Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 15 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Wuppertal_Auf_dem_Johannisberg_0014.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Auf dem Johannisberg, Wuppertal --Atamari 18:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the perspective distortion is disturbing! --Hubertl 07:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    traffic light on right side: vertical: ok, Post office building on left side: vertical: ok --Atamari 10:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Image is actually tilted CCW. -Kadellar 11:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment perspective correction --Atamari 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the best angle owing to distracting background and not the best time owing to cars. Alvesgaspar 17:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Die Mole von Vorupør (Dänemark).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The pier of Vorupør (Denmark) at storm --Elrond 19:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 19:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, there are a lot of easy to detect and also easy to fix issues: There is a big dust spot. The horizon is slightly tilted. there is a blurred and distracting red object at the left corner which can be cropped. However, the image looks too soft with few details, probably too much filter / denoise or similar). --Cccefalon 04:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Cccefalon you are wrong, there was no filterin/denoising done, the low contrast is reasoned by the sea spray. The orange object ist a wind flag and was remained with a purpose but could be cropped (by the way, how can I replace a processed picture here?). Detilding; whitch direktion do you think? I used a water level on the tripod and find on both sides the same distance from the horizont to the top of the picture. --Elrond 08:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
A wind flag would have been nice but not a half one which is blurred. Horizon is tilted clockwise. To replace a window with another version (not with another image!!!) you find a link "Upload a new version of this file" in the File History section of the image. And please resolve the redlink "Vorupør". --Cccefalon 09:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, tilt, dust spot, slight underexposure, a bit noisy. All fixable. -- Smial 09:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I like this photo. And i have test to correct the errores. But it's prozessed, sharpened and/or softened. With the original its possible? --Ralf Roletschek 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ich find's vom Motiv und der Gestaltung her auch sehr schön. Mit dem Raw, soweit vorhanden, oder dem Original-JPG könnte man sicher noch was reißen. Mit den Unschärfen in den Bildecken könnte ich leben. --Smial 07:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hab mal eine neue Version drübergeladen. --Ralf Roletschek 19:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info CA, tilt, noise and exposure correctet, dust removed. --Ralf Roletschek 19:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agressive denoising and sharpening much affecting detail and natural looking -- Alvesgaspar 23:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} as others Changed to  Neutral I am not convinced. --Hubertl 21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info @Cccefalon, @Smial, @Ralf Roletschek, @Alvesgaspar, @Hubertl New version. Spot removed, cropped and horizon straightened (be aware, that it is a long bow, due to the storm I guess). Contrast and sharpness back to original level. --Elrond 12:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry Elrond, but quality is just not there. The image is undetailed and there is chromatic noise in the sea. I wonder if the ISO 400 is to blame with this particular camera. Are you sure this is the original image taken from the camera? And that image quality was set to best? -- Alvesgaspar 19:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alvesgaspar Yes this is the original from the camera, a bit cropped. As you can see, 200 ISO was used and image quality was set to best. Size of the file is uncropped 4,7 MB and 4752 x 3168 px. There was a lot of sea spray in the air, due to the storm, which was also visible by eye. The image represents the visible impression quite good. --Elrond 21:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Pittsburgh_Light_Rail_on_the_Panhandle_Bridge.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pittsburgh Light Rail on the Panhandle Bridge between Station Square and First Avenue. --Dllu 06:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It need a perspective correction (the left is leaning out) and there is purple CAs on the left building --Christian Ferrer 16:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I put it at CR and asked for corrections but never opposed. --Christian Ferrer 19:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me although light is not ideal and slight perspective distortion could be fixed. Alvesgaspar 17:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Adjusted perspective correction and mitigated purple CAs. Dllu 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Estonia_Endla_Nature_Reserve_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Estonia, Endla Nature Reserve. --Cayambe 07:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  • {{s}} Good quality. --Hubertl 08:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems to me that the picture is tilted --Pudelek 11:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment, thanks Pudelek, you are right. --Hubertl 13:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you both for reviewing. Please, tell me where you do see it, clock- anticlockwise?, and I'll correct it. --Cayambe 13:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The right side is lower --Pudelek 18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Right side tilt corrected. Better now? --Cayambe 09:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me. --Ralf Roletschek 19:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no, it´s still leaning to the right. Obviously.--Hubertl 07:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    In my opinion too --Pudelek 21:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Trees are on the same vertical line with their reflections on the water, that means the image is not leaning anywhere. --Iifar 09:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Iifar is right. Optical deception, there must be a small hill at left side. --Kadellar 15:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment there are no hills in this full flat area. the picture is tilted cw. --Hubertl 07:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No doubt it is tilted. The only other way to have an oblique horizon would be the elevation of the terrain to rise fron right to left, which is obviously not the case here. Alvesgaspar 21:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Really a difficult case. The image appears to be tilted. I searched other images of that area, found and compared some: Many show a wavy horizon, so there are hills in the background. Also on many other photos the wooden footbridge looks crooked. So the candidate is with a high probability realistic, only the composition is not very good, as it leads to this "tilted" appearance. But "not perfect composition" is not enough to decline. -- Smial 00:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If you compare the angle of some of the trees to their respective reflections, you can see the tilt. Not a QI like this--MB-one 11:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 07:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)