Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 27 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Edificio_Trujillo,_Ceuta,_España,_2015-12-10,_DD_92-94_HDR.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Trujillo Building, Ceuta, Spain --Poco a poco 15:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very interesting, but must be sharper (USM helps) and freed of chromatic aberration (see the pillars). --Jacek79 16:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment The new version should be good enough for QI. Still, what you call CA isn't IMHO that is due to strong lighting. Please, have a look to the new version. --Poco a poco 16:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Slightly better, but not good enough yet. Apply USM to make it sharper. And against CA you can only use a better lens. --Jacek79 22:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Comparing the current version with the first, unaltered version (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/9e/20160123152814!Edificio_Trujillo%2C_Ceuta%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%2C_2015-12-10%2C_DD_92-94_HDR.JPG), there happend some weird things with the image. I do not know your post processing work flow, but the original upload has somewhat too much noise in dark areas and has a perspective problem, but is in most other aspects ok. Well, I do not have an explanation for the effects in very bright areas which somehow look like a (pseudo-)solarization effect. But there is no disturbing CA, sharpness is regarding the high resolution ok, colours, exposure etc. acceptable. But the reworked versions look like accidents, sorry. -- Smial 12:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Uh, oh, I've overseen "HDR". Ok, moving objects while taking serial shots are known as "not so clever". -- Smial 12:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   - Poco a poco 20:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Cádiz,_España,_2015-12-08,_DD_09-11_HDR.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral, Cádiz, Spain --Poco a poco 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I need a third opinion please. I oppose due to the deformation of the towers.--Jebulon 21:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree to Jebulon. Too much is too much. -- Smial 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jebulon, Smial: ✓ new version uploaded Poco a poco 11:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Still not an adequate representation of that building, and probably it is not possible to make a good photo from that camera location. Keep my oppose. -- Smial 13:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I really like Diego's photos. But i suppose I have to agree Jebulon and Smial due to the heavy deformation. Sorry. -- DerFussi 07:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Normal appearance with a lens like that from that point of view.--Ermell 23:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Poco2 20:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)