Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 03 2013

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Prichsenstadt_BW_2013-06-20_09-40-03.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Bavaria,Prichsenstadt, Luitpoldstraße --Berthold Werner 11:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --JLPC 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Das Bild ist zu ungleichmäßig ausgeleuchtet, links und rechts düstere Schatten, das Tor am Ende der Straße hingegen recht hell. Außerdem stören die beiden blauen Fahrzeuge vorn links sehr. Ob die in ihren Wagen einsteigende Dame dem Bild förderlich ist, sei dahingestellt. – Vor einer Auszeichnung sollten weitere Meinungen gehört werden. -- Spurzem 23:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Translation: The lighting of this picture is uneven. There are dark shadows at the left and at the right but the town-gate at the end of the street is rather bright. Further the blue cars left in front are very disturbing. Whether the lady getting in her car is useful for the picture may be leaved undecided. – Before distinction more people should give their vote. -- Spurzem 10:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please, Lothar, would you be so kind as to comment in English, especially after another comment ? Not all users understand German. Thanks in advance. --JLPC 08:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Better now. Thanks again, Lothar. --JLPC 12:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 10:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 19:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Cathedral of Valaam.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Transfiguration Cathedral of the Valaam Monastery --Massalim 18:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Not a Commoner. --King of Hearts 07:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Invalid decline; author is a Commoner. --Óðinn 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise. See the trees in the background. --Dirtsc 15:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Avignon (8132758747).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palais des papes, Avignon --Massalim 18:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Not a Commoner. --King of Hearts 07:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Invalid decline; author is a Commoner. --Óðinn 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose heavily overexposed sky. --P e z i 18:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 19:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Elvas September 2013-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Aqueduct of Amoreira. Elvas, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 14:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline There are a few stitching errors on top and the sharpness isn't so great, I'm afraid. --Yerpo 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC) -- ✓ Done Dust spots and dark lines removed. I couldn't see any stitching errors. There are some irregularities on the top of the aqueduct but they are natural. -- Alvesgaspar 11:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    I marked the errors on the image. --Yerpo 18:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC) -- Sorry but I can't see neither the notes nor the errors. Moving to CR -- Alvesgaspar 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose A part is blurred and with lack of details (see note) --Christian Ferrer 06:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 18:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:An der Obertrave-Luebeck-DSC 0482w.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Culteral heritage monument houses at Lübeck, Germany --P e z i 19:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice; good quality. --High Contrast 19:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    {{o}} Big and evident dust spot (see note, please)--Lmbuga 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Commentremoved dust spot and uploaded new version --P e z i 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good quality for me. -- Spurzem 21:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I still see the dust spot (see note). Problem with cache? Tomorrow I will look, sorry--Lmbuga 23:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I saw the spot yesterday too, but it's ok now. --JLPC 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good catch. --Vamps 10:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now--Lmbuga 17:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 18:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Dlijia_Santa_Barbara_susot.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Innenansicht der St. Barbara Kirche in WengenDeutsch: Interior of the Saint Barbara church in La Val --Moroder 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Very impressive ceiling, very nice paintings, but I'm afraid this kind of picture cannot work without a perfect symmetry. I'm sorry.--Jebulon 14:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment I feel that lately you are too critical with my work --Moroder 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm afraid Jebulon is right. You just have to look at the suspension of the eternal light, otherwise a great photo. --Steindy (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  CommentI choosed this crop because it allows to include the fresco on the wall on the left and the trend is going towards non centered objects. I could try to fix the lamp and make it look more vertical?--Moroder 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:2012 Powiat cieszyński, Zebrzydowice, Kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP (07).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of Church of the Assumption of Saint Mary in Zebrzydowice, Cieszyn Silesia, Poland --Halavar 23:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Very noisy, too tight crop. Overexposed facade, oversaturated roof. --Kadellar 12:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view, but oversaturation generates tons of noise. -- Smial 08:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. --Cayambe 10:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 18:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Geiselwind_BW_2013-06-20_09-16-57.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Germany, Bavaria, Geiselwind, Marktplatz 2 --Berthold Werner 08:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Support good --A.Savin 12:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I wish a discussion please, because I find the image a bit dark and underexposed. Abuse of polarizing filter, I'd say ? I personaly have often the same problem. May I have a third opinion ? Thanks.--Jebulon 15:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no abuse of a polarizing filter. If the sky would be near black it would be an abusive usage. But in the case here the IQ is finde. Some minor CAs (see note), but easily to fix. --Tuxyso 20:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done ca fixed, I didn't use a polarizing filter, the sky had that dark blue in the morning. --Berthold Werner 06:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Berthold Werner 17:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Chaykovskogo_Street_SPB_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chaykovskogo Street in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Unsharp. --Mattbuck 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
     Support Sharp enough IMO. --King of Hearts 07:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)  Support IMO it need a little sharpening but it's ok for QI --Christian Ferrer 12:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:BT2013_-_Chancellor_Merkel_after_first_Prognosis3.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Angela Merkel --Ralf Roletschek 19:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support ok --Steinsplitter 21:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I need a third opinion, please. The focus is on the ear and the neck, but not really on the face, which is not sharp. Am I wrong ? Any thoughts ?--Jebulon 10:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Jebulon: Bad focus, and somewhat overprocessed. -- Smial 10:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad focus--Steinsplitter 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support. Hier geht es meines Wissens nicht um „Excellent plus“ mit Stern, sondern um ein Qualitätsbild – und das ist dieses Live-Porträt allemal. -- Spurzem 12:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 18:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

==

[edit]
  • Nomination Tobolsk Seminary. --Óðinn 00:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose tilted --A.Savin 13:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)<
    • This was a perspective issue, actually; fixed. --Óðinn 01:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I'm still not convinced about the quality (partially soft, posterization in the sky), let's wait for 3rd opinion. --A.Savin 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 18:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Job church, Sinja Gorica.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Job Church, Sinja Gorica, Slovenia --Yerpo 13:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Except for the wall, the rest in underexposed. --Kadellar 15:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me, if everything else were exposed normally the wall would be completely blown out. --King of Hearts 20:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question And what about "S" curve correction ?--Jebulon 22:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I curve-corrected the image slightly, but I'm not well versed in this kind of editing, so please revert if you think it's worse now. --Yerpo 07:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes, King of Hearts, I agree with Jebulon. I usually have to underexpose an image not to burn a part, but I can recover the rest with Lightroom. See this one, just promoted. Sky got burnt all the time, the rest was in shadow. --Kadellar 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    Personally what I do is shoot in RAW, letting the whites blow out about 1/3 to 2/3 stop, and I'm usually able to recover everything in post. --King of Hearts 07:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Technical discussions aside, do you think the image is better now or not? --Yerpo 17:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it looks better, thanks (I would brighten the dark parts a little bit more but ok).--Kadellar 18:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Kadellar 18:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Putrajaya_Malaysia_Ministry-of-Agriculture-and-Agro-based-Industries-04.jpg

[edit]

{{../Decline|Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industries (MOA) --Cccefalon 05:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)| blown sky, tilt --A.Savin 08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: The photo was tilt corrected and the verticals are still verticals. Might be the convex shape of the building is misleading you? Also a clear grey background is not a reason for denial, as in a encyclopedial context it is a desirable effect to focus on the depicted object. --Cccefalon 22:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exposure is ok to me, but it is definitely tilted and needs a vertical perspective correction Poco a poco 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ok, applied another tilt correction and uploaded a higher resolution to make decision about vertical lines easier. --Cccefalon 09:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 18:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this decision! There was NO consensual review after uploading a complete new version which responds to the previously made critic!!!!
I also oppose that User:Savin who just made the first objection against the photo is closing the case without waiting for other opinions or even reiterating his previous opinion in the light of new facts.
This procedure is against the rules of consensual review! --Cccefalon 09:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dryas_octopetala_LC0327.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Mountain Avens (Dryas octopetala), Grimsdalen, Rondane National Park, Norway --LC-de 23:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Oppose Resized image: I don't like the composition, I don't like the crop. Left area is too big and unnecesary, but only 2000 x 2000 to be cropped--Lmbuga 14:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    Please stick to the quality criteria and don't start discussions about resizing if it fits the size criteria at all. Even if I would crop this further, it would fit. Second I didn't want to cut of the leaves on the left side. After checking it again, I see that those leaves doesn't belong to the plant and you are right in this point. I think I can fix that. --LC-de 16:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    Not problem now with the resizing, only with the composition--Lmbuga 15:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 20:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 18:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Budapest_scuare.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Budapest scuare --The Photographer 13:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Please add a better description (which square is it?) and a better category.--ArildV 20:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Einstein2 16:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you! Ok imo.--ArildV 15:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorsion at left. Too foggy at right (top of the building). I don't like the sky, and the crop below (heads) looks a bit random. I wish a third opinion, please.--Jebulon 19:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree for the distortion, fog is not a problem IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 18:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Attica 06-13 Athens 29 Academy of Athens.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building of the Academy of Athens, Greece. --A.Savin 14:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Dull colours, many artifacts, far away from your usual quality images. Accidently a wrong version (preview?) uploaded? I'm also curious about the EXIF-Data. 16 bit/pixel? --Smial 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Cannot follow. Looked at it at 100%, seems OK, where are artifacts? Third opinion please. --A.Savin 18:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The sky has strong compression artifacts. In many parts of the image low contrast, blurry areas adjoin to blocky sharpening artifacts, e.g. at the pillars' flutings. This is also true for those golden applications. The dull colours occur from the disadvantageous lighting. Your images have usually much better quality. -- Smial 11:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like you got a download error. I don't see such blatant flaws, and normally I notice artifacts and similar things. Try to purge and download once again. --A.Savin 21:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please view notes at interim version. Other of your images like File:Warsaw 07-13 img25 Szaniawski Palace.jpg do not show such flaws. -- Smial 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
With the dull colours, you're probably right. However, I don't see as dramatic sky artifacts as depicted in your version. And if there were any, I wouldn't have nominated. --A.Savin 17:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality, I agree with A.Savin, there is no artefacts, the things you take for artefacts are little picks on the roof and are part of the architecture, you can see its on many images on internet --Christian Ferrer 19:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Neutral Didn’t like the dull colors too, the photograph itself is of outstanding quality. I took the liberty to upload a brightened version, revert if you don’t like it. --Kreuzschnabel 15:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support Perhaps too sharpened but QI for me--Lmbuga 22:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 18:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Gewitter_zieht_auf.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Thunderstorm coming up. (Sorry to spoil the nice-weather streak …) --Kreuzschnabel 17:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice Try but noise, low resolution ppi and could be more interesting a floor perspective --The Photographer 17:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
     Comment10 Mpixel low resolution? The Photographer, has someone hacked your account? So many weird comments today? Absolutely not typical for you! -- Smial 17:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
    Thank you for the correction. My financial problems are affecting me, so I go to commons to vent --The Photographer 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    Nice try … Obviously, the weather is really too bad for QIC. Have fun discussing. --Kreuzschnabel 18:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Smial 10:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of Hearts 10:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Support --High Contrast 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 18:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Hong_Kong_center.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hong Kong center --The Photographer 13:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --JLPC 15:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    May I suggest a fix of the white balance. --AngMoKio 13:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As AngMoKio and a lot of dust spots. Noise and the detail it's not good IMO--Lmbuga 20:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't understand that this image can be QI with more than 12 (perhaps 20 or more) dust spots--Lmbuga 20:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment Sorry, poor English. I want to say that I don`t understand that this image may have been promoted when I just saw about 30 dust spots watching only the sky--Lmbuga 20:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Lmbuga and AngMoKio -- Smial 10:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 18:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:20130816_Drachenfels.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Drachenfels mountain. View from Bonn Mehlem. --Heuschrecke 10:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Too much oversharpening and overexposed imo, sorry. (Can you fix that?) --Kadellar 18:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 04:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpening is noticeable, but not excessive, IMO, and white balance is decent. --Yerpo 06:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Not problem with the oversharpening because 4,905 × 2,943 pixels. The blues can be a bit more dark, but QI IMO--Lmbuga 21:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 10:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Braunton (Devon, UK), St Brannock's Church -- 2013 -- 1557.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 14:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]