Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 25 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Angel_on_Castel_Sant'Angelo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Angel on Castel Sant'Angelo --Livioandronico2013 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed angel, not sharp and lost details. --Steindy 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Other please --Livioandronico2013 15:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support This looks sharp and good at very large magnifications. The angel looks slightly unsharp at 100%, but that's irrelevant. -- Ram-Man 13:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hm. But isn't the angel the main object (see filename) and therefore should be sharp? --Code 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (1) The angel is acceptably sharp at 2ft (0.6m) wide at a viewing distance of 18in (0.45 m) @ 100dpi. That's a very large magnification to look good at, way higher than the 2MP minimum. Any larger magnifications are irrelevant as they depend on very specific usage scenarios. Depth of field (which is just a perceptual measure) varies with magnification (that is, crop and view size), so it makes sense that it does not look that good at 100%. (2) The angel is the main subject, but not the only one. This is not a closeup detail view and should not be evaluated as such. Ram-Man 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment «The angel looks slightly unsharp at 100%, but that's irrelevant.» I am very surprised by this comment. I think photos should be assessed, not in sympathy and antipathies, but for facts... --Steindy 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  CommentAnd just you speak Steindy? Ridiculous. Instead of judging ,upload your pictures, possibly not as bad your usual and after we can see. It is easy to judge the work of others without knowing it do.At least Ram-Man is a photographer and has 40 Featured !!!. You? Ridiculous,real ridiculous. Clin.--Livioandronico2013 14:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose poor quality, maybe a bad crop. –Be..anyone 02:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose Same as Be..anyone.--Jebulon 10:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1133-094.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Helsinki, Ausflug mit Kanu zur Insel Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  SupportHyvä laatu! Vaikka minulla ei ole hajuakaan melonnan Suomessa, suomeksi, mutta minusta loistava. Ole hyvä seuraavan kerran Suomen kuvaus! --Hubertl 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree: Inapproprate categorization. Backlighing not well handled / unbalanced exposure. --Cccefalon 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Cccefalon.--Jebulon 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. Gorgeous backlight with beautiful reflections, which is emphasized by the diagonal of the rocks in the foreground. --Steindy (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 11:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Cccefalon. --Livioandronico2013 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1146-102.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Helsinki, Ausflug mit Kanu zur Insel Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Hyvä laatu! Vaikka minulla ei ole hajuakaan melonnan Suomessa, suomeksi, mutta minusta loistava. Ole hyvä seuraavan kerran Suomen kuvaus! --Hubertl 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Inapproprate categorization. Backlighing not well handled / unbalanced exposure. --Cccefalon 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The overly dark foreground dominates the scene. It might be acceptable in other compositions, but not here. Ram-Man 13:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting effect, looking out of a dark tunnel into the light. The category should be updated. –Be..anyone 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. Bad categorization.--Jebulon 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Steindy 10:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Cccefalon. --Livioandronico2013 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »1E3 Lightning.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lightning over London. Mattbuck 14:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Disturbing lens flare, disturbing roof and disturbing spots (see notes). --Steindy 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Steindy 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Steindy. + magenta CA along the lightning itself.--Jebulon 10:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Koi_Feeding_in_Mt_Qingxiu_Nanning_Close.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Koi Feeding --Ram-Man 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. But creepy in a way. Aren´t there too many of them in this basin? --Hubertl 10:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    See here. Ram-Man 18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting shot, I like both the composition and the subject, but not sure whether it is a QI, I miss sharpness --Poco a poco 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do realize that it is difficult to set focus on water, but here is me too much blurring in the area. --Steindy 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's water. Water, especially disturbed water, is generally soft, not sharp, as it refracts light. Note that the FP of Koi has similar issues, albeit with better composition and lighting. Ram-Man 20:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 22:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Msaynevirta 17:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Yann 11:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)