Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 03 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Partial_open_wing_Nectaring_of_Graphium_agamemnon_(Linnaeus,_1758)_-_Tailed_Jay_(Female)_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Partial open wing Nectaring of Graphium agamemnon (Linnaeus, 1758) - Tailed Jay (Female) --Sandipoutsider 20:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 08:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a nice animal, an interesting perspective and not an easy shot. However, sharpness of the butterfly is a bit too low IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)}
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough since the butterfly makes only a little portion of the image anyway. --Plozessor 10:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Desierto_de_Wahiba,_Omán,_2024-08-17,_DD_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wahiba Desert, Oman --Poco a poco 05:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Doesn't look really sharp to me (especially the car and the background), sorry. --Benjism89 13:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Come on! looking for a tiny car in the background and near the border to estimate the sharpness is not fair. The sand dune in the front, which occupies more than half of the picture is sharp. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Having looked carefully a second time, maybe I was a bit hard on this, I'll rethink about it. The point is, as the subject of your picture is very uniform (low contrast and little chroma variation), one's eyes get attracted by details (such as the car), and I would like to see this kind of landscape pictures sharp almost to the horizon. --Benjism89 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. Foreground is sharp, it was taken with f/11, backup sharpness is adequate. --Plozessor 10:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The blurry dunes beyond the first one spoils the image for me. If the top is cropped so it is mainly the front dune, it would be QI to me. --Tagooty 13:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Nieborów_2023_05_Manufaktura_Ceramics.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nieborów Manufaktura Ceramic Plates, Vases & Tiles Display --Scotch Mist 06:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Quite good for a picture taken in low light conditions, without a tripod I assume. The reason I'll decline is that resolution is low as a result of downscaling, as file history shows : which is against image guidelines. --Benjism89 19:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Even for FP's, down-sampling is "preferred", not mandatory, and if contributions are to be encouraged in indoor settings when flash not an option from those not carrying a tripod then imo this situation provides justification for d-s exception, presuming the 2 megapixel rule is observed - otherwise most images at full size (well beyond 'A4') are considered "too noisey" for QI - interested in the views of others on this topic! --Scotch Mist 11:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I think nobody asks (at least not me) for a 50 Mpx image to be perfectly sharp when viewed at full resolution. And I do understand that taking a sharp, unnoisy picture in a low light environment, when using a tripod is prohibited or impossible, is hard. When I review a QI candidate, I always check sharpness and noise at the same resolution (more or less 4 MPx), so that I judge the same way a picture taken with a high-end professional camera and one taken with a more basic equipment. But even if your image isn't perfectly sharp when viewed at over 4 MPx (which is understandable in my opinion for an interior subject), it's still worth uploading to Commons a higher resolution, as this might be useful to reusers willing to print, correct perspective or crop your image for instance. --Benjism89 12:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is too low (blown highlights, dark shadows, noise) given the already low resolution of 2.6 MP. Otherwise agree with Benjism89, there's no need to take the "no downscaling" rule too strictly, I'd accept a picture downscaled from 50 to 20 MP, but here it's too much. And downscaling aside, if it's barely over the minimum threshold of 2 MP it should be quite perfect to pass. --Plozessor 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for your review - your assessment seems fair and reasonable in concluding that downscaling should not automatically be ruled out although this particular example does perhaps not warrant such an exception! --Scotch Mist 11:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Niasviž_Corpus_Christ_Church_Interior_2023-07-03_6275.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Corpus Christi in Niasviž, Niasviž, Belarus‎. --Mike1979 Russia 07:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 12:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper part of the altar is much too bright. For me it is not a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, upper part is overexposed / burned / too bright, can probably be solved with better raw conversion and/or a brightness gradient in post-processing. --Plozessor 05:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per others --Scotch Mist 11:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)