Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 25 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Bardowick_St._Nikolai_002_2022_05_31.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel of St. Nicolas in Bardowick (Lower Saxony), view from northwest
    --F. Riedelio 07:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, DoF problem or, considering the lens focal length and aperture, possibly problem of lens resolution near frame corners. The right side and top of roof is not sharp enough. Verticals from the both sides are not vertical. --LexKurochkin 09:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • ✓ Answered Improved. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 10:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
      •  Comment Verticals are OK in the new version, but now it is oversharpened, while low contrast areas on the roof are still blurred. Sharpening does not work in low contrast areas just because the information about details is lost and it cannot be recovered this way. Noise was not a problem in old version, but now it is, as usual for strong sharpening. --LexKurochkin 19:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic aberration on tiles in shadow, unsharp in the upper reaches. -- Ikan Kekek 21:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Murmansk-002.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lenin, Soviet nuclear-powered icebreaker in Murmansk. --Alexander Novikov 18:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 18:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too much chroma noise on the dark parts --MB-one 22:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good composition but I am with MB one regarding the noise (hull & superstructure) --Virtual-Pano 21:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No. --Hillopo2018 11:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Bardowick_St._Nikolai_005_2022_05_31.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel of St. Nicolas in Bardowick (Lower Saxony), view from southwest
    --F. Riedelio 07:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Weak oppose Usually perspective correction is good, and I ask people to do it, but the aim is to make the photo look natural. In this particular case very strong perspective correction for a photo of large object taken with 15 mm lens from rather close distance maked it upper part looking unnatural. Sorry. And I think it is impossible to correct as the problem is too short focus lens used from too short distance. --LexKurochkin 13:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done New version with perspective correction. Is ist better now? --F. Riedelio 08:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
      •  Comment Sorry, but in the new version I see serious problem with geometry of the right side of the building while left side roof is still a problem. Look at the spheric element below wind vane - it is far from spheric on the image. --LexKurochkin 17:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very weird shape per above. -- Ikan Kekek 05:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Spheres generally project to ellipses in an image. This is especially visible for off-center spheres in very wide-angle shots, even without perspective correction. Therefore, to me, the strange shape of the sphere underneath the weathervane in itself is not a problem. However, viewed as a whole, the roof of the church tower shows too much perspective distortion. For me, this looks unnatural. Also, the right side is leaning in in the newer version. Maybe the image would work better without perspective correction? --Carsten Steger 10:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • ✓ Answered For your information: here is another version with automatic perspective correction. --F. Riedelio 07:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    •  Comment Well, maybe it is so. On the other hand, Canon EOS 6D Mark II is a full-frame camera, and 15 mm focal length means ultra wide angle lens, maybe even diagonal fisheye. Relatively low sharpness of the weathervane at f/11 aperture suggests that it was close to the frame edge, i.e. that the full frame height was used for the main subject, and thus I would expect significant distortion. --LexKurochkin 10:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
      •  Comment} There is no satisfactory solution to this problem except: more distance when taking pictures. The focal length used here is natively an extremely wide angle, which in itself already provides for correspondingly heavy perspective effects. Even a relatively small deviation from exact horizontal alignment results in very crooked verticals. But we all know that here already. --Smial 15:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No. Distortion is too sick. --Hillopo2018 11:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)