Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 30 2022
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
-
- Nomination Street sign and fingerposts on Quellweg in Winklern, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --XRay 04:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Disused farmstead «Gimplhof» on Quellweg #38 at Winklerner Alm, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --XRay 04:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Reconstruction of the former industrial building "Karl Krause" machine factory --Augustgeyler 19:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Decline
Oppose The arm of the left crane is cut off. It's like not showing the stubble on a soccer player's shoe. --Steindy 21:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Three multiple dwellings at Mierendorffstraße in Leipzig. --Augustgeyler 19:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Decline
Oppose The tangle of branches and leaves is too disturbing. Also, the photo has some blurring. --Steindy 21:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Skala-Podilsky Castle --Максим Огородник 13:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 19:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination A red container for biodegradable waste in Munich, Germany --Kritzolina 12:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --Ermell 14:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination No dogs sign in Munich --Kritzolina 12:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --Ermell 14:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Town hall of Comines (France) --Velvet 09:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 13:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Seventeen arches bridge in the new Summer Palace in Beijing --Ermell 08:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 13:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination View of Longivity Hill at the Summer Palace in Beijing --Ermell 08:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 13:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Paris Ier eglise St-Roch vitrail St Denis (by Mbzt) --Sebring12Hrs 07:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC) - Promotion {{{2}}}
- Nomination Paris Ier eglise St-Roch vitrail St Denis (by Mbzt) --Sebring12Hrs 07:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Paris III rue Volta n3 (by Mbzt) --Sebring12Hrs 07:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC) - Promotion {{{2}}}
- Nomination Paris III rue Volta n3 (by Mbzt) --Sebring12Hrs 07:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Left valve of a Rayed Trough Shell, Mactra stultorum var. atlantica --Llez 06:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Kampen, crown of a willow (Salix) in Park De la Soblonièrekade. (Classic preset.)
--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC) - Promotion Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nomination Kampen, crown of a willow (Salix) in Park De la Soblonièrekade. (Classic preset.)
-
- Nomination Hiking path in Tolmin, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 04:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Soča river near Kamno, Kobarid municipality, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 04:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Gregorčičeva ulica 20 in Kobarid, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 04:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Mount Vodel seen from Kozlov Rob castle, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 04:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Soča Valley in the fog and Mount Vodel, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 04:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Mineral water gas bubbles on the rim of a drinking glass --XRay 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Close-up of a spiral binding comb of a notebook --XRay 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 05:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Close-up of a whisk --XRay 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 05:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Former beehive hut on Quellweg in Winklern, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --XRay 04:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 18:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Eberspächer Luge World Cup Oberhof: Olena Stetskiv (UKR). By --Stepro 00:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 18:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Marko Kvasina, player of Austria U21. --Steindy 00:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination More distant view of the facade with the main entrance of the Schiller Gymnasium, Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 11:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion good balanced composition of the building with all lines balanced. Gnangarra 13:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination: Dario Maresic, player of Austria U21. --Steindy 00:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Review needed
-
- Nomination: Beijing Quan Ju De He Ping Men Roast Duck Restaurant Interior --Ermell 11:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Review needed
-
- Nomination: A pond on the slag heap Göttelborn in contre-jour through fog. --DavidJRasp 09:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Review needed
-
- Nomination: Nandi statue at Pondicherry Museum --Satdeep Gill 04:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Review
Perspective needs to be corrected. --Ermell 23:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Castillo de San Juan Bautista, with the top of the Auditorio de Tenerife in the background. --Mike Peel 14:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Dust spot on the sky (i've mark it) and also noisy sky. --Nino Verde 12:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nino Verde: Thanks for having a look! I've done a bit of noise reduction for the sky, and have tried to fix the dust spot but I can't easily see it? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 10:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Consensual review
[edit]File:Mt. Kennedy from Lowell Glacier to north.jpg
[edit]- Nomination Mt. Kennedy from the Lowell Glacier to the north. By User:Nomdeploom --DavidJRasp 11:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Decline
- Oppose Too noisy. Sorry. --Ermell 17:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I withdraw my support As this must have been shot on film in 1984 I think this type of grain is normal and adds to the aesthetics of that composition. --Augustgeyler 11:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) / --Augustgeyler 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support I agree. My only question would be about the blue color. Is that natural, or was a blue filter applied? It's a QI to me either way, but if a filter was applied, that should be noted. -- Ikan Kekek 11:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlike the recently presented slides, I do not consider the scan quality satisfactory in this case. The image corners are quite blurry after all. I also consider the white balance to be insufficient. --Smial 12:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Per Augustgeyler. It's a 1984 photo. Blue colors is not a problem IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 16:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If the technical quality of the reproduction is inferior, it cannot be QI. The age of the original is completely irrelevant. The scan is blurry. --Smial 10:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment To my understanding, we are supposed to judge the quality of each photo considering what good quality would be the year it was taken. Is that not your understanding? -- Ikan Kekek 13:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I certainly take into account that historical photographs on conventional film must be evaluated differently than digitally created photos. A technically flawless slide in 35mm format or larger is still good enough for a QI if it is in a good state of preservation. But for this, it must also be scanned flawlessly. In the image shown, however, only the center is sufficiently sharp (not really convincing, but it still works to some extent). The corners are out of focus, and you can tell that from the film grain itself. This indicates that either the scanner used was of insufficient optical quality, or that the slide was badly bent. Both are technical errors that would be criticized in any reproduction, and that's exactly what I'm doing here. --Smial 14:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
- I see. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek 19:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment You are right. I changed my mind. --Augustgeyler 19:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I certainly take into account that historical photographs on conventional film must be evaluated differently than digitally created photos. A technically flawless slide in 35mm format or larger is still good enough for a QI if it is in a good state of preservation. But for this, it must also be scanned flawlessly. In the image shown, however, only the center is sufficiently sharp (not really convincing, but it still works to some extent). The corners are out of focus, and you can tell that from the film grain itself. This indicates that either the scanner used was of insufficient optical quality, or that the slide was badly bent. Both are technical errors that would be criticized in any reproduction, and that's exactly what I'm doing here. --Smial 14:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
- Comment If the technical quality of the reproduction is inferior, it cannot be QI. The age of the original is completely irrelevant. The scan is blurry. --Smial 10:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose No QI per Ermell, but a good VIC in my eyes. --Milseburg 17:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined --Augustgeyler 03:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)