Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 31 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Parque_nacional_de_Ordesa_y_Monte_Perdido,_Huesca,_España,_2015-01-07,_DD_11-12_HDR.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Ordesa y Monte Perdido National Park, Huesca, Spain --Poco a poco 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. The flowing water shows no brilliance. Please have a look at e.g. Category:De syv søstrene, where all images, regardless of lighting conditions or weather or photographic techniques the water looks like water. --Smial 12:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree, strongly. It is a QI and it is my choice to go for long exposure, use HDR or a ND filter to show a smoother water flow. --Poco a poco 19:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
With all this bright sunlight all around it looks like waste water. It's your choice, yes. -- Smial 20:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Water looks natural. Not overexposed or grayed as in typical HDR photos. --Nino Verde 20:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing unnatural here, using a slower shutter speed is a very standard technique. --King of Hearts 02:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC))
  •  Support as others --Hubertl 05:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good technical composition--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support If the water looks dull, it may be because the light comes nearly parallel to the view direction. But it's not that bad. --Ikar.us 15:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Waterbeheersing onderaan de dijk. Locatie, Noarderleech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Water management at the bottom of the embankment. Location, Noarderleech.
    Famberhorst 15:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Exquisite composition.Perfect quality.--Johann Jaritz 15:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • {o} Underexposed IMO.--Jebulon 19:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support per Johann, however I deleted the category : "Water management by country" which must countains only subcategories --Christian Ferrer 11:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I would a bit sharpen, a bit denoise (see water), a bit increase the brightness and give a bit more contrast. --Hockei 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done More contrast and brighter.--Famberhorst 15:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks much better for me. --Hockei 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, far much better. I like the composition too. I strike my oppose, and support now.--Jebulon 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ferrière-la-Petite, la « voie verte de l'Avesnois » et la Solre.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La « voie verte de l'Avesnois » et la Solre à Ferrière-la-Petite.- Parc naturel régional de l'Avesnois, dans le Nord.- France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment It´s too dark in some parts. Like most of your pictures. You should think about calibrating your monitor! The picture itself is fine! Are you working with your notebook? --Hubertl 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO, the clouds are clipped. --C messier 13:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC) </>✓ Done darkness corrected in some areas. Thank you for your encouraging comment. I am working on a tower PC with a CPU I reviewed the parameters of RawTherapee. Maybe is this the better.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment unfortunately not,PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ, you brightened everything, not just the dark areas. C messier: In the first version, the clouds are not clipped at all (about 80%), in the second version, the cloud brightness raised up to 87%. Even that is not clipping --Hubertl 14:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 Comment C messier The photo was taken at midday sun under a 3/4 face (local time 14:21). It is difficult to adjust the brightness and perfect contrast.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 07:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMHO, the brightest part of the clouds show no structure (brightness was lowered, but information was already lost). According to GIMP, there is a distinct peak at 221, much higher than the rest. Also the part of the sky next to the house has the same brightness with the clouds. --C messier 14:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
    •  Comment There are two opposite positions, I give a  Support and set it to discuss.--Hubertl 15:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      I agree (to set it to discuss :), clounds and a part of the sky are burned out. A try to recover information just turned them grey.  Oppose --C messier 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
already voted --Σπάρτακος 10:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Σπάρτακος 10:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but have a look at the top of the trees and the ground vegetation on the left --DKrieger 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but overprocessed. Wait for a lighting situation, your camera is able to handle. -- Smial 11:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)