Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 26 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Greener_grasses,_brighter_lights_,_beautiful_horses_and_amazing_sky.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This beautiful landscape lies in the Rara national park of mugu district. By User:Sardil74 --Biplab Anand 02:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Posterized sky with bands, blown areas, big dust spots. -- Ikan Kekek 05:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan. Also oversaturated.--Smial 08:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose large blown area, far from QI --Milseburg 16:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Guphapokhari_waking_up!.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination It is one of the popular ponds of the Eastern Nepal. Guphapokhari is located in Sankhuwsabha and is away from the crowd. By User:Aleena Rayamajhi --Biplab Anand 02:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now - Please fix the dust spots in the sky and the water and de-noise. The sky is pretty noisy. -- Ikan Kekek 05:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Agnes. --Manfred Kuzel 05:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   ----Seven Pandas 00:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria_Wörth_Pfarrkirche_hll._Primus_und_Felizian_NNW-Ansicht_14052019_6713.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parish and pilgrimage church Saints Primus and Felician, Maria Wörth, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 00:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 00:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Overprocessed with visible halos around the church. --Zinnmann 14:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 16:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Zinnmann. --Smial 08:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Zinnmann: @Smial: I reduced the visible halos around the church by reducing the overprocesses. —- Johann Jaritz 13:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It may be due to my monitor that I do not recognize the halos around the church. I think the picture is atmospheric and technically fine. -- Spurzem 13:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support QI in my eyes. --Milseburg 16:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Stepro 23:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 22:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Vista_completa.005_-_Torre_Eiffel.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower in 2017, in Paris.--Drow male 19:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. IMHO too noisy --Podzemnik 20:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. However, the tower tilts a bit to the left. But that can easily be corrected. Please do it before we further discuss. -- Spurzem 20:16, 19 May 2019(UTC)
  •  Support good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - It's a little too noisy for my taste at full size, and considering the size of the tower, I think it's legitimate to look at this photo at full size. Please denoise a bit. -- Ikan Kekek 15:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose loss of quality towards the top. --Milseburg 15:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Tobias ToMar Maier 14:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, since no edit has been done. -- Ikan Kekek 08:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. Also perspective correction needed. --Smial (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial --Stepro 23:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Great_cormorant_in_Nepal_2019_050.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great cormorant in Nepal. --Nirmal Dulal 07:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Not perfect, but a great photo and decent quality. --ArildV 09:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but insufficient quality. --A.Savin 17:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. May be that it were still better if it had been taken with a camera for 10.000 Euro or more. -- Spurzem 11:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Overall not perfect and below QI level, even with a low budget camera. --Milseburg 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support No excellent quality, but QI for me. --Manfred Kuzel 05:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose looks upscaled --Tsungam 14:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is upscaled and that in a bad way.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Low quality, but an excellent composition --Michielverbeek 16:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    QI is not about composition, but about quality, which is -- yes, low. --A.Savin 22:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: The composition is a criterion here, see guidlines above. --Milseburg 17:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Decent quality -Nabin K. Sapkota 08:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Great shot. I guess if it would have been uploaded in half resolution nobody would oppose. --Stepro 23:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
So we condemn downscaling but support upscaling? --Tsungam 06:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Full ack. Note also that when you take, say, a 3000x2000 image, upscale it to 4500x3000, and then downscale again to 3000x2000; the quality of the output will of course be lower than the original 3000x2000 picture, despite same resolution. So, about comments like "if it would have been uploaded in half resolution nobody would oppose" one can only wonder. --A.Savin 08:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria_Laach_-_Abteikirche,_Nordwest_(2019-05-14_Sp).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Abbey Church Maria Laach -- Spurzem 19:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 04:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Red CA's on corners, missing sharpness, not QI for me. --A.Savin 16:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Sharpness is OK to my eyes. Where are you seeing red CA? Corners of what? -- Ikan Kekek 07:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Building and the towers. --A.Savin 09:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see that, too. I guess I should  Oppose for the time being. Spurzem, once you fix that, I will change to supporting. -- Ikan Kekek 13:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: For some people, pictures that I present here are bad from the outset. There is no point in trying to change or improve anything. -- Spurzem 22:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: The only at extreme magnification visible color fringes are now reduced. However, I do not expect satisfaction from some jurors. -- Spurzem 11:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't be silly. You know very well that I don't automatically oppose your photos. There is a question of accuracy with this kind of chromatic aberration that doesn't apply to a bit of unsharpness or grain, particularly as a red line below a tower is a plausible decoration. -- Ikan Kekek 15:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Is it not surprising that yesterday first you did not see any CAs, but soon after suddenly found them very disturbing? -- Spurzem 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The truth is, I saw the red lines just below the tops of some of the towers but thought they might have been real architectural elements. As I said, it's a plausible decoration. However, it wasn't really there. You think it's OK to mislead viewers; I don't. But because I'll gladly support the photo after you fix the inaccuracy, there's no point in trying to change or improve anything and I can't be satisfied. Do you understand how illogical that is? No, you don't. -- Ikan Kekek 07:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 07:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Roxedl 12:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 14:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sharpness is fine, but the CAs should be removed completly. Until then  Oppose --MB-one 14:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC) – Retourkutsche? -- Spurzem 15:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Some small remains of CA are existent, but not visible up to A4 or letter size. Sharpness not really great, but acceptable. Very nice lighting, colours and composition. --Smial 09:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)