Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 09 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Front view of Milan Stazione Centrale entrance portico.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Front portico of Milano Centrale, straight-on --Daniel Case 03:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now: sorry, but please fix the tilt (it's leaning clockwise), and also, there are some chromatic aberrations left at edges. --A.Savin 16:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Cropped it in a little tighter, too. Daniel Case 21:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment @Daniel Case: Well, I'm really sorry to bother you that much, but when juxtaposing the previous with the current version, I've the impression that the current one is significantly less crisp... But the lines are correct now. --A.Savin 01:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I could go back and see what I can do; it seems to me that the loss of sharpness you may have seen is sometimes a consequence of correcting CA. But now that it's down here let's see what everyone else thinks. Daniel Case 05:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 09:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. -- Spurzem 23:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 00:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Gemünd, brug over die Urft foto4 2016-09-09 16.14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gemünd-NRW, bridge across the Urft --Michielverbeek 08:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Almost OK but the area of the two windows over the bridge is blurry (dirty lens?). Not enough for a QI IMO, sorry. --Basotxerri 08:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I think light fall is not perfect, but still good enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 06:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Which two windows are blurry? I'm not really noticing anything that makes this not a QI. Good composition and light, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Unless it's my glasses, it's there. I've left a note on the pic. By the way, the blurry area is here, too, but less visible: File:Gemünd, die Sankt Nikolaus Kirche Dm75 foto7 2016-09-09 15.58.jpg. Anyway, let's see what others think. --Basotxerri 18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment - It looks to me like the highlights are too bright and the picture could benefit from toning those down. So Michielverbeek, perhaps that's worth considering. However, I still think that it's a QI as is. -- Ikan Kekek 00:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Not pinsharp but ok. Alvesgaspar 21:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As a whole okay for me.--Famberhorst 07:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 00:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Paraiso_metro_Station,_São_Paulo,_Brazil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Drunken man. --The Photographer 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment @The Photographer: You state that 'All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under a free license'. Is this true? Charlesjsharp 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry. --Moroder 14:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • lets discuss, to me it's  Support, it must be noisy because it's dark there. Flash or tripod aren't a opinion. --Ralf Roletschek 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Looks OK to me. I'm surprised those two consented to the photograph, but I assume good faith. -- Ikan Kekek 05:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I cannot imagine this two persons gave you permission, but that's not my business. ISO2000 makes the photo very noisy but you a high ISO-value was absolutely necessary. However I think it is a brilliant composition, so I  Support this photo --Michielverbeek 06:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I can only agree with Michielverbeek regarding this composition. Perhaps you could tell us a little about how you do when you take these photos. Do you take the pic first and then go up to the people and ask if it was ok and if you can publish the photo or do you ask for permission first? W.carter 15:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also interested on the consent achieved here. Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Brazil suggests you need consent prior to taking this photo, and I would doubt very much that the man is in a position to give satisfactory consent. In other countries, consent might not be required but one would have to be careful not to describe the man as drunk. In think The Photographer, you should be careful here, and if you don't have some written evidence of consent, then you are putting yourself at unnecessary legal risk for a hobby photo. -- Colin 15:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The woman asked me to take this picture, however, @Colin: is right and IMHO I need both consent. Btw, this place is a public place I need ask for the consent for each people in the scene ?. For example, for someone in this case the main subject here is the Station (not for me).
Although not mentioned in the law, it is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of
people who are present in a public space or participating in a public event (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),

--The Photographer 12:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a little confusing what you mean but I would say the main subject here is the people (the filename isn't relevant). -- Colin 14:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry. As Moroder. Left vertical lines are tilted to right --Lmbuga 17:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks overprocessed to me. Looking at the man's face, it seems like it has been denoised too much. About the permission thing: yes, it's the drunk guy's permission you need since he's the one in the awkward and embarrasing position.--Peulle 18:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 08:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 00:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)