Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 07 2025

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:20241229_Kapelle_Petersbrunn_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The chapel St. Peter in Petersbrunn as seen from the other side of the road --FlocciNivis 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed, blown out upper-right corner with CA's on branches. Not QI in my eyes, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова. Sorry --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too pale and blown out sky. Might be fixable with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 11:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Kabelbinder_--_2024_--_6917.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photo art – Series "Faerie dance" – based on several colored cable ties; The photo was taken using the ICM (intentionally camera movement) technique. --XRay 16:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a cool shot but IMHO not aligned with the QI criteria --Poco a poco 16:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your “cool shot” rating! :-) About the QI context: it actually fits very well in my opinion. The key point is the sharpness. Here the guidelines state, among other things, “Motion blur should have a purpose, most often to emphasize motion.”, “Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image.” and “The overall image should have clearly defined focus.” Each is labeled with “should”. Images created with ICM have no clear focus, no excellent sharpness and the movement - here of the camera - fulfills its purpose, is even the central point of this type of photo. --XRay 07:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Ok, what is the purpose of this motion blur? I'm not convinced by your interpretation of the QI guidelines. I could affirm anytime that flaws in my pictures are intentional and so get around the guidelines. That's at least my opinion. Poco a poco 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Usually not supporting ICM images, but this one is really good. It is also obvious that it is not just a blurry shot later labelled ICM ;).
     Comment The unsigned vote above was added by Plozessor on January 4, 04:56, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=979228891&oldid=979228322 when he also updated the QICtotal count. Therefore, I suppose that we can make an exception and count it. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, thx. --Plozessor 11:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:20240724_red_tailed_hawk_casa_PD207545_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red-tailed Hawk, scanning. Glastonbury, CT USA --Pdanese 20:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Blur the branch behind the Hawk's head. --Tzim78 22:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I had considered blurring those leaves, but I'm not sure that's allowed here. Thanks for the comment. --Pdanese 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was asked to do something similar, these are common requests..--Tzim78 04:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is very good. The branch is annoying but acceptable since it's not concealing the bird. Personally I would retouch the branch. --Plozessor 06:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment He thought he could not do that, I also told him to retouch it.--Tzim78 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I uploaded a new, re-touched version. Thanks for the suggestions.Pdanese (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
👍 --Plozessor 04:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO this should be marked as a retouched picture with template {{Retouched picture}}. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment I've already categorized it under retouched picture. Or do you mean something else?
       Support Good quality and a happy new year! The appropriate template was added by Sebring12Hrs. The category should not be added manually. I removed it, because it comes with the template anyway. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
      •  Comment Thank you. Happy new year. -- Pdanese (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      •  Comment Done. --Sebring12Hrs 08:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, Thank You Much Better. --Tzim78 21:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:3_Zinnen_Dolomites_ski_resort_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hasenköpfl chair lift, Helm/Monte Elmo, 3 Zinnen Dolomites ski resort. --Kallerna 16:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 19:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is very disturbing, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadowy part is too dark. Can probably be fixed with different raw conversion settings. --Plozessor 06:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the shadow -- Spurzem 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the juxtaposition of the sun and shadow parts, it makes the picture more vivid and interesting, and the shadow is not critically dark IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Realistic colors and light. --Sebring12Hrs 11:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem.--Ermell 21:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Pic is fine --GoldenArtists 09:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I cannot see a reason to oppose here... The photo has a very high detail quality, looks good to me. --Tuxyso 11:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco, Plozessor and Spurzem. --GRDN711 19:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ekaterina (the shadow is an essential part of the scene) --PtrQs 01:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 23:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem, Plozessor and others --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Shadow is disturbing but its QI, not FP. --PetarM 13:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Milseburg 16:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Little lack of details in the shadow, but not enough to oppose and I think the contrast is realistic. --Benjism89 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Over half of the image is severly underexposed, with no apparent creative purpose. Doesn't meet Commons:Image guidelines#Exposure, sorry. --AVDLCZ 22:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Екатерина Борисова and there is more sharp detail in the shaded region of this image than in non-shaded portions of many images promoted - QI is about attempting to take good photos in the prevailing natural environment not only taking photos when circumstances seem perfect for excellent photography - imho the overall quality of this image is good. --Scotch Mist 11:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 11 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)