Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 20 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Cementerio_estadounidense,_ciudad_de_Luxemburgo,_Luxemburgo,_2023-12-16,_DD_132-134_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling of the memorial in the American Cemetery, City of Luxembourg, Luxembourg --Poco a poco 09:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. though a bit dark --Charlesjsharp 09:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is dark --Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas 10:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The ceiling was indeed darker that you see here. There was no lighting inside the memorial. If you disagree with the support, please, move to CR don't reset to nom. Thank you. --Poco a poco 21:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Brightness adequate for the subject. --Plozessor 05:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Blick_vom_Katzenzipfel_zum_Stammheimer_Eselsberg_und_ins_Maintal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from "Katzenzipfel" to "Stammheimer Eselsberg" near Volkach --Plozessor 05:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --RuinDig 07:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @RuinDig: Thx for the support, but somehow you did not change "Nomination" to "Promotion", probably the QI helper malfunctioned. --Plozessor 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Given the relatively low image height, I find the sharpness and overall the image quality to be inadequate. The wind turbines on the left lean a little outwards. With such a large portion of the sky, a corresponding category should not be missing. --Milseburg 10:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Milseburg: Uploaded a new version. What kind of "corresponding category" are you missing? That's currently the only picture of that area so there are no local cateogires. Added "Vineyards in Lower Franconia" now. --Plozessor 12:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Something like Category:Clouds and blue sky in Lower Franconia or whatever the name of those clouds is. I'm not convinced by the quality in detail. I discovered also a thin white vertical line in the last part. See note. --Milseburg 21:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Milseburg: Oops, how did I miss that? Thx for spotting, ✓ Done. --Plozessor 05:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 23:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Senadora mexicana Imelda Sanmiguel Sanchez.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait of Imelda Sanmiguel Sanchez, Mexican congresswoman. --Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas 00:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Some chroma noise, esp. on her neck and arm. --Tagooty 02:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • No improvement. The file size is reduced from 3 MB to 1 MB which may cause loss of quality. --Tagooty 10:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas There is no version from that date, but there's one version with 2.73 MB, guess Robert referred to that. In any case, this has weird noise at the right arm (left arm in the picture, under the dress) and elsewhere. Looks like AI processing gone wrong (it detected that part of the arm as part of the dress or something). I'd apprreciate a version of the picture not processed by AI. --Plozessor 09:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I assume that Tagooty is from a very different time zone. Anyway, you are right. Even though I don't think that my new version is worse than any of the others, I could not get rid of all these blackish artifacts only with a denoising tool. A version with as little post-processing as possible (but possibly with a lot of noise) might be very helpful indeed. I don't really understand what happened here. Are the artifacts the result of a bad scan from a slide or even from a paper print or is this even the result of upscaling? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • My timezone is UTC+5:30. The version I like is #3 with comment "Chroma noise" --Tagooty 13:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • BTW, if you wish to revert my edits of the image, please go ahead! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas Even the very first version of this picture has noise patterns that are typical for scans from printed pictures. Is this really a digital photo that you took with a digital camera? Or was this scanned from paper? --Plozessor 13:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I took it with a digital camera. Sorry this has created quite the controversy, lol. But still very interesting opinions. -- Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas 03:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Kasteel_Tarasp_(Tarasp_Castle)_Scuol,_18-09-2023._(actm.)_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tarasp Castle Scuol, in Lower Engadin, Graubünden (Chapel)
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    This is extremely noisy, also it would need PC; as you don't have enough image to make the shrine vertical, you could probably try to achieve a reasonable perspective look (probably at least make the horizontals horizontal or something like that). --Plozessor 05:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    Noise reduction applied! The chapel itself has sagged and is leaning. I can not do anything about that. See the sagging chapel in relation to the castle in the photo I put in the photo above. Thank you for your comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    Did you want to upload a new version? There is none, the noise is still there. Personally I don't have an issue with the perspective but with the massive noise. --Plozessor 19:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    *✓ Done. Sorry, something went wrong.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but the new version is still quite noisy. If you want move it to discussion. --Plozessor 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
    More opinions please.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I cannot see any disturbing noise here. The previous version was much noisier. However, the light is dull. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: *✓ Done. Air brightened and noise reduction.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Agnes Monkelbaan: It's still borderline, but good enough for striking my opposing vote. --Plozessor 05:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --Rjcastillo 23:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Mike Peel (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)