Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 21 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:At_Montevideo_2023_215.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Leandro Gómez Monument, Montevideo --Mike Peel 06:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 14:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharpness and exposure are very good. But unfortunately due to the angle, the inscription is very hard to read, which is a defect IMO. Maybe it's possible to fix it in post? 🤞 --MB-one 14:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've tweaked it to try to make the text clearer, has that helped? Also moving this to discuss since it was supported before your comment. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It's better now. If GoldenArtists is happy, I won't object.--MB-one 21:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Нижний_парк,_бюст_неизвестной_женшины_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of unknown woman, Lower Park of Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This has way too many compression artifacts for the camera and JPG quality factor. Was it accidentally saved in low quality during processing or something? --Plozessor 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, I never do so with pictures taken by this camera. I tried to make this shot look a bit better before nominating and maybe something went wrong. You can compare by looking at the first version uploaded year ago. --Екатерина Борисова 04:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The original version has compression artifacts too. Did you take the JPG directly from the camera? --Plozessor 11:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Then probably the camera used too strong JPG compression. You should always take the RAW file from the camera and convert it yourself. --Plozessor 04:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment My usual JPG picture without any processing is about 7 ot 8 Mb, so I don't think that my camera is so bad)) -- Екатерина Борисова 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You have sharpened the noise and the compression artifacts. Unsuitable sharpening algorithm. -- Smial 11:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, due to intense processing there are compression artifacts resulting in  Level of detail too low as well. --Augustgeyler 12:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks to everybody for useful comments. This is surely not my best photo and I won't be offended if it's declined. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The original upload was of a much higher quality. A similar thing happened with another nominee (the Psyche statue) where the sharpened version ends up destroying a lot of detail. ReneeWrites 08:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can revert this photo to the previous version - not for the sake of QI status, but for the sake of quality itself. -- Екатерина Борисова 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Córdoba_-_Santa_Marina_de_Aguas_Santas.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Córdoba (Andalusia, Spain) - Façade of the church of Santa Marina de Aguas Santas --Benjism89 06:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice image but building look too distorted. --Augustgeyler 07:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 19:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The church is unnaturally hanging to the left. -- Spurzem 08:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Please check the verticals, there are straight. This is what you can see from this point of view. --Sebring12Hrs 16:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: The church is tipping backwards. I wouldn't have the courage to go in. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As far as I can judge from professional stock photos, this church's left wall is leaning in reality, and the picture is realistic. --Plozessor 04:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Выборг,_Батарейная_гора_сверху.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment I don't think that straightening the perspective with the 45 degrees angle of view can be reasonable. Красный 20:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I agree, it's an aerial image. However, at least the verticals lines in the middle of the image should be vertical - which they are not here. With the perspective fixed (verticals ok in the middle, and both edges leaning equally), I would support it. --Plozessor 11:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok, can anyone else see this picture? --Georgfotoart 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Turned to discussion --Екатерина Борисова 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The lens of this camera seams to be not very good. Sharpness is degreasing to the outer parts rapidly. The shot looks oriented correctly and PC from that angle would not be appropriate. Overall it looks OK but I would not have nominated it for QI. --Augustgeyler 09:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 19:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Beautiful_view_of_the_mountains_(Katon-Karagay).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the mountains in Katonkaragay national park. Katonkaragay District, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Picasso.dm --Красный 07:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too greenish. WB off. Too litle sky. --Milseburg 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Exactly per Milseburg. --Plozessor 06:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, WB off here. --Augustgeyler 07:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded fixed version with help of Екатерина Борисова. Красный 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment WB did improve. But with better WB some oversaturation gets visible. --Augustgeyler 09:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)