Since the adjuster did not provide an explanation to my question, I unfortunately have no choice but to vote against. --Steindy 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info You added a vote, it means this voting can't be finished unless another 48 hours will have passed by. --August Geyler (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 00:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)