Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 24 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Grover-Chambers_House_--_Galveston.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This Galveston home is a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark -- Jim Evans 13:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment It's tilted clockwise --MB-one 11:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done It's Fixed Jim Evans 01:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --MB-one 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The trees and lightning are very disturbing. --T.Bednarz 19:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per T.Bednarz. Overexposed, burned highlights in essential areas. Colour channel clipping in the sky. --Smial 20:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Tidstrands_Yllefabriker_May_2018_13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tidstrands Yllefabriker is a former woollen mill in Sågmyra, Leksand.--ArildV 05:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Carschten 10:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overcorrection of perspective looks unnatural and as if building is "bulging" at top. Completely parallel verticals do not look natural at this distance and angle. --Ubcule 18:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
     Comment Its no perspective correction done here. Just a crop from a wide angle photo (portrait orientation) and its the only way to capture the building from this angle without getting disturbing elements in the foreground.--ArildV 10:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
     Comment I didn't have a problem with the closeness. The problem is that the perspective looks very obviously unnatural for a close-up shot. I notice you used Lightroom which apparently has perspective auto-correction. Is it possible this was applied automatically? --Ubcule 19:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
     Comment No, you can [[1]] download the raw-file here --ArildV 09:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment For some days I wonder why the bot did not move this discussion to the Consensual Review section, where it belongs IMHO. OK, so I did it manually. Hope it helps, --Aristeas 13:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO the image just shows the maybe disturbing, but natural perspective which I would expect when taking an image so close as an ultra-wide lens allows us; we are just not used to it ;–). Therefore, if the only objection was wrong perspective correction, it does not apply to this image. My 50 cent, --Aristeas 13:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The verticals are straight. IMO it does not have to be 100% straight because the photo is taken from a short distance to the main object. A good perspective correction in this case is difficult and maybe impossible but like this it is no QI for me --Michielverbeek 06:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Have you seen the original file? Its is NO perspective correction here. Should I create a false perspective distortion? --ArildV 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the building on the left side of the photo is crooked, but there the verticals lean outwards and are curved. We may have a combination of pincushion distortion and slightly tilted camera. Until clarification I tend to a weak  Oppose. --Smial 17:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have looked again to the photo and I did an automatical perspective correction in LR and it looks a bit better. --Michielverbeek 19:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @ArildV: Smial is right that at the left the verticals are leaning out a bit; so the camera was a tiny little bit tilted (hard to avoid). Could you try a little bit of perspective correction? --Aristeas 10:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I will upload a new version tonight. --ArildV 10:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version uploaded. Thanks for comments. --ArildV 19:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, better now. I'm not a big friend of these extreme wide angle images of architecture, but I don't want to be nitpicking. -- Smial 09:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral --Michielverbeek 06:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)