Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 25 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:EKr1-001 Tarpan 2016 G2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination EKr1-001 Tarpan, high-speed train -- George Chernilevsky 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 21:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. The image is blurred; even the front of the train is not quite sharp. Taking image to CR for more opinions. --Peulle 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Weak support. Sharpness could be better but I think it is sharp enough for QI. -- Spurzem 07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Note: Speed of this train was 130-150 km/h -- George Chernilevsky 09:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yeah, it's a difficult shot. You need a tripod and increased shutter speed for this to be perfect, I think. --Peulle 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The train itself is sharp enough, the blurred surrounding results from the panning of the camera. @Peulle: a tripod of course would make panning somewhat more easy and reliable, but would help nothing in case of sharpness. And with any action photography: given the same lighting, an increased shutter speed demands either a wide open aperture (too low DOF) or an increased ISO setting (too much noise). I think this photo is a very good compromise, the photographer has done nothing wrong. -- Smial 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Just to show you why I think I'm right, please have a look at George's other image of the same subject. As you can see, he there managed to get the front of the train sharp, so it's definitely possible. Thus I think this one is not QI. But QR is a democracy, so... ;) --Peulle 21:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Seems to use the same "too slow" shutter speed and also have the same other conditions. Whether with or without tripod we don't know. --Smial 12:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Tamanduá-bandeira_com_filhote_em_pastagem.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tamanduá-bandeira com filhote, em fazenda na área rural de Campo Grande - MS. By User:Marcelocalazansbrasil74 --Rodrigolopes 18:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality & nice. --Zcebeci 19:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: It is overprocessed. The background bears posterized splodges. --Cccefalon 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree Cccefalon.-- DerFussi
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:2016-06-18_Sandra_Maischberger_(Bundesfinale_Jugend_debattiert_2016)_by_Sandro_Halank–9.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sandra Maischberger --Sandro Halank 20:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Steschke 21:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. Sorry --A.Savin 13:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral No good composition but sharp enough for ISO 1600. -- Spurzem 07:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm with A.Savin on this one; it's not sharp enough and there's a bit of noise. --Peulle 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_Santa_María_de_la_Asunción,_Arcos_de_la_Frontera,_Cádiz,_España,_2015-12-08,_DD_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Santa María de la Asunción, Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain --Poco a poco 11:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Too distorted and too tight crop below. -- Spurzem 19:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    The sign for promotion was not me. I think it should bei  Oppose. But please discuss. -- Spurzem 07:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand what you mean with distorted. It would have been distorted if I had corrected the perspective, but I opted for not doing it. --Poco a poco 11:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are everywhere at the top of the building artifacts against the sky which appear as doubled contours. What has happened there? -- Smial 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:ACAP Upper Mustang Surkhang.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Surkhang (by PatriciaSauer) --बिप्लब आनन्द 07:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Different candidates should have different descriptions. please! Needs a better file description--Moroder 07:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Moroder 13:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm not sure, would like some other's opinion --Moroder 13:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rather high quality for a camera with such a small sensor and a nice view. But due to noise reduction large areas look like watercolor painting (Aquarell) and posterized. -- Smial 14:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization in the clouds. Insufficient smartphone quality. --Cccefalon 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Cerro Mesa Ahumada (40).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cerro Mesa Ahumada, Tequixquiac, Mexico --Marrovi 02:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree. --A.Savin 13:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't see a clear subjec matter here. --Peulle 19:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view, but strong artifacts by blurring noise reduction on one hand and sharpening on the other. Sorry, there are digital cameras which are not really suitable for quality landscape photography. --Smial 08:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)