Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 07 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Kenilworth Castle MMB 06 Phasianus colchicus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pheasant at Kenilworth Castle. Mattbuck 07:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI IMO, though I had preferred a tighter crop, e.g. 1:1 --Cccefalon 10:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose beak not in focus. Background door hinge detracts --Charlesjsharp 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent image, QI --Balon Greyjoy 03:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good! --High Contrast 23:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 07:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Kapelle Quotshausen (1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel in Quotshausen --Hydro 17:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Needs perspective correction Poco a poco 08:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Not done --Mattbuck 13:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any perspective distortion. --Hydro 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Come on, I can see the incline from thumbnail. I don't think you need annotations, do you? --Cccefalon 14:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say that the image should only be tilted 0.1° to the right, but if I make a automatic perspective correction (with Lightroom), the picture is even turned to the left. --Hydro 17:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Awwww, automated pc with LR is ending often in chaos. Just use the manuell correction and iterate vertical correction and rotate. --Cccefalon 05:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I really see only a very minor distortion. One day I will concern myself again with it, but currently I have to edit too many new pictures. --Hydro 16:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, it is not a minor distortion. I made an annotation to give you a hint. No offense, but you should grasp the problem and try to accomodate with manual untilting process in LR now because a lot of your new photos will go the way of decline, if the problem is not handled properly. --Cccefalon 06:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I see it. But I find it not very relevant, though I often am pretty fussy about photos. I also use manual keystone correction of PS Elements, but the results are often not satisfactory, too. --Hydro (talk)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Cccefalon 07:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Syrian Marbled White - Melanargia syriaca.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A couple of Syrian Marbled White. Adana, Turkey.--Zeynel Cebeci 14:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry. I find the blurred flowers rather distracting. Other than that, a good picture. --Arctic Kangaroo 00:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I believe the problem lies with your DoF. f/6.3 is too large an aperture in this instance. I also notice that your shutter speed is 1/60 and ISO 160. A smaller aperture would have made those flowers sharper. Something like f/8.0 would probably have been better. The faster shutter speed as a result would undoubtedly have led to a higher ISO of either 250, 320 or 400. But based on my experience in the field of butterfly photography and observation of others' butterfly photos, an ISO of 400 is perfectly normal and common and won't have any significant impact on the photo. After 400, then it probably depends on a case-by-case basis. cheers, --Arctic Kangaroo 00:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Main objects are sharp enough, very nice lighting and bokeh. @Arctic Kangaroo: In principle, I agree with your thoughts. But assumed a en:Circle of confusion of 0.25mm and a distance of 1 m you get a DOF of about 2.5cm with f/6.3. With f/8 it will be 3.2cm, not significantly more. You will need f/22 to get 6.9cm DOF which would provide the demanded DOF. Without flash this would result in 3 2/3 stops higher ISO to get 1/60s again, e.g. ISO 1600 would be necessary. If the distance to the object was smaller than 1m then the situation would be still worse. -- Smial 08:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support nice composition and good background --Charlesjsharp 12:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don’t agree at all with Arctic Kangaroo about the flowers. The unsharp foreground flowers aren’t a drawback at all since they add depth to the image. However, the picture, though well ex- and composed, looks heavily overprocessed (oversharpened) to me, visible as artifacts in the aforementioned unsharp flowers. I will support as soon as there’s a softer blur. … --Kreuzschnabel 18:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's normal in butterfly photography to have a photo this sharp, although I agree that in this case, it probably has to be *slightly* less sharp for the sake of the flowers. --Arctic Kangaroo 11:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 05:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support definitely --Kulac 06:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --JDP90 12:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --JDP90 07:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Pissenlit_(1).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Abeille butinant sur un pissenlit --Orikrin1998 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support OK --A.Savin 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs species identification --Poco a poco 17:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Impossible to recognize the species. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Archaeo.--Jebulon 20:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Cccefalon 07:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Derby railway station MMB C6 170397.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Early morning at Derby station. Mattbuck 07:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition. The light on the lamp post right in the middle of the image has been missed. Too much foreground. --Charlesjsharp 08:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
This is not FP. I am aware that the lamppost was missed, this is because leaving it in would have made most of the image empty sky. Too much foreground? It's the station and showing snow. --Mattbuck 12:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support good (even would have been very good with the fist lamp not cut) --Christian Ferrer 16:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 10:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --JDP90 07:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --JDP90 07:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Girl_of_Venezuela.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Girl of Venezuela, Margarita Island --The Photographer 16:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition here - 1/3 of the photo is empty water, which leaves the eye to be drawn to the hair rather than the face. Once cropped I think this would fall below 2MP. --Mattbuck 12:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Somewhat hard lighting and possibly minimal tilted CW. Composition is not standard, but reasonable. -- Smial 08:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question Haven’t we had this image already some time ago? --Kreuzschnabel 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not the same version, I usually made ​​several shots. Generally upload to commons at the same time, however, sometimes I do the digital revealed later. You are very observant. --The Photographer 01:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
      I think I've had the same view promoted about 10 times, so it's hardly an issue, so long as this particular one wasn't promoted before! Unless you're doing some weird "rereview" thing. Mattbuck 12:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The others are here, not is the same image --The Photographer 12:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --Cayambe (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cayambe 10:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Scarborough MMB 41 Castle.jpg

[edit]

Seriously, ANYONE else care to comment? Mattbuck 09:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The composition is good; nothing to complain about. Also the photo is technically ok. However, it is always a problem if a single person is cropped below the knees. I proposed a new crop that overcomes this flaw. After that, it can have my support. --Cccefalon 08:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with Cccefalon for the crop suggestion --Christian Ferrer 16:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 04:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support good now. --Cccefalon 07:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 07:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Backlit_Margarita_Island_Sunset_in_Las_Guevaras,_Venezuela_CaptureNX2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Backlit Margarita Island --The Photographer 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
     OpposeI have supported the image in FP but the quality of the lower part is poor, not a QI to me like this and I have my doubts now about my vote in FPC, sorry, Poco a poco 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Si cambias tu voto, te asesinaré. Es broma :) , los votos en contra con buenos argumentos son bienvenidos, Un abrazo --The Photographer 22:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Promoted as FP 8/0/2 == QI -- KTC 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but that's not a valid argument IMHO --Poco a poco 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Of course it is. The criteria for (non-historical photograph) FP is stricter and decided by more people than QI, but each to their own. -- KTC 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe on the paper. Fact is that some pictures are not at QI level but become FP because the wow effect "compensates" the lack of quality. Poco a poco 18:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Foreground was underexposed when the photo was taken. Partial raising of exposure in the lower third of the image resulted in a raising noise level. It looks atmospheric but it lacks photographic quality for me. --Cccefalon 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. I supported this version for FP. --Arctic Kangaroo 00:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That is definitely FP, but QI criteria can be more strict due to us not allowing extenuating circumstances. I think I'd probably let this scrape past myself. Weak  Support Mattbuck 09:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco.--Jebulon 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Cccefalon 07:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)