Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 25 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Костел_Успіння,_Язловець,_вхід_SW,_2012_(Rbrechko,_61-212-0018).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portal in abandoned catholic church in Yazlovets, Ternopil region, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too soft IMO. --Benjism89 14:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly unsharp in lower left, but acceptable IMO --Vsatinet 19:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Vsatinet. --Plozessor 05:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good -- Spurzem 20:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Olsztyn_2023_020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Olsztyn New Town Hall (Nowy Ratusz) --Scotch Mist 08:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I know it's intentional, but perspective should be corrected here to me. Feel free to send it to discussion. --Sebring12Hrs 09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review - it was 'intentional' because given the many features of this building PC would IMO unrealistically distort at least one feature in an image of the complete building from this angle. --Scotch Mist 09:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment But with this angle it looks like the building is falling backwards, so that's not realistic either. --Sebring12Hrs 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distortion isn't fixable and working here. --Milseburg 13:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Spurzem 20:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Baya_weaver_bulding_its_nest.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Baya weaver bird building its nest in Nepal (by Prasan Shrestha) --Gpkp 06:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but very noisy. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The right edge should be cut smooth. Otherwise I like the photo very much. At ISO 1000 it is difficult to avoid slight noise. -- Spurzem 20:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Cadzand-Bad_Hotel_De_Blanke_Top_R01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hotel De Blanke Top in Cadzand-Bad, Netherlands. -- MJJR 20:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 07:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Temporarily oppose, but I will change my opinion, if the author crop half of the person on the left --Екатерина Борисова 23:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова. --Sebring12Hrs 10:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Oberwesel_im_Novembernebel.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment I am going to remain neutral but this image is worthy for discussion. (The original image was good but the fog creates a complicated atmosphere for critique due to the rarity of such an image. The haze to our right could be fog or grainy noise which is the deception of the image. It is a very difficult image to critique.)--Tzim78 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Original version was good. New version is tilted and overcontrasted and has less detail. Also the resolution doesn't match any of the camera's native ones, would be interesting (and probably should be in the description) whether this is a panorama or it was cropped or it was widened to optimize the aspect ratio. --Plozessor 07:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The first version wasn’t good either. It had something resembling an AI-generated lower right corner—the top part of the bush was sharp, while the lower part was not, with a clear boundary between these zones. Additionally, the stakes visible in the second version were missing in the first one, which leads me to think they were “fixed” by some AI processing. While the second version avoids this specific issue, it unfortunately suffers from all the other problems mentioned by Milseburg and Plozessor. Jakubhal 13:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The picture is a panorama composed of two photos. With the intention of concentrating the focus on the medieval cityscape shrouded in fog, I cut off the sky in the upper part of the first version. A piece of the bush was missing in the right-hand area because I had held the camera a little too high. The generative extension failed. In the current third version, the cropping was done with the existing image material. --Rolf Kranz 09:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overexposed, and the poles are disturbing. Not sure about the WB. The sharpness, exposure, alignment and cut of the first version were superior. It's a pity that the error in the bottom right cannot be fixed. The replacement image is even less QI in my eyes. --Milseburg 12:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Still the color and contrast of the original picture were better, but the latest (third) version is acceptable. --Plozessor 06:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I think, the third version would have passed. Now you have uploaded a fourth version. In my opinion, the problem with the fourth version is the area in the top right that is too bright and the noise. --Milseburg 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonnenuntergang-Las-Vistas-Tenerife-2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset at beach Las Vistas at Playa de las Américas on Tenerife --Tuxyso 10:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Looks good, but dark - can you brighten it? --Mike Peel 22:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • imho not a good idea to further brighten it is 15 minutes before sunset. please take a look on the histogram, it is exposed well on the highlights --Tuxyso 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Same as previous (I've been to las Américas at sunset, so I know how this looks IRL. ;-) ) Thanks. Mike Peel 19:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
 Comment added implicit oppose --Plozessor 07:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Brightening the foreground would fix it for me, the beach is currently way too dark. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks authentic to me. Good sharpness. I've never been there. I know from other places that evening light doesn't always look the same all days. Perhaps it should be sent into CR. --Milseburg 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Milseburg, to the sharpness, thanks to my new Z 24-120 - it is a realy sharp lens, especially at a 24Mpx sensor. --Tuxyso 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg. --Plozessor 07:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I made minor improvements, please take another look, Mike Peel. --Tuxyso 14:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support That's it (4th version), that looks a lot better to me now, thanks for iterating. :) Thanks. Mike Peel 18:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support For the current (fourth version). Good quality golden hour picture -- Jakubhal 16:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Softening the contrast made the image a little less exciting for me. But still QI. --Milseburg 22:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Same here. --Plozessor 05:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Maurice_church_in_Langenenslingen_(10).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Maurice church in Langenenslingen, BW, Germany. --Tournasol7 06:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry: truncated object and disturbing branches --F. Riedelio 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not so disturbing to me. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the combination of aspect ratio, the right part of the church cut off, and the branches in front of the spire are a poor composition IMO, even if the picture is technically good. --Plozessor 15:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Fashion changes - even in photography. I remember that a photo of a building, for example, should have a foreground if possible. That could be the branch of a tree. But now a branch on the side of the picture is considered a serious defect. Why? I like the photo presented here. -- Spurzem 19:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I quite like the photo and don't perceive those branches as a disturbance -- Jakubhal 05:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Spurzem and Jakubhal: I like branches "on the side of the picture" but this one is obscuring the view of the spire. Would have been easy to go a few steps to the side or holding the camera a bit lower to have the branch next to, not in front of, the subject. --Plozessor 07:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Neuruppin_Tempelgarten_asv2024-04_img7.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment Are you sure? The picture was not perspective corrected --A.Savin 21:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Of course I don't really know what king of prosessing you used here, but the gate looks asymmetrical with left side visually bigger than right side, and it's not come from the angle of shooting --Екатерина Борисова 00:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any issue with perspective here. --Sebring12Hrs 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs. One could consider to skew the upper left corner a bit downward, but it's definitely fine as it is. --Plozessor 05:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Hvítserkur_Sea_Stack,_Northwestern_Region,_Iceland,_20240715_1138_0855.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hvítserkur Sea Stack, Northwestern Region, Iceland --Jakubhal 04:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose While I understand this image provides visual context for the sea stack and is worth uploading, overall it seems too dark and the stack seems lost in the image. Also, the tourist on the beach is distracting. --GRDN711 05:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for review, I would like to ask for other opinions --Jakubhal 05:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I’ve updated the photo description to better reflect the scene. That said, pointing out a tiny figure in the image, barely the size of a dot, as a reason to decline it for being distracting feels a bit overly critical to me. Jakubhal 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have uploaded a new brightened version -- Jakubhal 05:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jakubhal: I like your brightened version - definitely an improvement over the orginal. Now we come to the Tourist. Sometimes you throw in a Tourist to provide a sense of scale. Was Tourist a planned part of your making of this image, or did they happen by accident? Would your image be better if Tourist disappeared by digital magic. Your thoughts? --GRDN711 01:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I don’t mind tourists in photos - they often provide a sense of scale. In this case, the tourist is barely noticeable unless you actively look for him. I feel you're applying FPC-level standards to a QIC submission, which doesn’t need to be perfect in every detail. Jakubhal 05:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jakubhal: You are nominating an image for QI intended for promotional use in Wikipedia and similar. It is not a forum for casual snap shots. If Tourists are in an image, it should be by design of the photographer, not by accident. I supported your other three images of this sea stack rock. While you have improved the 4th, accidental Tourist remains an issue for me (I feel the same way when I see tree branches coming out of people's heads :( ), and I remain opposed. --GRDN711 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: Please hold up on the final count a little so that we can finish our discussion on this image. --GRDN711 01:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: All done, Thank you. --GRDN711 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The rock is sliglhtly dark imo (maybe are additional local adjustments of exposure or shadows possible) but overall good quality. The tourist is not a issue for QI imo.--ArildV 12:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks absolutely fine to me. If the rock is dark, it can be dark in the picture too.--Milseburg 14:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg. --Plozessor 17:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that this tourist figure is very useful because it helps to understand the size of the rock. The quality is good too. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Croatia_Šibenik_BW_2024-09-30_11-17-48.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Croatia, Šibenik, Tower of the Church of St. John (Crkva sv. Ivana) --Berthold Werner 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I'm afraid the strong perspective correction you had to make here (16 mm and the photographer being really under the subject) make this tower look too much distorted. And the top of the tower is out of focus. Sorry --Benjism89 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Changing to neutral after the perspective was improved. --Benjism89 10:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Imo Ok. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 19:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm agree with Benjism89. Left side of tower seems not tilted, but curved. At the same time the right side of tower is straight and vertical. The perspective is overprocessed.Vsatinet 10:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have tried to improve the perspective (banana effect) --Berthold Werner 16:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd skew it a bit more (the upper left corner downward), but still it's IMO acceptable. --Plozessor 17:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Much better now. But yes, little additional perspective correction required (the upper let corner downward and uper right corner slightly upword). E.g. with skew or/and warp instruments. Vsatinet 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Next try. --Berthold Werner 16:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Thank you. Upper part of tower is slightly unsharp, but picture is very acceptable now IMO. Vsatinet 19:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Palacio_de_Topkapı,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-30,_DD_59.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Topkapı Palace, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 03:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 21:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but looking at the other pictures in the category I come to the conclusion that the proportions are very distorted here (due to the perspective correction I suppose). Please discuss --Екатерина Борисова 07:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова --Milseburg (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too much distorsion. --Bgag 04:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much distortion. It seems like inaccurate PC. Vsatinet 12:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Naso_unicornis_A74259020241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Naso unicornis, Rio de Janeiro Aquarium. --Rjcastillo 00:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for me, sorry --I.Mahesh 01:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree. let's validate other opinions. --Rjcastillo 02:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness acceptable for the situation IMO. --Plozessor 05:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 10:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Difficult situation or not, the fish is too much blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose main subject out of focus, sorry --Virtual-Pano 16:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:At Frankfurt am Main 2024 019 - Große Liegende.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Willi Schmidt: Große Liegende, Frankfurt --Mike Peel 09:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Background needs a perspective improvement --Michielverbeek 10:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Perspective tweaked, does that look better? There's limited scope for adjustment before the statue starts being distorted. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Imo the background still has to be more straight, but I also realize the main object is very close to the camera position. I would like to hear other opinions about this perspective issue --Michielverbeek 08:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Actually this shouldn't go to Discussions without a vote. But anyway: The picture was taken downward. "Fixing" the perspective so that the background is straight would make the statue appear very unnatural - if you want a picture of that statue with a straight background then take it from the front, not from above. But a picture from above has its right to exist and IMO the current perspective is a good compromise. --Plozessor 05:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good and natural in my eyes. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality with good balance of perspective. --Scotch Mist 10:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Bad file name --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • File renamed. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
       Comment Opposing vote was stricken. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Wildpark_Schloss_Tambach_Sakerfalke-20240908-RM-111006-6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Falco cherrug at the Bavarian Hunting Falconry Center in Tambach Castle Wildlife Park during the birds of prey flight demonstration --Ermell 06:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Some parts of the bird are blown out. Fixable? --Екатерина Борисова 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review.Ermell 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • It helps if you decline than I send it to CR. --Ermell 20:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • What do you think? --Ermell 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Plozessor 05:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support On balance - good quality (edge of wing blown out is relatively minor compared with the high quality of detail of the rest of the falcon). --Scotch Mist 09:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)