Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 30 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Петергоф,_петуния_на_террасе_Пирогового_дворика_02.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Ok for me. The central flower is not truncated, it is a main object. Imho QI. Юрий Д.К. 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition, the inner part of the main subject is pitch black, majority of the image is out of focus. --Plozessor 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Opel_Admiral_A_V8_(1965)_Classic-Gala_2022_1X7A0150_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Opel Admiral A V8 (1965) at Classic-Gala Schwetzingen 2022 --Alexander-93 18:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural-looking color, overexposed, especially in the area of ​​the front side panel and hood. The information sheet in the side window is also distracting. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Plozessor 05:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support not perfect but good enough. --MB-one 12:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 13:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No excerpts of already nominated QIs--Ermell 10:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: Which image is this an excerpt from? --August (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell. --Augustgeyler 20:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_W121BII_Classic-Gala_2022_1X7A0288_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz W121BII at Classic-Gala Schwetzingen 2022 --Alexander-93 15:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavourable light and therefore partly overexposed, especially the area around the right headlight and the hood. The note in the windshield in front of the steering wheel is also distracting. No offence, but in my opinion this photo is not a quality image. -- Spurzem 18:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hood is overexposed, much more than in the other image. --Plozessor 05:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No excerpts of already nominated QIs--Ermell 10:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Bharatnatym_Mudra_(34).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bharatanatyam Facial expressions MudraI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 14:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The image is slightly  Underexposed and lacks sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If I consider everything that is awarded QI here, the photo under discussion is excellent. Please take the lighting conditions into account and you will see that the image is perfectly exposed. In addition, the sharpness is sufficient considering the 800 ISO. The image composition is also good. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness and detail are borderline, but dress and hair are too dark and merging with the background. --Plozessor 05:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. If I assume that these are all stage photos that were taken in the available light, then I think the criticism of image noise and lack of contrast between black hair against a black background is exaggerated. I see excellent image compositions, good exposure according to the circumstances and quite natural-looking colors. Unfortunately, the rather mediocre image sharpness cannot be overlooked. I also tried my stage photos with kit lenses in the beginning, the experience was rather sobering and the solution rather expensive. Overall, I consider the image quality to be good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 13:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 21:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Камни_на_озере_Урунгач.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stones in lake Urungach, Urungach natural monument, Uzbekistan. By User:Arina Pan --Екатерина Борисова 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but only the one rock in foreground (which makes up a very small portion of the image) is sharp. --Plozessor 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, somewhat low DOF in full size view, but by far sharp enough for an A4-size print. Colour saturation again somewhat too high, but still acceptable. --Smial 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Augustgeyler 08:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 21:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Gniezno_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Gniezno, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. --Tournasol7 07:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 08:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks slightly  Underexposed or was there a polarization filter involved? --Augustgeyler 08:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment No, I don't used the polarization filter here. It was just late evening. Tournasol7 19:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Under exposure due to evening capture time. --2015 Michael 2015 11:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, might be easy to fix though. --Plozessor 06:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Please don't take offense if I say that we should set up a department for underexposed images. In my opinion, this photo is not a quality image. -- Spurzem 08:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
     Neutral Apart from the distorted spire and the roof of the nave sloping to the left, the picture is now good. -- Spurzem 20:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Augustgeyler, 2015 Michael 2015, Plozessor, Spurzem; ✓ New version ulpoaded, it's better now? --Tournasol7 19:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this went from very very late evening to bright day. Is there anything possible in-between? --Augustgeyler 20:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support this 2nd version is OK --2015 Michael 2015 15:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --August (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)