Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2012/CR

File:Jardín_Botánico_de_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-12,_DD_01.JPG

• Nomination Tallinn Botanic Garden, Estonia --Poco a poco 08:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Withdrawn
•  Support - Good quality. --JLPC 08:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC).
•  Oppose Please look closely at grass and flowers, they are looking very unnatural (painting effect again). --Iifar 09:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Iifar. Mattbuck 16:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination I agree, looks weird, and since I surprisely cannot find the RAW file to improve it properly, I take it back Poco a poco 17:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2010-04-25-breda-by-RalfR-58.jpg

• Nomination Street without name in southeast of Breda, Netherlands --Ralf Roletschek 10:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline  Oppose Notable chromatic aberration --Iifar 07:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2010-05-breda-fahrradschilder-by-RalfR-06.jpg

• Nomination Bike Sign in Breda South, Netherlands --Ralf Roletschek 12:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Bad composition, most of the photo surface is out of focus, could you please crop the photo to make main object more obvious.--Tdurden 11:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC))as it is I want it, I do not crop. Ralf Roletschek 14:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
   Support I like the picture and I would like to support. --JDP90 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you will show the bike sign it should be much larger. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Well composed. -- Jkadavoor 16:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support QI and an really good composition. I would also refuse to crop it. Tdurden: No offence meant! Even I have a different point of view, I appreciate your opinion --DKrieger 18:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. Delightful composition --High Contrast 21:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral - it does seem a lot of oof for a small subject. Mattbuck 16:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --JDP90 13:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB P3 Trent Building.jpg

• Nomination Trent Building, University of Nottingham. Mattbuck 20:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion too strong distortions --Taxiarchos228 13:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  I looked into the possibility of correcting it, but the panorama was too wide-angle to allow it. Therefore I consider it intentional, and frankly I think it makes the photo more interesting. Request discussion. Mattbuck 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support PC would crop out half of the image, making it look much less interesting. I consider the PD being part of the composition here. QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 10:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Ralf Roletschek 14:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Per Mattbuck: This perspective makes this image special. Straightening it would destroy it. --High Contrast 19:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Bad Wörishofen, Kloster - Altarbild (2012-07-16 Sp).JPG

• Nomination Altar-piece in the convent-church at Bad Wörishofen -- Lothar Spurzem 09:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Unsharp and noisy, a tripod and longer exposure would have been better. --Mattbuck 20:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Where is it unsharp? Furthermore I can't see that it would be too noisy. I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 17:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Mattbuck, it is a bit unsharp near the corners, but the main problem for me is that it's noisy. --Kadellar 14:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial_View_-_Schloss_Beuggen2.jpg

• Nomination aerial view of Beuggen Castle --Taxiarchos228 06:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Too grainy IMO Poco a poco 09:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  it is so grainy as it could be with ISO 800, some picture here with ISO 200 are more grainy than his picture. --Taxiarchos228 13:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  Could be, that it is not about a ranking, but rather about this picture. Believe me, if I review a picture as grainy as this with ISO 50, I will not approve it, I don't care about the configured parameters, but about the result Poco a poco 13:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  denoised --Taxiarchos228 20:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Decline as unsharp now. Mattbuck 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support If you take a look at the 2000px version, there is no unsharpness. --King of Hearts 04:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  But the photo is 5000px, not 2000. Mattbuck 12:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-23 14-01-55-Puits Sainte Marie 02.jpg

• Nomination An old coal mine, Ronchamp, France. --ComputerHotline 07:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I understand very well it is on purpose, but I disagree with the strong halo due to an excessive HDR treatment, it needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 11:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to very strong halo. -- King of Hearts 04:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Excessive HDR treatment --Archaeodontosaurus 08:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:12-07-12-wikimania-wdc-by-RalfR-020.jpg

• Nomination Metropolitan Police Car in Washington D.C. --Ralf Roletschek 12:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 12:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
   Comment Warum diese kurze Brennweite, die das Auto unnatürlich lang erscheinen lässt, vom verzerrten Hintergrund ganz zu schweigen? Außerdem dürfte das Bild ein wenig dunkler sein, vor allem das Heck des Fahrzeugs. Bitte nichts für ungut. -- Lothar Spurzem 22:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Alle Polizeifotos in den USA mußte ich "aus der Hüfte" machen, ohne Blick durch den Sucher. Die Ordnungshüter hatten was dagegen...--Ralf Roletschek 19:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  Da hier die reine Bildqualität beurteilt wird ohne Rücksicht auf die Umstände der Entstehung, muß ich anmerken: So entsteht dann eben kein QI (das ist ja nichts Persönliches). Trotzdem kann es bei enzyklopädischem Wert natürlich immer noch ein Valued Image werden. --Kreuzschnabel 05:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  Ich schieb’s mal in die Diskussion. --Kreuzschnabel 08:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very dull subject matter.--Gavin.collins 15:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Sorry, is it a comment about technical quality ?--Jebulon 15:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info Technically speaking, the scope of the image (the back of a taxi cab) is so limited that the quality of the image is compromised by the lack of effort expended in the selection of its composition.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blown highlights on car. --Karora 02:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Karora. Mattbuck 16:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Peñero_en_Juan_Griego.jpg

• Nomination Español: Peñero en Juan Griego --The Photographer 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. - A.Savin 15:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)  Comment Tilted horizon, cropped bird.(anonymous comment). + vignetting. Let's discuss.--Jebulon 18:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Done Fixed vignetting and Tilted --The Photographer 02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good now. --Smial 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  SupportAgree!--Jebulon 20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support The newly done modification is very good. Can you please add the geocode? --High Contrast 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added geolocation template, I ordered a GPS for the camera, it is possible to arrive in a couple of months. Sorry that I always forget, I hope that does not happen again --The Photographer 18:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! --High Contrast 23:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Sierra_de_Madera.jpg

• Nomination Español: Sierra de Madera --The Photographer 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion I don't understand the description of the photo for I see no „Sierra“ but only a circular saw.
•  Oppose It is not a good photo for me. -- Lothar Spurzem 17:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  I wanted to discuss! -- Lothar Spurzem 18:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Might be helpful if you told us why it is not a good photo for you. --Kreuzschnabel 21:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wie oben schon gesagt: Ich verstehe den Titel des Fotos nicht; denn ich sehe keine „Sierra“, sondern eine mehr oder minder gut fotografierte Kreissäge, die hierzulande von der Berufsgenossenschaft verworfen würde. Oder nennt man solch ein gefährliches Gerät „Sierra de Madera“? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My razon is the main name in spanish, thanks --The Photographer 17:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Contra is deleted now. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Support I find it impressive, nice idea, good composition, and technically being OK apart from some little sharpening artefacts and a bit of CA (which is hardly avoidable on wide-angle lenses) it’s QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 21:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Muy bonita sierra de madera --Jebulon 14:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done The CA is fixed, thanks --The Photographer 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Good DOF and sharp --High Contrast 16:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:House_Building_in_Margarita_Island,_Venezuela.jpg

• Nomination House Building in Margarita Island, Venezuela --The Photographer 13:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  SupportGood -- Lothar Spurzem 15:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacks sharpness,noisy, several CA's. Too many technical flaws despite the beautiful sunset I'm afraid. - A.Savin 16:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per A.Savin.--Jebulon 09:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Dlieja_sacun_cansla.JPG

• Nomination Pulpit of the St. Jacob church in Urtijëi,in Val Gardena. --Moroder 09:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose No good crop. The chairs and the publications on the left are disturbing. Look at your other version of this pulpit. -- Lothar Spurzem 13:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That's how it is in reality --Moroder 13:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support QI for me. --Carschten 21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support for me too --Archaeodontosaurus 08:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support and for me.--Jebulon 19:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Looks good to me. -Barras 19:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Zamek_w_Tarnowie_ffolas_12.jpg

• Nomination Tarnów - ruin of the castle --Przykuta 09:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Very nice -- Lothar Spurzem 12:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's very nice, but the resolution is below required 2 megapixels. --Iifar 11:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment „Must have … 2 megapixels“ or „should have …“? I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 13:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Please read guidelines. I also think, should have is better, see at one of my photos, QI from 2004. Guidelines can be change. Ralf Roletschek 12:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
      •  Comment Guidelines say: „Should have …“ -- Lothar Spurzem 14:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Fine image, QI for me despite the absence of 80,000 pixels. --Kreuzschnabel 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support for me its also QI. --Ralf Roletschek 11:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose a higher resolution would be highly appreciated --High Contrast 15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per High Contrast.--Jebulon 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose 2 Mpx or higher would be worth supporting -- JDP90 18:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose too small, CA at the disturbing branches on the left. --Carschten 20:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Pedro_Los_Francos,_Calatayud,_España,_2012-09-01,_DD_05.JPG

• Nomination Church of San Pedro Los Francos, Calatayud, Spain --Poco a poco 18:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support QI for me. --JLPC 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Opposesorry, but there is s.th. wrong with the pixels, looks unnatural (painted) --Taxiarchos228 19:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  Yes, could be improved, I uploaded a new version Poco a poco 19:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Painting effect is still there. --Iifar 11:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-23 14-27-47-Puits Sainte Marie.jpg

• Nomination An old coal mine. --ComputerHotline 15:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Rwendland 15:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Green cast.--Jebulon 23:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Green cast --Archaeodontosaurus 09:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-09_Памятник_затопленным_кораблям_в_Севастополе_(1).jpg

• Nomination Monument to flooded ships. Sevastopol, Ukraine Art-top 20:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Visible JPG artefacts in the sky, can you upload a less compressed version? --Kreuzschnabel 21:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please note where the artifacts, I could not find. Maybe it will be easier to remove them by hand. Art-top 05:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• It’s the entire blue sky area. The up-down colour gradient is altered into visible steps. A 6.45 megapixel image compressed to less than 1 megabyte will almost certainly show something like this (3 to 4 megabyte would be appropriate to keep a nice colour gradient). The picture itself is a fine composition. Let’s discuss it, there’s more space than here in the review panels. --Kreuzschnabel 05:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is clear, though I do not see the steps, perhaps because of the monitor. Images are saved in Photoshop with compression 10, usually that's enough. I will try to fix this evening, if possible. Art-top 07:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Tried to fix, see the result, please. --Art-top 20:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see any artefacts in either version, so  Support. -- King of Hearts 04:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The sky gradient is definitely stepped. I added some notes. Maybe this is not considered so bad but it catched my eye immediately even in downscaled preview. --Kreuzschnabel 08:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a typical effect of quite strong noise reduction. -- Smial 11:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • If it's from noise removal, try to fix it again. Thanks for the tip. --Art-top 13:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Very well. --Florstein 16:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose oversaturated, but that's fixable. --Carschten 15:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Uploaded a new version. Tried to do without a strong noise reduction and maintain maximum color information. --Art-top 19:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks a bit too yellowish now, but the quality is good and I don't have an objection against a promotion. --Carschten 16:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose oversaturated --Archaeodontosaurus 08:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Art-top 14:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Neutral The problem seems difficult. For me, the best version is the second.--Archaeodontosaurus 14:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Now it's underexposed... --Carschten 11:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Uploaded neutral version. --Art-top 13:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Domodedovo Cemetery Aug12 img08.jpg

• Nomination Domodedovo Cemetery near Moscow, the chapel. - A.Savin 13:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --JDP90 13:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition but unnatural, oversaturated colours --Kreuzschnabel 19:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality. --Florstein 16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Red oversaturated (easy to fix) --Archaeodontosaurus 08:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose oversatured --Berthold Werner 16:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Iguana_Sanjuanera_2.JPG

• Nomination: Español: Iguana autóctona del valle de San Juan, es una especie en peligro de extinción en el municipio Díaz en Margarita, Venezuela --The Photographer 04:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support A bit soft but QI though, good capture --Poco a poco 07:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good capture but head OOF. Biopics 08:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm afraid Biopics is right, and it is a pity (not because B.p. is right, but because the picture is unsharp...)--Jebulon 16:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Very striking image (by far the best I have seen today), subject matter is topical, and the quality looks very good on my monitor, even at 200% resolution. --Gavin.collins 14:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose blurry. --Carschten 15:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Think, the mainobject is sharp enought... the background works well when it's unsharp CChris 15:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Lassen sich das Bild nicht ein wenig nachschärfen und der Kontrast erhöhen? Wenn ja, wäre es wahrscheinlich gut und würde auch den bisherigen Kritikern gefallen. So, wie es jetzt ist, kann ich allerdings auch kein Pro geben. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 12:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Słupsk Baszta Czarownic DSC 1842.jpg

• Nomination Baszta Czarownic in Słupsk --Nemo5576 12:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion I'll assume reality is at fault for the tilt issues, but some CAs and blur. I'm not sure if this is correctable, would appreciate more eyes. Mattbuck 19:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support QI for me. The CA is very light and hardly avoidable in a wide-angle shot. --Kreuzschnabel 18:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I've reduced the CA (avoidable) on the roof and in the trees at left, brightened a bit just under the roof (more details of bricks available now), reduced the noise a little and add a very little bit of sharpness. But there is nothing I could do against the blurry areas between the trees at left and the building... Feel free to revert if not good. I cannot vote now, but I'm not sure it is a QI, due to this blur.--Jebulon 17:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_Nuestra_Señora_de_los_Milagros,_Ágreda,_España,_2012-09-01,_DD_04.JPG

• Nomination Basilica of Nuestra Señora de los Milagros, Ágreda, Spain --Poco a poco 07:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose - IMHO composition is bad, perspective need to be corrected.--Tdurden 10:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  Actually I like the composition and the DoF is also acceptable. If you expect that the edget of the church is straight it will look very distorted, that wouldn't help to improve the quality of the picture. I'd like to discuss it. Poco a poco 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  I would rather expect vertical lines to be straight and fragment of entrance/window (visible cross at bottom} to be cropped out. Tdurden 12:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  Ok, agree with the crop. I have uploaded a new version, also tried to bring the perspective correction to the limit Poco a poco 19:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Support I really like it now Tdurden 20:17, 27 September 2012
•  Neutral - I'm not sold. I accept it's good quality on technical aspects, but the corrected distortion feels wrong to me, and there's a lot of sky. It's unavoidable, but I'm not happy with it. Mattbuck 16:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I support the opinion of Mattbuck. In my taste this kind of distortion is too much. But the picture is technical very good so it's QI. For sure this is not a candidate for FP. --Taxiarchos228 19:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Pamukkale.jpg

• Nomination Pamukkale --CherryX 14:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Insufficient quality: several stitching errors, funny colours. --Smial 15:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)  Done What kind of stitching errors do you mean? --CherryX 21:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Stitching errors annotated -- Smial 01:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Smial. + blurry areas.--Jebulon 17:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 17:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Pelícano_común_(Pelecanus_onocrotalus),_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_05.JPG

• Nomination Great White Pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 20:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion This is a shame, looks a nice photo, but on close up there is an orange outline around the head of the bird and along its back, and the tail is blurred --Danesman1 22:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  Looks like oversharpened to me, may possibly be fixed, so changed to CR --Kreuzschnabel 06:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  New version uploaded Poco a poco 07:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Question What is the strange reddish colour at the top 1/3 of the image? -- Jkadavoor 16:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  I think it is the shadow of a plant by the river Poco a poco 20:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  May be. That and the unfocused leaves on foreground are bit disturbing; otherwise good like File:Whitepelican edit shadowlift.jpg. I can see so many colour variations as its English name suggests (Rosy Pelican or White Pelican) including [1] so more precise info like sex, age (immature, juvenile, or in breeding plumage) may useful. -- Jkadavoor 06:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support It's much better after correction --Iifar 07:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Dzielnica starego miasta AW.jpg

• Nomination Old Town in Bydgoszcz, Poland --Wolskaola 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Straighten the vertical lines (tilt and/or perspective correction), then it’s fine. --Kreuzschnabel 05:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose it's too dark IMO --Taxiarchos228 06:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Kreuzschnabel could you be more specific about that is wrong? I can't see it. --Wolskaola 19:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  Notes added. --Kreuzschnabel 11:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support tilt & shift corrected. Great composition, beautiful lighting, and it is not too dark: all shadow parts still have details. -- Smial 10:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support QI. --Kreuzschnabel 21:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Schlosz-rauischholzhausen-N3S_4219-by-RalfR.jpg

• Nomination Castle Rauischholzhausen --Ralf Roletschek 20:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
• Same CA as one year ago , right and left...--Jebulon 10:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• OK corrected Ralf Roletschek 07:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC
•  Weak oppose Good light and beatiful castle, but also chromatic aberration plus lack of sharpness and fine detail. --Iifar 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC))
•  Support Allemal QI -- Smial 09:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support but why f/16? 10mm should be able to keep everything sharp at any reasonable aperture. --King of Hearts 06:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Solnedgång_Beckholmen_2012.jpg

• Nomination Sunset in Stockholm. View from Saltsjökvarn towards Beckholmen and Stockholm. Scanned from slide film--ArildV 16:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Hairs, spots which should be painted out. --Mattbuck 11:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Thank for review, i dont understad "hairs" here?-ArildV 13:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC) There is actually a hair (hårstrå) in the sky above the spire at the right side, and many spots. But I like the photo otherwise. --V-wolf 21:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Info I uploaded a new version. All dustspots removed.-ArildV 09:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good enough for me, but please see annotation (and perhaps remove the remaining spots in it). V-wolf 11:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks! Now i saw the hair. New (again!) version uploaded.-ArildV 14:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good now -- Smial 23:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:11-07-31-helsinki-by-RalfR-097.jpg

• Nomination ferry Vispilä to Keukeasaari in Helsinki --Ralf Roletschek 19:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion This appears to be tilted. --Karora 08:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  No, it's no tilted. --Ralf Roletschek 08:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  It's tilted (about 1.8 degrees CW). --ZeroJeden 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Awwer sischer is datt schepp. Bitte Uhr etwas zurückdrehen. -- Smial 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilted.--Jebulon 17:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• OK gedreht. --Ralf Roletschek 06:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. No beautiful ship but a good photo. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Ok now. Geht doch :-) -- Smial 14:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:11-07-29-helsinki-by-RalfR-278.jpg

• Nomination Helsinki, lutherian Cathedral from port --Ralf Roletschek 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Poor composition, gains nothing from the foreground clutter. --Karora 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree, composition is not so bad. The cathedral is a very famous (perhaps the most famous building) landmark building in Helsinki, and it is relevant to show the cathedral's impact on the urban landscape from different perspectives. --ArildV 09:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment slight clockwise tilt, otherwise ok. -- Smial 16:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:11-07-31-helsinki-by-RalfR-095.jpg

• Nomination ferry Gabriella, in Background lutherian Cathedral of Helsinki --Ralf Roletschek 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Very good picture -- Lothar Spurzem 19:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. I think the composition is confused, neither sure whether to show the (too far distant) cathedral, or the (partly missing) ferry, and loses, as a result. --Karora 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral Confusing are the completely meaningless file name and the lacking file description. Quality is ok. -- Smial 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Weak composition (cropped ferry) plus meaningless file name and the lacking of file description. --Iifar 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:RO NT Roman Dormition church belfry.jpg

• Nomination Dormition church belfry in Roman, Neamț County, Romania. Andrei Stroe 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Overexposed parts, sharpening halo, strong red CA, mainly at top. Correctible.--Jebulon 09:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - I see no CA. Mattbuck 12:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I see it (upper part of tower, red/blue). Not too bad, though. --Kreuzschnabel 18:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, strong CAs, see notes. To me, but I'm not sure, the dark areas are a bit dark--Lmbuga 21:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Zwönitz (river), Altchemnitz (Barras).jpg

• Nomination The river Chemnitz, in Chemnitz-Altchemnitz. --Barras 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Unsharp. --Mattbuck 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Not crisp, but IMHO sharp enough at reasonable resolution for a QI badge. --Kreuzschnabel 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough for QI IMO, and some overexposed parts in the water.--Jebulon 17:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ugresha Wall Panoram ver 02.jpg

• Nomination Panoram of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery Wall --Heuschrecke 21:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline I'm not convinced. It's generally ok, but I think there are a few stitching errors. I assume the tilts are reality's fault, but the sky... is that CG? Mattbuck 10:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Done Tried to fix stitching errors. Is it better now? The original sky was uniformly cloudy, I had it filled with fixed color, but that didn't change its appearance. Heuschrecke 11:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Uploaded the revised version (with even bigger resolution) under a new filename (didn't work otherwise), linked to the new file. Heuschrecke 19:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  My issue with the sky is just that the boundary seems extremely well defined. It's hard to say exactly, but in real life there's that certain... fuzziness maybe, or at least colour variation within the sky to some extent. Mattbuck 20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  Do you like the sky better now? (Slight gradient fill + 1px gaussian blur around wall's boundary) Heuschrecke 15:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  I still don't feel it looks right, but I shall send it to discussion so other people can disagree with me. Mattbuck 11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unnatural sky. --Iifar 09:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment What is the reason of the blocky color gradients at the bottom of the building? See annotations. -- Smial 14:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Wiesentalbrücke6.jpg

• Nomination Lörrach: Vally Wiese bridge (Wiesentalbrücke) --Taxiarchos228 05:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
• Nice photo, but some bad cloning errors. Perhaps you can fix it. Mattbuck 20:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  on the left bottom side I can try to fix them, on the right top side there was nothing cloned by me --Taxiarchos228 13:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's odd, there's this triangle of trees below the road where the dark bits are suddenly darker than the surrounding dark bits. Mattbuck 23:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Retouching problems. --Iifar 07:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• fixed the problems in the lower part, the darker trees on the top part are natural, there was definitely not cloning done by me --Taxiarchos228 18:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • lower parts retouching issues are all the same (it looks unnatural, note added), I don't see any improvement. --Iifar 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • and I don't see a problem, there looks nothing unnatural, the car that is lower sharp is a result of the dusty construction area and not a photographic issue --Taxiarchos228 22:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Pro. A good one. Wlady, which lens and camera type did you use for this image? --High Contrast 00:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nikon D7000 and the lens was the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM, for detailed informations look here --Taxiarchos228 21:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Minor issues not relevant for QI. -- Smial 10:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Inconsistent pano. Different quality of constituting images yields a mosaic of focused and unfocused patches. Clearly not a QI. Biopics 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • LOL --Taxiarchos228 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support ist ok for QI, minor problems. --Ralf Roletschek 06:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • LOL --Jebulon 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz SSKL, Bj. 1931, Heck (2008-06-28) bearb.jpg

• Nomination Mercedes-Benz from 1931 at Oldtimer Festival on Nürburgring in 2008 -- Lothar Spurzem 20:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline Nice, but bad edges, see notes--Lmbuga 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Comment Incredible if I see a lot of other QI-pictures of cares! Do you know any better photos of a Mercedes-Benz SSKL in the commons? I ask for discussion. Lothar Spurzem 00:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)--
  Sorry Lothar, aber hier wurde der Hintergrund so offensichtlich und ungeschickt unscharf gemacht, das erinnert an „Grundschüler probiert zum ersten Mal mit Photoshop herum“. Nicht nur die bereits annotierten Kanten, auch die Windschutzscheibe ist noch überall von scharfem Hintergrund umgeben. Das Auto an sich ist zwar schön fotografiert, aber wir bewerten das Gesamtbild, und das ist hier wirklich  Oppose nix. Und noch mal: „Ich kenne kein besseres Bild“ ist kein Argument – wenn es nur schlechte Bilder gibt, muß nicht das am wenigsten schlechte ein QI werden. --Kreuzschnabel 02:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  Ich muss zugeben, dass ich mir das Bild hätte ganz groß anschauen müssen, bevor ich es nominierte. Entschuldigung! Inzwischen habe ich es überarbeitet. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Carro_de_Madera.JPG

• Nomination Carro de Madera --Rjcastillo 20:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose In my opinion too dark and noisy. -- Lothar Spurzem 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • ok. maybe dark. but not noise ? --Rjcastillo 21:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Underexposed--Lmbuga 21:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Way too dark (though I can’t see any relevant noise) --Kreuzschnabel 02:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think it is ok. Colour balance ok with this background. Makes it interesting. Therefore barely QI according my opinion --High Contrast 21:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Zamek_w_Golubiu_-_ZJ001.jpg

• Nomination Golub Castle --ZeroJeden 13:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline White balance extreme yellowish. Do you have a RAW version? --Smial 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)  Done wb done --ZeroJeden 16:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC) * Much better now, but we should ask for more opinions -- Smial 01:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose There are artifects in the sky. Movement of the flags due to long exposure. -- JDP90 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Georgenstein Ostufer Crop.jpg

• Nomination Georgenstein at river Isar, seen by eastern riverbank, on top you can see the wayside shrine of Heiligen Georg. Regards. Richard Bartz 17:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose just a derivative (cropped) version of this one (per 1, 2) --Carschten 14:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice! --Iifar 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very nice indeed, but per Carschten.--Jebulon 21:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Carschten unless answered by the author. -- Jkadavoor 07:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ruila_järv.jpg

• Nomination Lake Ruila --Iifar 19:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Withdrawn Very pretty, but stitching error (see note). Also, it looks like the panorama was made from differently exposed originals. --King of Hearts 06:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
   Info Restitched. --Iifar 16:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  Unfortunately, I still see bands of light and dark. Panorama software in general tends to be not very good at correcting exposure, and it would be better to correct the source images beforehand and then stitch. --King of Hearts 22:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Pałac Schaffgotschów w Jeleniej Górze-Cieplicach.jpg

• Nomination Schaffgotsch Palace. Jelenia Góra. Poland. --Enamo 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
• Tilted, if fixed then ok. Mattbuck 12:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Done  Support Fixed -- Smial 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support OK. Mattbuck 15:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Soft, lacking details. Biopics 22:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What you call "soft" I do call "not overprocessed". Which details are lacking? -- Smial (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice and good quality. --Selbymay 20:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Auftragscenter_Mosser_Leimholz_03.jpg

• Nomination: The client and office center of the Mosser Leimholz GmbH in Perwarth, municipality of Randegg, Lower Austria, was built in 2004-2005. Architect Thomas Wesely. --Herzi Pinki 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Review I think the exposure is a bit too dark and the colours are bit too grey, but good composition ---Sjokolade 08:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Perchtoldsdorf_Leonhard_FoNo2.jpg

• Nomination Figurenbildstock hl. Leonhard in Perchtoldsdorf, Lower Austria by Chfono --Herzi Pinki 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
• Partially out of focus --Poco a poco 22:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• IMHO the face is fully in focus, the shoulder is not, but not the main subject and might as well be out of focus by composition --Herzi Pinki 11:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. The unsharp shoulder gives a depth effect to the photo. Very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Medium quality: Partially out of focus, too tight (bad composition IMO). Perhaps green color aberrations (see the nose) or chromatic noise. Artifacts (see left upper corner). Vignetting IMO--Lmbuga 00:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lmbuga --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:European Court of Human Rights.jpg

• Nomination European Court of Human Rights. --CherryX 15:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Leider auch hier ein Contra, tut mir leid: Sensordreck und Stitchingfehler (siehe Annotations) --Carschten 18:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Carschten, Please can you explain your comment in english for all to understand, thankyou.--Danesman1 19:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  
  English: stitching errors, dust pots (see Annotations)
  ..... --Carschten 20:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  Stitching errors removed (new stitching) etc. --CherryX 09:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Oberstdorf - Josefskapelle - Altar - HDR.jpg

• Nomination Interior of St.Josef chapel in Oberstdorf (Germany), HDR --Misburg3014 13:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline  Support slightly inclined. good quality. qi for me --Rjcastillo 14:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
   Comment good quality, but the perspective distortion need to be corrected and the imagge needs a crop at top (grey line). Strange reflections in the bottom corners; needs a discussion. --Carschten 17:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Thanks for the hint, cropping done (upper, left and right borders, mainly upper border). Reflections existed in reality, I cannot see anything strange here. And yes, there is some minor wide-angle-lens distortion in the picture.--Misburg3014 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose As Carschten. Improvable--Lmbuga 23:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sorry the too strong perspective distorsions are a no-go for me.--Jebulon 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz SSKL, Bj. 1931 (2008-06-28) ret.jpg

• Nomination Mercedes-Benz from 1931 at Oldtimer Festival on Nürburgring in 2008 -- Lothar Spurzem 20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline  Support Maybe a bit dark but it's easy to fix. QI. --JLPC 08:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
   Oppose See notes. Car itself is nice but the artificial background blurring spoils the pic in my eyes. Let’s discuss. --Kreuzschnabel 07:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I mean to remember that there was a “Pro” of user JLPC. Is it right? -- Spurzem 12:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it’s still there. You may have added the pro mark as well but thanks for reminding. --Kreuzschnabel 13:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Kreuzschnabel: Die Mängel sind dank der Mitarbeit von JLPC und einer kleinen Retusche meinerseits jetzt beseitigt. Sei deshalb bitte so nett und nimm die Annotations aus dem Bild heraus. Ich weiß nicht, wie man das macht. Gruß -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Na, man klickt auf „Löschen“ in dem Fenster, in dem die Anmerkung aufploppt. Schön finde ich die unnatürlich springende Unschärfe aber immer noch nicht. --Kreuzschnabel 22:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ich verstehe nicht, was Du damit sagen willst, dass die Unschärfe „springt“. Mir geht es bei diesem Bild darum, das eigentliche Objekt herauszustellen und Unbedeutendes wie die Gastronomie und die Leute im Hintergrund zurücktreten zu lassen (auch wegen des Rechts am eigenen Bild). Aber wenn Dir das nicht gefällt, ist das Foto wohl kein „Qualitätsfoto“ – im Gegensatz zu manchem mehr oder auch minder gelungenen Urlaubsfoto, das hier durchgewinkt wird, usw. Denn ich weiß: Einen Anspruch auf Anerkennung gibt es nicht. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Zur springenden Unschärfe hatte ich zwei Annotations angebracht, die jetzt auf deinen Wunsch hin wieder weg sind. Also dann zu Fuß: Folge den vertikalen Bildrändern, da sieht man genau, bis wohin der Boden scharf ist und ab wo der Weichzeichner deiner Bildbearbeitung angesetzt hat, um die eigentlich schärfere Umgebung unscharf zu machen. Der plötzliche Übergang sieht unnatürlich aus. – Und wenn es mir nicht gefällt, wird es immer noch ein Qualitätsfoto, wenn es einigen anderen gefällt. Ich entscheide das doch nicht allein, ich gebe nur meine persönliche Meinung ab, dazu ist CR doch da. (Und wo habe ich zuletzt ein minder gelungenes Urlaubsfoto durchgewinkt? Und warum sollte ein mehr gelungenes kein QI werden? Oder meinst du damit, daß meine hier nominierten Urlaubsfotos (die größtenteils promotet wurden) keinesfalls QI hätten werden sollen? Wenn ja, warum hast du dann deine Meinung dazu nicht abgegeben, als sie nominiert waren? Fragen über Fragen …) --Kreuzschnabel 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe keineswegs speziell Deine Bilder gemeint und auch nicht Deine Beurteilungen. Letztere sind grundsätzlich begründet und haben – was meine Fotos betrifft – durchaus zu Verbesserungen geführt. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Manipulation of the background. The chromatic noise of the wheels can be improved--Lmbuga 23:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Lmbuga: Obviously you don't understand my intention to show this historical car and not the background. But OK! You are one of the main judge and your vote is the only right as I see. Therefore: Off with such a bungling picture! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Indian_woman_with_white_make-up,_Gwalior,_MP.jpg

• Nomination: Indian woman with white make-up, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India. --Yann 18:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sadly, because it is a very interesting image, but as I find this picture unsharp and blurry, I ask for a discussion please.--Jebulon 23:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Due to very soft lighting you do not have high contrast and harsh shadows in this image, which commonly suggests high sharpness. But I can count every single hair -> sharpness ok. Composition perfect. Nice DOF. Colours natural. QI for me. -- Smial 23:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Not sharp at 1:1; but not a big issue for me. It is nice if the disturbing bottom part is cropped out. -- Jkadavoor 06:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. Expressive and technical good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose not sharp at all. Biopics 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Sure it’s impressive (try to nominate as FP) and perfectly composed, but since the lack of sharpness is visible even in 400×600 px preview, it’s not a QI for me I’m afraid. Don’t crop the bottom part, that would move the face out of the golden ratio. --Kreuzschnabel 03:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 11:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Batad_Rice_Terraces_after_the_rain.JPG

• Nomination Batad Rice Terraces (UNESCO Heritage Site), Ifugao, Philippines --Namayan 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. Beautiful view. --Selbymay 16:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy sky. Lacks overall sharpness IMO. Please discuss. --JDP90 17:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noise in the sky acceptable IMO, but lack of sharpness not. + oversaturation IMO. Very nice place though.--Jebulon 17:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Noise in the sky ok, as for jebulon. Sharpness could be better, it's at the borderline. Oversaturation: Maybe. But the Sky looks natural, so: Possibly we can have such intense colours at Phillipines after a rain? I don't know. Perhaps we can get a version with somewhat less colour saturation? It's a great view. -- Smial 23:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support per Jebulon but I appreciate the catch. I appreciate the colours. It is a QI for me. --High Contrast 00:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Underexposed probably due to against the sun (3PM); over-saturated by the compact camera. I think both can be easily corrected. -- Jkadavoor 06:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting image, sadly spoilt by in-camera processing. Couldn't be helped imo. Biopics 23:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Over-saturated --Archaeodontosaurus 06:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ruiny_zamku_w_Bolesławcu_-_ZJ001.jpg

• Nomination Castle in Bolesławiec --ZeroJeden 13:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality & cgreat composition. --Smial 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sky seems too dark and a bit noisy, maybe there's a bit of vignetting. Imho, composition could be better because the wall just touches the top of the tower, I think there should be space there or the tower should be more hidden. --Kadellar 17:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kadellar + wrong white balance --Sfu 18:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ba b747-400 g-civx maingeardetail arp.jpg

• Nomination British Airways Boeing 747-400 (G-CIVX) main undercarriages during landing at London Heathrow Airport, England.Photo by Arpingstone nominated by --Danesman1 17:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline  Oppose Interesting an EV, but too many artifacts, sorry.--Jebulon 21:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  Where do you see many artifacts or what do you mean with artifacts? -- Lothar Spurzem 20:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
   Oppose I.e. a lot of the edges are jagged. Biopics 21:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
   Oppose Poor technical quality (too much compression). --Kreuzschnabel 06:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Gastronomie- Eiskarte- Gläser.jpg

• Nomination Menu card and glasses. --CherryX 08:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
• Beautiful composition and lighting. However, the JPEG quality seems a bit odd - the salt and pepper look like they were painted rather than photographed. I  Support, but I'd like a second opinion on it. Mattbuck 22:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support The painting texture is the result of the camera trying to sharpen an edge which is out of focus, I think. Doesn’t spoil the image though, certainly QI to me. --Kreuzschnabel 12:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Gustav-Adolf-Stabkirche (Hahnenklee) - Altar.JPG

• Nomination Altar of the Gustav Adolf stave church in Hahnenklee (Harz, Germany) --Misburg3014 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Underexposed. perspective a bit distortion --Rjcastillo 20:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Perspective must be corrected but the photo is not underexposed. Please discuss. -- Lothar Spurzem 21:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Definitely tilted. On the left side, the vertical line cutting the window is almost correct, on the right it is awfully askew. Then it is a bit too dark. The foreground rope silhouette is distracting too – could easily have been avoided by making one or two steps forward. Looks like a random shot to me rather than a composed image. On the other hand, it is surprisingly sharp and noise-free. --Kreuzschnabel 11:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel --Archaeodontosaurus 07:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:12-10-03-autostadt-wob-by-RalfR-12.jpg

• Nomination Volkswagen Golf VII; appearance November 2012 --Ralf Roletschek 15:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Very disturbing reflexions. Lothar Spurzem 21:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too yellow, wrong white balance IMO--Jebulon 19:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:PL - Ujazd - zamek Krzyżtopór - 2012-08-11--18-20-40-03.jpg

• Nomination The ruins of Krzyżtopór Castle in Ujazd --Kroton 19:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Strong CA. --Kadellar 16:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment There’s no CA since there are no red edges opposite to the the blueish ones, so it’s just halation. Obviously not a first-class lens but not too bad in my eyes. --Kreuzschnabel 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunately this is a CA ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:San_Sebastián_II._Paseo_Ciencias.JPG

• Nomination San Sebastian --Rjcastillo 01:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Weak support A "portrait" framing should work better, but it could pass.--Jebulon 16:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Too dark IMO. To the author: If you find this before it gets put into CR and brighten the image, feel free to change it back to
•  Support "Promotion" yourself. --King of Hearts 23:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Please have another look. now? --Rjcastillo 02:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)  Done --Rjcastillo 16:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Now it had a red cast. I uploaded an improved version (in my eyes), which is QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Neudorfer Straße (Duisburg) bei Nacht.jpg

• Nomination Neudorfer Straße (Duisburg). --CherryX 09:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Bad crop, and perspective distortion, though the sky with the crescent looks nice. - A.Savin 10:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  What kind of distortion d'you mean? --CherryX 14:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Counterclockwise tilt on the houses (albeit the crop imo suffices to decline). - A.Savin 16:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  Tilt is corrected. --CherryX 22:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:To_valmuer_en_kamille_og_en_svirreflue.jpg

• Nomination Dansk: To valmuer en kamille og en svirreflue --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  CommentSorry. Below minimum size requirement. 2Mpx required. --JDP90 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Higher resolution uploaded. --Villy Fink Isaksen 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Not fully identified. Moving to discuss for other opinions. --JDP90 08:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Areas too blurry. The caption is too lean. No geolocation, no caption in English. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:11-07-29-helsinki-by-RalfR-088.jpg

• Nomination Helsinki; view from Töölö across the lake Töölönlahti to Linnanmäki --Ralf Roletschek 17:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Overexposed. --Mattbuck 15:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  where it is overexposed? i have it new developed without pure white. --Ralf Roletschek 18:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry Ralf, the girl’s top clothing is pure white to me, and so is the bike’s frame. Maybe it’s not #ffffff when measured but at least it’s glaring bright and free of detail, the entire image looks too bright --Kreuzschnabel 19:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:San_Sebastián_I._Paseo_Ciencias.JPG

• Nomination Monumento San Sebastian. Paseo Ciencias --Rjcastillo 01:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline I see two issues here. An obvious tilt, and a need of a perspective correction.--Jebulon 21:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)  Done Please have another look --Rjcastillo 03:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
   Oppose - unsharp on left. Mattbuck 15:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Please have another look. Better ? --Rjcastillo 01:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)  Done --Rjcastillo 15:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-06 13-27-19-Slag heaps-8f.jpg

• Nomination Mineral found in a slag heaps (foocus stacking). --ComputerHotline 09:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose OOF en not identified. Biopics 22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you want to say ? --ComputerHotline 08:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "Out of Focus, and not identified"--Jebulon 20:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose ID: Slag foundry. Poor lighting and masking lower too vague --Archaeodontosaurus 06:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Bradybaena_similaris_01.JPG

• Nomination Shell of an Asian land snail, Bradybaena similaris --Llez 06:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Jkadavoor 07:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  Shell of own collection, yet very dirty. Please clean as a courtesy to the user. Biopics 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I don't know what to do. There are problems with the color (perhaps chromatic noise): see note; but it's a good image.--Lmbuga 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 Info Colour correction done, adjusted, red removed --Llez 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Air india b747-400 vt-esn arp.jpg

• Nomination Air India Boeing 747-400 (VT-ESN) lands at London Heathrow Airport, England.Photo by Arpingstone. Nominated by --Danesman1 23:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 14:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversharpened, too tight crop. Biopics 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too tight crop. Not too oversharpened to me, perhaps a bit (see wheels)--Lmbuga 00:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Iberia a321-200 ec-hui arp.jpg

• Nomination Iberia Airbus A321-200 (EC-HUI) lands at London Heathrow Airport, England.Photo by Arpingstone. Nominated by --Danesman1 22:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 14:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversharpened: that landing gear is not outlined with a white line... Biopics 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too tight crop to me--Lmbuga 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Leuchtfeuer_Dornbusch_Hiddensee_2012.JPG

• Nomination Dornbusch Lighthouse in the north of the island of Hiddensee, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. -- Felix Koenig 16:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment Nice composition but unfortunate light. Bush are too dark, the lighthouse itself not clearly detached from the bright background. Would certainly be QI if taken at blue sky or an entirely cloudy background.
  I sort of like it. I agree, but (very) weak support. Mattbuck 12:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Underexposed, it should be nicht schwer to add some exposure. --Iifar 17:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-12 16-16-22-musee-histoire-belfort-sapeur.jpg

• Nomination Étude d'uniforme, un sapeur du génie, by Alphonse Deneuville --ComputerHotline 10:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --PierreSelim 10:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
•  OpposeSorry, strong yellow cast to be corrected (I've checked it: try to reduce yellow and add blue, you will see the difference !)--Jebulon 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Jebulon is right. I uploaded a correction. Hope it helps. Yann 07:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you Yann, opposition removed, support now.--Jebulon 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-12 16-06-11-musee-histoire-belfort-artilleur.jpg

• Nomination Artilleur à cheval en tenue de campagne, by Étienne-Prosper Berne-Bellecour --ComputerHotline 18:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion Good Qallity --CChris 18:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, please correct the yellow cast.--Jebulon 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Good now, opposition removed.--Jebulon 11:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Reichstagsgebäude1.jpg

• Nomination: Berlin: Reichstag building --Taxiarchos228 04:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support People in the right foreground disturbing, but OK for QI. - A.Savin 09:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Stitching errors, notes added. --Iifar 16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days.

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 16:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Bradybaena_similaris_01.JPG

• Nomination: Shell of an Asian land snail, Bradybaena similaris --Llez 06:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Good quality. --Jkadavoor 07:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Shell of own collection, yet very dirty. Please clean as a courtesy to the user. Biopics 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I don't know what to do. There are problems with the color (perhaps chromatic noise): see note; but it's a good image.--Lmbuga 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 Info Colour correction done, adjusted, red removed --Llez 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days.

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Biopics 18:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Aos_mariñeiros._E_Martínez._Aguiño._Ribeira._Galiza.jpg

• Nomination Sculpture dedicated to the sailors by E. Martínez, Aguiño, Ribeira, Galicia, Spain --Lmbuga 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
• slightly overexposed for me --Rjcastillo 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, not to me, but perhaps I'm not right: Lets "Discuss"--Lmbuga 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support A bright image, but IMO not overexposed. QI. --NorbertNagel 19:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  
•  Support Obvious QI. --Selbymay 09:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  
•  Support QI to me --DKrieger 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  
•  Support A good one- Meets the criteria --High Contrast 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Please clean one spot, note added. --Iifar 15:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done--Lmbuga 22:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --Iifar 07:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Mt Jackson GNP1.jpg

• Nomination Mount Jackson Montana --Fredlyfish4 01:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Could be QI after removal of dust spots (in the sky) and slight denoising (also sky). --NorbertNagel 08:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Not done - shame, beautiful composition. Mattbuck 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Done I tried to rescue this beautiful image. Sky cleaned and denoised, but therefor I can't promote. --Iifar 09:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality now. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good now. --NorbertNagel 18:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Ok. -- Smial 23:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Château_de_Chantilly_-_Cour_de_la_Capitainerie_-_PA00114578_-_003.jpg

• Nomination Un buste exposé dans la cour de la Capitainerie du château de Chantilly. --Thesupermat 15:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion

 Support Good quality. --JLPC 17:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Sorry, lack of identification, and unsufficient categorization.--Jebulon 10:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Info id and categorization improved. --Coyau 22:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks, opposition removed.--Jebulon 08:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Support Ok. -- Smial 23:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Aurora_electronic_calculator_DT210_04.jpg

• Nomination Aurora electronic calculator DT210. --Coyau 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Clarkcj12 02:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
•  SupportLooks good to me. --King of Hearts 07:51, 19 October 2012
•  Support Per King of Hearts : QI. --JLPC 17:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)(UTC)
•  Support I see nothing insufficient here. --Kreuzschnabel 07:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Cannot see problems. -- Smial 23:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support QI quality.--Jebulon 21:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   A.Savin 09:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Jan_Satyagraha_2012,_between_Gwalior_and_Agra.jpg

• Nomination Jan Satyagraha 2012, between Gwalior and Agra. --Yann 06:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Unsharp, bad colour balance. --Mattbuck 21:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  How does the colour balance need to be corrected? --Yann 08:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Santa_María_la_Real_de_la_Almudena_-_12.jpg

• Nomination Almudena Cathedral, Madrid, Spain --Kadellar 12:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Too much noise in the bottom, sorry --Poco a poco 02:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to rework. --Kadellar 18:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it better now? Thanks. --Kadellar 20:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is better, but I am not convinced yet, let's discuss Poco a poco 02:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Very nice, but to me the perspective distortion is disturbing. Bad quality of the bottom area (unsharp, noise...)--Lmbuga 22:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Noise is overrated, no problem with that. Too strong denoising produces other problems. But CA should be better controlled. -- Smial 23:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others.--Jebulon 10:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Kälber in Mellenstock, Bizau 6.JPG

• Nomination Braunvieh cattle --Böhringer 20:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Very nice photo and good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 20:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice idea but unfortunate crop in my eyes, showing so much sky instead of more of their legs. Left and right crop is too tight. Considerable chromatic noise in the shadow parts of the fur too. Discuss. --Kreuzschnabel 16:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good enough for me. --King of Hearts 07:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support QI to me, even if the crop is slightly unusual --DKrieger 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Exactly as Kreuzschnabel (and to me there is a bit of distortion, but I'm not sure)--Lmbuga 22:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. Good intention to show the surroundings though (16mm). -- Jkadavoor 10:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good. -- Smial 23:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good. I don't find the crop that bad --High Contrast 15:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support very nice.--Ralf Roletschek 16:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel.--Jebulon 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Picaflor_de_Margarita.jpg

• Nomination Español: Picaflor de Margarita --The Photographer 13:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Withdrawn Good quality. --Yann 08:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  Image has been declined twice before for technical issues. Nothing has been addressed since. Biopics 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there was a mistake on my part, I have committed a stupidity, not once but three times. It seems that on purpose, however, is not. sorry. --The Photographer 23:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes are not stupidities, they just happen. Biopics 07:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Cisne_(Cygnus_olor),_Siauliai,_Lituania,_2012-08-09,_DD_04.JPG

• Nomination Swan (Cygnus olor), Siauliai, Lithuania --Poco a poco 02:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Bad point of view and (to a much lesser degree) compression artifacts. --Jastrow 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the "bad point of view" argument. There are lots of pictures from the swans from the front (e.g. for this juvenile Cignus), and showing the rear part is valuable from the enciclopedic point of view and has not much to do with the quality of the image Poco a poco 21:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC

I don't object to your showing the rear part; I object to the view from the top. Also the picture is slightly overexposed (no part is blown out, but you can't see much texture on the right side of the neck), and the composition is too centered in my opinion. I'm not discussing the encyclopedic value, but a valuable picture isn't the same as a QI. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Great_Wave_Hokusai_BM_1906.1220.0.533_n02.jpg

• Nomination Detail of the Great Wave by Hokusai. --Jastrow 17:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose outside of QI scope Gnangarra 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Can you elaborate? --Jastrow 06:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I disagree how this detail of a artwork falls out of scope for QI ? --PierreSelim 14:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I support, anyway. Perfectly in scope, IMO.--Jebulon 21:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Reproduction. Good one. But still a reproduction. As for Gnangarra I can't believe this is in scope of QI. Try FP. -- Smial 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Commons:Quality images/Subject/Works of art features lots of reproductions. Eight of my QI are reproductions of 2D art; two of them feature on Commons:Quality_Images#Non-photographic media. Nowhere does the policy state that reproductions are out of scope. Jastrow 08:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Well in scope. Yann 17:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support From QI guidelines: "Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible." In scope, good quality. --Avenue 13:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-12 16-29-38-musee-histoire-belfort-medailles.jpg

• Nomination Prussian medals. --ComputerHotline 07:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Really too yellow, please correct the balance.--Jebulon 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Yellow cast correction uploaded. Yann 15:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion Good quality. --Mattbuck 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Much better indeed, but strong flash shadows to be corrected first, IMO.--Jebulon 09:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC) ERROR : there is no flash. --ComputerHotline 11:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-07 15-56-34-musee-histoire-belfort-missel.jpg

• Nomination Missel. --ComputerHotline 08:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Lack of space around, unfortunate crop at right. Other opinions ?--Jebulon 13:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  * Support - looks OK to me. Mattbuck 21:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose As Jebulon. Bad composition--Lmbuga 22:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_San_Carlos,_Isla_de_San_Carlos,_Estado_Zulia_2.jpg

• Nomination Español: Castillo de San Carlos, Isla de San Carlos, Estado Zulia --The Photographer 03:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline Underexposed. --Kreuzschnabel 09:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Done Thanks --The Photographer 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  You ought to move it to discussion once it has been declined. --Kreuzschnabel 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC). Ok, Thank you --The Photographer 05:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of dustspots to be removed in the sky.--Jebulon 09:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Nice review, thanks --The Photographer 22:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Too tight at top, I don't like the composition. To me, the composition is disturbing. Also, I don't like the light--Lmbuga 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Could benefit from somewhat more contrast. -- Smial 23:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I had hoped to be able to improve it, but it wasn't possible for me. The current image is still underexposed, it is a bit too noisy, a bit too unsharp and the crop at top too tight. Sorry. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp 16:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously it was a mistake to have nominated this photo, thank you for your constructive criticism. --The Photographer 23:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?  

File:Sikh_man,_Agra_07.jpg

• Nomination Sikh man, Agra, India. --Yann 18:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC) New version uploaded. Yann 12:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Unsharp. --Mattbuck 00:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  See sikh man 11 ... --Smial 12:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  No, I want them good quality at 100% zoom. This is not, therefore it is not QI. Mattbuck 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Biopics 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-15 15-13-28-musee-histoire-belfort.jpg

• Nomination La ville de Lyon à la ville de Belfort en souvenir des anciens mobiles du Rhône, 25e anniversaire du siège de 1870-1871, by Étienne Pagny. --ComputerHotline 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Weak oppose - I think the composition is a bit of a failure - the white line spoils it IMO. Mattbuck 11:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose for composition, too centred vertically and per Mattbuck. --Avenue 12:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disturbing background as for mattbuck. Electric installation foo? -- Smial 14:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Biopics 20:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Luisenhütte Wocklum THWZ.jpg

• Nomination The Luisenhütte Wocklum, a historic blast furnace in Balve, Germany. --THWZ 14:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Partially overexposed, sorry. - A.Savin 18:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Overexposure corrected, new stitching --THWZ 18:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC) The sky overexposure is difficult to fix afterwards (much less by re-stitching) - A.Savin 20:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Correction of overexposure was done on the RAW-files before re-stitching; there are 0,o6% overexposed pixels left meanwhile; should not be too much vor QI --THWZ 21:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC).
•  Oppose I see jagged edges due oversharpening and chromatic aberration --Iifar 06:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support for me its good to QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Der sehr helle Himmel stört nicht wirklich, denn es findet kein Farbkippen statt, alles grau in grau. Mithin kein Abwertungsgrund. Aber derdiedas CA leuchtet strahlend in grün und rot. --Smial 22:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

CA wird naechste Woche korrigiert, kein Problem! Danke fuer die Annotations, haette ihn sonst kaum gefunden. --THWZ 12:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Gerade bei den Stühlen fällt es sehr auf. Rechts ist's genauso vorhanden, aber im Gebüsch unauffälliger. Sollte bei den RAWs einfach zu beseitigen sein, und dann noch mal ab in die Stitchmaschine. -- Smial 09:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC) (Btw: Hab' jetzt selber mal wieder Hugin in der aktuellen Version ausprobiert. Auf dem Firmenrechner semmelt's hoffnungslos ab, daheim schmeißt eine Funktion im Assistenten (line detection oder so ähnlich) reproduzierbar eine Fehlermeldung, aber das Programm läuft trotzdem irgendwie weiter und liefert dann auch schöne Ergebnisse. Seltsam.)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Biopics 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-17_Херсонес_Таврический._Пристенные_склепы.jpg

• Nomination: Wall crypts. Chersonesos Taurica, Ukraine --Art-top 09:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Review
•  Weak oppose Sadly, the shadow spoils the composition for me. - A.Savin 11:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC

  Shadow does not obscure the main object, the opposite wall is very close. --Art-top 20:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I like it, but it's a bit unsharp. Mattbuck 21:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

   Comment The main object in focus. The rest of the images can not be corrected, as I understand. --Art-top 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Some minor problems with corner sharpness, but at 100% view acceptable. QI for me. -- Smial 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think it is o.k. for QI -- Achim Raschka 09:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   A.Savin 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Sikh_man,_Agra_12.jpg

• Nomination Sikh man, Agra, India. --Yann 11:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Unsharp. --Mattbuck 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't understand what is not sharp here. --Yann 08:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  Notable blur in the beard. Mattbuck 15:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose. The man's left eye is reasonably sharp and the shallow DoF is an asset in portrait photography, but that's an unfortunate crop of the man's turban. I realise you probably didn't have the choice, but as it's the only strong source of colour in the pic, the eye is drawn to it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good one. -- Smial 23:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice and good expression, but the crop of the turban is disturbing, per Jastrow, sorry.--Jebulon 10:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 20:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Burg_Rötteln_-_Oberburg19.jpg

• Nomination: Rötteln Castle: upper part (palas) --Taxiarchos228 12:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Review
•  Oppose Strong perspective distortion. --Iifar 15:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  what's wrong here? we have a wide angle view here --Taxiarchos228 18:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'm unsure - the bright areas seem a bit too bright to me, hard to make out details. Mattbuck 18:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support for me it is QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days.

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   A.Savin 19:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Peresechenie2012-angelique-4944.jpg

• Nomination Ilya Belov plays didgeridoo in Victory Park in Pereslavl. --PereslavlFoto 13:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Tilted, and I think you'd have to crop off important stuff when it's fixed. --Mattbuck 11:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is it tilted? How do you know?--PereslavlFoto 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(My comments seem to have got lost) - all the nice vertical poles on the stage, and the fact the background looks like it's falling over. Mattbuck 15:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose The picture is cluttered and hard to read. A wider aperture would have helped. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition issue. The crop below is disturbing, also the flash shadow. Maybe too much space above too.--Jebulon 14:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Info Thanks everybody! I have little experience in this shooting, so it was good to review my problems.--PereslavlFoto 19:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

File:El_Coco,_Coche_Island_.JPG

• Nomination Español: Sector El Coco, Isla de Coche, Nueva Esparta, Venezuela --The Photographer 13:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Tilted. Yann 08:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)  Done thanks --The Photographer 21:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Yann 11:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lots of artefacts. Biopics 23:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Removed some noise. --Aleks G 20:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support QI for me -- Achim Raschka 09:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank Aleks :P --The Photographer 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)