Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 18 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Boudha Nath temple.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Boudha Nath temple (by Klajana) --बिप्लब आनन्द 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMHO, it needs to be brightened a bit. --C messier 07:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}}  Not done No reaction after 5 days, --Hubertl 21:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @Hubertl: sorry for unavailable for 5 days.
  • ✓ Done new version uploaded kindly review it.--बिप्लब आनन्द 08:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this candidate is enough for QIC... Thank you --Bijay chaurasia 15:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood now--Ermell 20:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Kościół_Matki_Boskiej_Bolesnej_w_Nowej_Rudzie_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Our Lady of Sorrows Church in Nowa Ruda --Jacek Halicki 06:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose posterization and noisy in the shadows --Carschten 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Not too bad.--Ermell 20:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral IMO OK, but the leafs top left are disturbing. --XRay 13:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:AT_71448_Hofkapelle_Kompatsch,_Nauders-7723.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hofkapelle Kompatsch to southwest, Nauders, Tyrol --Hubertl 02:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some clouds are overexposed and some have posterization. --Iifar 16:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I think it´s acceptable for QI. The clouds are not the main subject. But I have uploaded a new version. --Hubertl 07:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment New version is not much better. Imho this is not good quality (low contrast, partly overexposed sky). --Iifar 08:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as for Iifar -- Smial 08:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Contrast enhanced, there is no overexposed sky or cloud, due to RGB scale (the highest area is 94/94/94 of 100). --Hubertl 09:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Still no detail. It is irrelevant whether the overexposed parts of an image are white (#ffffff) or have been computed to a subtle gray value (#f2f2f2). Also some funny artifacts by bad masking and anti-noise-blurring in the tree tops. Also the posterization has not gone. -- Smial 11:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria della Vittoria September 2015-4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The organ in the church of Santa Maria della Vittoria, Rome -- Alvesgaspar 21:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose too noisy --Carschten 20:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- ✓ Done YOu are right, thanks. New version uploaded. Alvesgaspar 23:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment magenta cast at left ? See the cartouche of St-Therese and surroundings...--Jebulon 17:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that is probably the result of artificial lighting. If the white balance were wrong, then the white angels would look magenta as well . Alvesgaspar 20:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:15-07-13-Teotihuacan-La-Ciudadela-RalfR-WMA_0151.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Teotihuacan La Ciudadela, Mexico, Souvenier sellers --Ralf Roletschek 17:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 08:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose That's a nice piture, but again it has no description. Denis Barthel 08:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. Denis Barthel 06:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 QuestionPro/contra/neutral/Comment, Denis? --Hubertl 08:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hubertl, neutral. Denis Barthel 22:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:15-07-12-Mexico-D-F-RalfR-N3S_9037.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plymouth Reliant in Mexico D. F. --Ralf Roletschek 17:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 08:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support That's a nice piture, but again it has no description. Denis Barthel 08:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. Denis Barthel 06:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   ----Hubertl 05:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Der goldene Engel auf der 'Zitronenpresse' (Glaskuppel der Hochschulde für bildende Künste) in Dresden 01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Fama on the dome of the Kunstakademie Dresden (Academy of Fine Arts / Dresden Germany) --Elrond 21:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment great shot, but tilted cw. Fixable. --Hubertl 21:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I made it but I see no sense in it. The picture looks not better but artificial, rather worse. This is not an architecture image! --Elrond 22:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}} Ok, let´s send it to CR then. Opposing as long it´s not corrected. --Hubertl 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The plinth should be vertical for my taste. --Ermell 08:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment surprisingly it could work sometimes also tilted
--Elrond 10:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ermell. You are right. I have fixed this. --Elrond 10:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment A summary in order to avoid future misunderstandings: Less surprisingly, the tilt on the first version of Ralfs picture was demanded by C messier and afterthen corrected by Ralf himself. Without any "Herumgeeiere". Please don´t mix up tilt and perspective distortion problems. It´s like "Äpfel und Birne". As I already said, this picture is, because of the technical quality, good, maybe even for more than QI. You'll have little pleasure while nominating pictures at this QI process, when you take notes personally, even when they are friendly, helpful and polite.
Und du musst mich auch nicht demonstrativ ignorieren, wir erwarten hier von jedem Teilnehmer durchaus ein erwachsenes Verhalten. Nicht mich angepingt zu haben, der das Contra gegeben hat, schaut mir schon fast nach beleidigter Leberwurst aus. --Hubertl 11:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment when you crop the image on the left side, it will be centered too! --Hubertl 12:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hubertl centered! But now the dome is not symmetric anymore --Elrond 13:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now for me - even when it´s not perfectly centered. --Hubertl 16:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp, good lighting, good composition. -- Spurzem 07:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now.--Ermell 13:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 21:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Kirche St. Michaelis (Hamburg-Neustadt).Deckengewölbe.2.13855.ajb.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling of St. Michaelis church in Hamburg. --Ajepbah 12:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose CA at all the windows and blown out lights. I dont think that´s fixable. --Ermell 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks for review - may this version have a chance of promotion (less windows)? --Ajepbah 13:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Of course. But it might come out as a differnt and new picture. Try.--Ermell 14:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
     Info nominated ;-) --Ajepbah 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The Picture is good and witch sensor is able to prevent overblowing of the windows?! --Elrond 21:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is possible to create pictures without blown out highlights but not with one shot. Some contributors get a decline for less criticisable points.--Ermell 08:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment And what will you see with a HDR-image? Maybe a white sky when cloudy or a slight blue one. I see no benefit, this is harping on about principles. --Elrond 10:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. Setting HDR as a standard procedure is too much. Alvesgaspar 18:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment And the strong CAs at the windows and the organ dont matter?--Ermell 19:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info New version: CAs reduced. --Ajepbah 20:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:China_Tianjin_5217474.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tianjin televisioin tower --Ermell 21:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. And I really like the composition! --Michael Barera 01:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is lens flare at the left. (See my note.) Please check your image.--XRay 05:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)✓ Done
    better now?--Ermell 09:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support It's better. --XRay 05:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Coton_de_Tulear_Puppy-5899.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Coton de Tulear puppy (16.5 weeks old) photographed in a garden in Viborg, Denmark. --Slaunger 15:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Futte !--Jebulon 20:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    Jebulon: You are outing her by revealing her name! She only gave me consent to publish if the little darling could stay anonymous to avoid the paparazzis. -- Slaunger 21:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)If you don't tell it, how the hell is it possible to understand that this is a name ?!Clin--Jebulon 15:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    Jebulon: You know "Garfield" and the dog "Odie"? Well, in Denmark "Odie" is called "Futte". All Danes know it is a dogs name. Could we begin discussing the merits of the actual photo instead? -- Slaunger 10:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF problem (F4 cannot work!) and too noisy for me. --Hockei 19:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks for the review, Hockei, although I disagree. At f/4, 55 mm focal length and aprox 2 m shooting distance, The doF is approximately 20 cm, which is adequate for having a sharp face and front paws, which is the main subject. The smeared out background gives bokeh and helps focus on the face (as is general costum in portrait photography). I am at a loss, what you mean with noise? I see no noticeable noise? It is an ISO 100 image, I have done slight selective sharpening of the fur and slight overall denoising from raw in Lightroom, which at that ISO with my camera gives an adequate result. Would you mind if I send it to CR for a second opinion? -- Slaunger 20:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Certainly you can put it in CR, why not? Look at the shadow parts and you will see the noise. Regarding DOF I would expect that at least the hair of the whole head is in focus. And this I'm missing here, sorry. But don't be sad about my criticisms. The other people will support your picture like (almost) ever. --Hockei 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I don't understand the last sentence. Sounds agressive and provocative, and a biased attempt to prevent "other people" to support. I'm not sure it is the good way to do...--Jebulon 20:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Not aggressiv, but angry about something. Anyway it wasn't necassary here. --Hockei 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support It is true that only the head is on perfect focus but it works nicely with this portrait. Hi Kim! -- Alvesgaspar 21:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)p
  •  Info I've revoked my vote because I'll discontinue my activities in QIC. --Hockei 05:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Hockei: ...Just the day of your wikibirthday... Anyway, sometimes a break is necessary.--Jebulon 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clipping whites, inadequate lighting, way to hard (too high contrast) for a good animal portrait. -- Smial 10:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cute! but the focus, while not too shallow, is in the wrong plane. -- RaboKarbakian 16:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)