Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 02 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Nottuln,_Appelhülsen,_Schulze-Frenkings-Hof_--_2015_--_5473.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Schulze-Frenkings-Hof, Appelhülsen, Nottuln, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Code 07:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky. --Iifar 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Sky is now improved but very bright (sun).--XRay 17:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
     Not done It's still partly overexposed, light conditions were not favorable. --Iifar 18:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky can not be blue at any time. So it is QI for me. -- Spurzem 08:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm with Iifar --Christian Ferrer 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is not blue at any time, but it is overexposed here IMO.--Jebulon 18:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

File:FordRanger-Tandil-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Ford Ranger 4x4 parked in Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much chroma noise. Easy to fix. A little bit brightening would become the image, too --Cccefalon 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment … and a bit dark. -- Spurzem 11:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very dark, need more brightness . --El Golli Mohamed 14:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Ezarate 19:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Alvesgaspar 20:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Magenta CA, please see notes (only examples)--Jebulon 18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 13:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Phipps Conservatory Parterre de Broderie.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Phipps Conservatory in Pittsburgh. --Dllu 16:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 17:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong loss of quality in the corners and sides incl CA at the windows.--Ermell 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The remarks by Ermell are certainly valid - there is CA and a decreasing sharpness towards the edges. But please consider that we are talking about a 36MPix file here! It's very difficult if not impossible to get a pixel-sharp image at that resolution. OK, the CA is fixable indeed. Bottom line this is still a promotable image for me. --Hendric Stattmann 09:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 36 MP is merciless to your lens. That is what this well-composed and photographed picture suffers from, an appropriate lens. And then of course it is possible to be tack sharp all over. Sorry. Denis Barthel 08:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Online reviews of this lens seem to indicate that, when used on the Sony a7r, it should be sharp across the frame with only minor CAs. I think I got a bad copy with the significantly smeared out corners; I am returning it for a new one. The next time I go to this place will be in late November or early December, during which time many of the flowers would look completely different. I will try to bring a tripod then. Dllu 14:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Dllu! Denis Barthel 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. --Alchemist-hp 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp in general, and please see note.--Jebulon 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Grande_mosquée_de_testour.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grande mosquée de testour --El Golli Mohamed 12:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ajepbah 13:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Artefacts in the sky. Parts of the shadows under the arches are posterized. --Cccefalon 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice lighting and colors. High resolution & sharpness. Composition and perspective well controlled. On the negative side, I see a bit of sharpening artefacts on the edges of the tower, oversharpening may also have contributed to the posterization issue highlighted by Cccefalon. I might suggest to reduce the amount of sharpening to overcome this little problem. All in all, a promotable image to me. --Hendric Stattmann 10:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Unfortunately, newbies usually do not follow up any suggestions if they already got the "support" button. I hope, El Golli Mohamed, is proving me wrong. --Cccefalon 13:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Hendric Stattmann -- Alvesgaspar 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective issue - the tower is leaning (most visible at its top). --Uoaei1 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good sharpness, excellent light. But I strongly agree with Cccefalon for the flaws he noted. Furthermore, it needs some perspective corrections: the cable of the chandelier has to be vertical (see note)--Jebulon 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Icône_de_Saint_Silouane.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Icône de Saint Silouane à l'entrée du monastère Saint-Silouane. --Massalim 23:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO too unsharp. --XRay 10:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Just an answer to your comment on my talk page. Please ask within this page. IMO there is a little bit color noise at the edges and the edges are unsharp too. The image can be improved by more DoF, for example f/7.1 or f/8. If you think your image is good enough for QI please switch "decline" to "discuss". --XRay 20:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for your suggests. I think that problem is with DoF but I don't know how to fix it now. Massalim 23:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment You can try to sharpen it for example with Lightroom. Or you can take the photograph again.--XRay 05:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I cannot take the photo again but I have the negative and Lightroom. --Massalim 08:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow in the upper part ruins the photo. It also needs geometric corrections. Alvesgaspar ( talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Shadow is much less now and it seems straight enough. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry.--Jebulon 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Palacio_Real,_Madrid,_España,_2014-12-27,_DD_12.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Royal Palace, Madrid, Spain --Poco a poco 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeUnnecessary distortion IMO.--Jebulon 20:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, seems intended for me. --Hubertl 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Of course it is intended ! I hope so ! If it is an accident, Poco has to check seriously his camera. I just write that it is an unnecessary distortion (as stated in the guidelines)--Jebulon 16:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support As Hubertl--Lmbuga 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too obvious pincushion distortion. Alvesgaspar 20:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Intended or not, IMO there is no reason for this distortion. --Palauenc05 12:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes there is one (at least). But it is a taboo.--Jebulon 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 07:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Peer others. Disturbing distortion --The Photographer 18:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)