Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 10 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:EBACE_2023,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB237703).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lavatory aboard a Pilatus PC-12 at EBACE 2023 --MB-one 22:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI'm sorry, but I disagree. The blurry element at the top is a bit strange. --Nacaru 23:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nacaru: ✓ Done cloned out this imperfection. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 19:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Fixed, although I have to say the top foremost cropping of the right white wall is unfortunate. Nacaru 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:022_Wild_Alpine_Ibex_Grammont_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wild alpine ibex massive mountains at Grammont --Giles Laurent 01:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Not sharp. --Tagooty 02:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    The subject is the ibex and it was in focus and sharp enough in my opinion. Anyway, I just uploaded a new file with sharpened ibex. What do you think now Tagooty ? --Giles Laurent 11:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Tagooty above. Still not sharp enough. --SHB2000 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New sharpened version uploaded. Press Ctrl+F5 with image open at full resolution on Windows or Cmd+R on Mac to update cache and see the new version. What do you think now Tagooty and SHB2000 ? --Giles Laurent 09:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, it's not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Could you please elaborate what you consider is not sharp in the ibex @Sebring12Hrs? At such distance it is normal to not see every single hair of the animal, especially when the sun has already set and I think that even in these circumstances a sufficient enough amount of hair detail can be seen in this picture --Giles Laurent 18:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    The animal is sharp, but it is such a small part of the image that we expect better sharpness either of the foreground or the background. Yann 18:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your precision Yann. The thing is that at f2.8 (needed because of low light) and 104mm it is impossible to not have bokeh. In this case I think the subject of the image is the ibex and that the bokeh actually highlights the subject by separating it from the background. But I can understand that the subject beeing small, some people could be disturbed. But the fact of having the subject small was deliberate as the image was intended to showcase the animal in its habitat that is still very visible and distinguishable in my opinion. --Giles Laurent 18:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Undecided. The ibex is perfectly sharp and the bokeh is fine. However, for the ibex to be the subject (as outlined above), it makes up a quite small portion of the image. Resolution would be high enough to crop it a bit tighter around the animal though. --Plozessor 13:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review Plozessor. I could crop a bit the bottom of the picture if you think it would make it better but I'd like to keep the top of the mountains as they well represent the environment of the animal (I would like to avoid a crop like this one because the goal of the present picture is to show the animal surroundings). So do you think it would be better if I crop more the bottom of the picture Plozessor? (I'm just afraid that if I do so the subject would be too much lost on the bottom edge of the image instead of being at the 1/3 ratio) -- Giles Laurent 15:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The revisions have not brought any real improvement. The animal is simply too small and it doesn't work as a landscape photo either due to the lack of DOF. --Smial 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Velden_Selpritsch_Kirchenweg_Filialkirche_hl._Andreas_Christophorus_20042024_4899.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Painting of Saint Christopher at the subsidiary church Saint Andrew on Kirchenweg in Selpritsch, Velden, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, it has good composition, but the top shadow kinda ruins it for me --Nacaru 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is too disturbing for QI. -- Spurzem 12:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nacaru and Spurzem. You could try with different RAW conversion settings (like increasing clarity and dynamics while reducing contrast) to reduce the extreme contrast between the bright and the dark part, but not sure if that would be enough. --Plozessor 04:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Such a composition could work if the gutter or the roof casting the shadow were visible in the picture. The way the object is shown here, the lighting is not suitable. Better to wait for a day when there is no direct sunlight. --Smial 15:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Castello_di_Salorno_by_drone_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Drone shot of Haderburg, Salorno, Italy--Syrio 09:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Nacaru 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I think the image is a little bit to dark for QI. But I am not sure. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm agree with the comment above. If you can correct the darkness of the background, I think it could be a QI. --Shougissime 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not great at color correction but I've tried; is it enough? --Syrio 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem --Nikride 13:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition but it's still a bit dark and not very sharp. I don't think it's possible to improve it. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem and Shougissime: I have tried to correct the color. --Syrio 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting, but lower left part is too dark. --Milseburg 15:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)