Commons:Candidatas a Imagens de qualidade

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 77% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
Gtk-go-down.svg Ir para as nomeações
float

Estas são as candidatas a tornarem-se Imagens de qualidade. Por favor, fique claro que não é o mesmo que Imagens especiais. Além disso, se você deseja obter informações sobre as suas imagens, pode consegui-las em Críticas fotográficas.

Objectivo[edit]

O objectico das Imagens de qualidade é incentivar as pessoas que são a base do Commons, os utilizadores individuais que fornecem imagens para ampliar esta colecção. Enquanto que as imagens especiais são as melhores de todas as imagens carregadas no Commons, as Imagens de qualidade servem para identificar e encorajar os esforços dos utilizadores para carregar imagens de qualidade no Commons.
Além disso, as imagens de qualidade podem ser um local onde outros utilizadores expliquem métodos para melhorar uma imagem.

Orientações[edit]

Todas as imagens nomeadas devem ser trabalho próprio dos utilizadores do Commons

Para os nomeadores[edit]

Aqui estão as diretrizes gerais para Imagens de qualidade, Below e orientações gerais para Imagens de qualidade; e outras orientações mais detalhadas estão disponíveis em Diretrizes de imagens.

Requisitos das imagens[edit]

  1. Status de direitos autorais. As candidatas a Imagens de qualidade foram carregadas no Commons pelo proprietário dos direitos autorais sob uma licença adequada. Os requisitos completos de licença estão disponíveis em COM:CT
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. As Imagens de qualidade devem ser categorizadas, possuir um título principal e descrição. Isto incluiria o nome taxonômico dos organismos.
  4. Sem anúncios ou assinaturas na imagem. Os direitos de autor e informações de autoria devem ficar na página da imagem e podem estar nos metadados da imagem, mas não deve interferir no conteúdo da imagem.
Creator[edit]

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Requisitos técnicos[edit]

Critérios mais detalhados estão disponíveis em Diretrizes de imagens.

Resolução[edit]

As imagens do Commons podem ser usadas não só para visualizá-las no ecrã. Também podem ser usadas para impressão ou visualização em monitores de alta resolução. Não podemos prever quais dispositivos serão usados no futuro, por isso é importante que as imagens que são nomeadas tenham uma resolução razoavelmente alta. Normalmente o limite inferior é de 2 megapixels, mas para imagens 'fáceis de tomar', os revisores podem exigir muito mais.

Não se aplica a imagens SVG.

Qualidade das imagens[edit]

As imagens digitais estão sujeitas a vários problemas resultantes da captura e processamento da imagem, tais como ruídos, problemas com a compressão JPEG, falta de informação de zonas ou realces, ou problemas com a captura de cores. Todas estas questões devem ser tratadas adequadamente.

Composição e iluminação[edit]

A disposição do objecto principal de uma imagem deve contribuir para a própria imagem. Objectos em segundo plano não devem desviar a atenção. A iluminação e o foco também devem contribuir para o resultado global; o objecto principal tem de se destacar, ser completo e estar bem exposto.

Valor[edit]

Nosso principal objectivo é melhorar a qualidade das imagens que contribuem para o Wikicommons, algo valioso para os projectos da Wikimedia.

Como nomear[edit]

Basta adicionar uma linha deste formulário no topo da lista de candidatos da secção de Nomeações.

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição  --~~~~ |}}

A descrição deve ser não mais do que algumas palavras, e por favor deixe uma linha em branco entre sua nova entrada e as demais.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição  --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations[edit]

A descrição deve ser não mais do que algumas palavras, e por favor deixe uma linha em branco entre sua nova entrada e as demais. A adição de mais de um par de imagens de uma só vez pode ser considerado flooding, o que é desaprovado.

Avaliando as imagens[edit]

Qualquer utilizador registado pode revisar um nomeação.
Quando um revisor avalia uma imagem deve considerar as mesmas diretrizes do nomeador.

Como revisar[edit]

Como actualizar o status

Examine cuidadosamente a imagem. Abre-a na resolução máxima, e veja se ela atende aos critérios de qualidade.

  • Se você decidir promover a nomeação, altere a linha relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição --~~~~ |}}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Breve descrição --Assinatura do nomeador |Por que você gostou. --~~~~}}

Em outras palavras, altere a predefinição de /Nomination para /Promotion e adicione a sua assinatura, possivelmente com algum pequeno comentário.

  • Se você decidir rejeitar a nomeação, altere a linha relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição --~~~~ |}}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Breve descrição --Assinatura do nomeador |Por que você não gostou --~~~~}}

Em outras palavras, altere a predefinição de /Nomination para /Decline e adicione a sua assinatura, possivelmente declarando os critérios pelos quais a imagem fracassou (podes usar os títulos das secções de diretrizes). Se houver muitos problemas, notifique os 2 ou 3 mais graves, ou adicione múltiplos problemas. Ao rejeitar uma nomeação, por favor, explique as razões na página de discussão do nomeador - em regra, seja agradável e estimulante! Na mensagem, você deve dar uma explicação mais detalhada de sua decisão.

Nota: Por favor, avalie primeiramente as imagens mais antigas.

Período de tolerância e promoção[edit]

Se não houver objecções no período de 2 dias (exactamente 48 horas) desde a sua revisão, a imagem será promovida ou rejeitada, de acordo com a revisão que recebeu. Se você possuir objecções, mova a imagem para a secção Consensual review.

Como executar uma decisão[edit]

QICbot trabalha automaticamente nisso 2 dias depois de a decisão ter sido tomada, e as imagens promovidas são armazenadas em Promovidas recentemente à espera de categorização e inserção automática em uma página apropriada das Imagens de qualidade.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • As imagens que esperam uma revisão são mostradas em uma caixa azul
  • As imagens que o revisor aceitou são mostradas em uma caixa verde
  • As imagens que o revisor rejeitou são mostradas em uma caixa vermelha

Imagens não avaliadas (quadro azul)[edit]

As imagens nomeadas que não foram promovidas nem rejeitadas, ou que acabaram em consenso (que haja um número igual de oposições e apoios) após 8 dias nesta página devem ser removidas desta página sem promoção, armazenadas em Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives setembro 2014 e a categoria Unassessed QI candidates acrescentada à imagem.

Processo de revisão de consenso[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

Como pedir uma revisão consensual[edit]

Para pedir uma revisão consensual, basta alterar /Promotion ou /Decline para /Discuss, e adicionar o seu comentário imediatamente após a revisão. Um bot automático irá movê-lo para a secção de revisão consensual dentro de um dia.

Por favor, somente envie coisas para a revisão consensual que foram revisadas como promovidas/rejeitadas. Se, como revisor, você não pode tomar uma decisão, adicione seu comentário, mas deixe o candidato nesta página.

Regras de revisão consensual[edit]

Veja Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules.

Actualização da página: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11h39min, 18 setembro 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

September 18, 2014[edit]

September 17, 2014[edit]

September 16, 2014[edit]

September 15, 2014[edit]

September 14, 2014[edit]

September 13, 2014[edit]

September 12, 2014[edit]

September 11, 2014[edit]

September 10, 2014[edit]

September 9, 2014[edit]

September 8, 2014[edit]

September 7, 2014[edit]

September 6, 2014[edit]

September 5, 2014[edit]

September 4, 2014[edit]

August 31, 2014[edit]

August 29, 2014[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Maria_Cruz_Profpic_062013.JPG[edit]

Maria Cruz Profpic 062013.JPG

  • Nomeação Community Coordinator of Program Evaluation & Design, Wikimedia Foundation by Damian Martone--Ezarate 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Background badly blurred --DXR 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC) see now Ezarate 22:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the masking (the complete outline of the person) isn't quality. --Llez 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Llez --Livioandronico2013 08:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:109_Bank_Ottawa_Hydro.jpg[edit]

109 Bank Ottawa Hydro.jpg

  • Nomeação Designated heritage building Ottawa Hydro Electric Company Building at 109 Bank Street --MB-one 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão ✓ Done--MB-one 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's a bit better, but still missing the crispness in the people I'd expect from a well-lit street scene. This is an Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me I'm afraid. Mattbuck 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    The people are not meant to be the subject of this image. Do you think the building is sharp enough? --MB-one 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 2.jpg[edit]

Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 2.jpg

  • Nomeação Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality, noise --A.Savin 10:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I disagree on that one. --Dnalor 01 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with A.Savin --Uoaei1 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 18:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1600 ISO - it was my mistake, look at my comment and info on my user disc page ... --Dnalor 01 10:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 1.jpg[edit]

Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 1.jpg

  • Nomeação Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness + noise + perspective --A.Savin 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I disagree on that one. --Dnalor 01 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with A.Savin --Uoaei1 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpg

  • Nomeação Gothic stained-glass window, Chapel of Grace, Basilica Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 16:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão We have assessed a lot of stained glass windows in the past which can be uses as reference what amount of sharpness is expected for a QI of that genre. Unfortunatly, this image does not meet the required sharpness. Sorry. --Cccefalon 17:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. In my opinion sharpness can not be much better. I only had cropped the image at the dark lines. -- Spurzem 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your important comment, new version uploaded: cropped at the dark lines. I've cropped the other 3 pictures of gothic stained-glass windows in Basilica Seckau at the dark lines too (above in the QIC-nomination of 15th september 2014). ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-090.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-090.jpg

  • Nomeação ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One Dustspot left (easily to remove, see note), but QI --DKrieger 22:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 12:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-089.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-089.jpg

  • Nomeação ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality image --DKrieger 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-097.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-097.jpg

  • Nomeação ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots; poor perspective --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done )Dust) but perspective ist normal at 10mm --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-104.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-104.jpg

  • Nomeação ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Äußerer Klosterhof und Türme der Basilika Seckau 1.jpg[edit]

Äußerer Klosterhof und Türme der Basilika Seckau 1.jpg

  • Nomeação Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    noise, poor sharpness --A.Savin 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As for A.Savin. Noise reduction often also reduces sharpness. -- Smial 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New, corrected version uploaded! --Dnalor 01 05:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Augustinus-Altar 3.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Augustinus-Altar 3.jpg

  • Nomeação Augustinus-Altar, Basilica Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    noise, poor sharpness --A.Savin 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inappropriate lighting (direct flash) burns highlights and makes hard shadows. Also rather noisy. Please use a tripod instead of high ISO - church interior usually does not move too fast. -- Smial 13:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 06:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Stary_Waliszów,_dom_nr_112_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Stary Waliszów, dom nr 112 02.JPG

  • Nomeação House number 112 in Stary Waliszów --Jacek Halicki 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wire (cable) is disturbing. Other of your pictures with this subject has not this wire--Lmbuga 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I'm not sure. It's only my criteria. It's better "discuss", other users can think and I can Learn--Lmbuga 22:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)✓ Done
    I retouched the wire--Jacek Halicki 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File: Goggomobil Coupé (2014-09-03 7049) Heck.JPG[edit]

Goggomobil Coupé (2014-09-03 7049) Heck.JPG

  • Nomeação Goggomobil Coupé, a very small car with 250-cm³-engine -- Spurzem 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the white car of the corner is disturbing. Not Qi for me.--Lmbuga 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. I saw promoted images of oldtimer meetings with much more disturbing things than a part of another car in the foreground or otherwise. --
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand you. It may be that I am wrong. Let others think: "discuss" --Lmbuga 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kemabong_Sabah_Dataran-Daerah-Kecil-Kemabong-01.jpg[edit]

Kemabong Sabah Dataran-Daerah-Kecil-Kemabong-01.jpg

  • Nomeação Shop rows in Pekan Kemabong, Sabah along Subdistrict Square --Cccefalon 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Can you brighten it a bit? --Tuxyso 14:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done brightened --Cccefalon 17:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Probably a bit too bright now, but imho QI now. --Tuxyso 08:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is unmistakably wrong. See Notes. --Steindy 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I dont think so. When you dont stand exactly in front of a building and shoot a centered image, you won't have parallel lines. --Cccefalon 16:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Uwe is right, the non-straight horizontal lines of the building are due to the non-centered shooting position - no problem here. --Tuxyso 17:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Labuan_Malaysia_Airport-03.jpg[edit]

Labuan Malaysia Airport-03.jpg

  • Nomeação Labuan, Malaysia: Front view of Labuan Airport --Cccefalon 07:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão The roof is cut off on the right side. --Steindy 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    So what? Will you decline all buildings which are not 100% visible? --Cccefalon 16:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Falcon September 2014-1b.jpg[edit]

Falcon September 2014-1b.jpg

  • Nomeação A Peregrine Falcon in captivity -- Alvesgaspar 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems tilted IMO. The head has overexposed areas (blown out). The resolution is not excellent. Too much space at top --Lmbuga 23:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC) -- A second opinion, please - Alvesgaspar 04:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That cup thing goes to one side and the bird into the other direction. So if you'd "untilt" it, it will open up another can of worms. And I don't mind the rim light on the head. I embrace it as seperation from the background. Image doesen't knock me of my feet but I still think it's QI.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Plate_on_fontaine_near_Porta_del_Popolo.jpg[edit]

Plate on fontaine near Porta del Popolo.jpg

  • Nomeação Plate on fontaine near Porta del Popolo --Livioandronico2013 15:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cccefalon 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    {{o}} Sorry, right side is out of focus and noisy (see note). Too sharpened IMO and too much contrast. I don't like the detail--Lmbuga 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you check another time Lmbuga? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 07:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Better with the crop, but too sharpened and too much contrast IMO--Lmbuga 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpg[edit]

Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpg

  • Nomeação Aldwick beach. Mattbuck 13:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Lewis Hulbert 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I think the beach is too dark, and there is a big blob in the sky. Dont know if it is dirt or glare from the sun. Lets discuss. --Slaunger 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Tejo September 2014-3a.jpg[edit]

Tejo September 2014-3a.jpg

  • Nomeação River Tagus, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Insufficient quality. Sorry. A nice image, but in the middle too dark. --XRay 08:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC) -- The dark silhouette is deliberate -- Alvesgaspar 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Japonaise au bain James Tissot 1864.jpg[edit]

Japonaise au bain James Tissot 1864.jpg

  • Nomeação La Japonaise au bain, James Tissot. Painting in Musée des beaux-arts de Dijon --Yelkrokoyade 17:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Sorry,no very sharp. --Livioandronico2013 20:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Is it not? We should discuss. -- Spurzem 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche_Göttweig_Hochaltar_01.JPG[edit]

Stiftskirche Göttweig Hochaltar 01.JPG

  • Nomeação High altar of Göttweig Abbey Church, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 13:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Bad CA at the stained glass, not sharp enough. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I sharpened this image. Regarding CAs: for me there are just colorful reflections, but not CAs. I aks for more opinions and move it to discussion --Uoaei1 16:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kapliczka_w_Wolanach_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Kapliczka w Wolanach 02.JPG

  • Nomeação Chapel in Wolany --Jacek Halicki 12:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão JPEG artifaction in the trees. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    QI for me. We should discuss. -- Spurzem 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-11.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany St-Kunibert-11.jpg

  • Nomeação Cologne, Germany: Basilika St. Kunibert (east side) --Cccefalon 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão The perspective correction in my opinion is not good. -- Spurzem 15:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky is overexposed. --Ivar 17:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I concur with Spurzem and ivar. Mattbuck 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Spurzem: I uploaded another version. To overcome the problem, that some people have with the pure vertical depiction and the view of the tiltshift lense, I added a ratio correction. Don't complain about the verticals; I intentionally added a small incline to get a more natural view for you. @Iifar: Already before post processing, this photo was not overexposed and showed a regular histogram. What you complain is an original grey - and not a remapped to grey - sky. --Cccefalon 18:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Mattbuck: We had an edit conflict. I just uploaded a new version. --Cccefalon 18:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, then CR. --Cccefalon 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-10.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany St-Kunibert-10.jpg

  • Nomeação Cologne, Germany: west transept with calvary in the Basilica St. Kunibert --Cccefalon 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Top is too unsharp due to perspective. --Mattbuck 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. And I swear, today was the last day I donated full size images to Commons. --Cccefalon 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It works for me, but the resolution is quite low --Uoaei1 16:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    That would be because CCCefalon just downsampled it to 2MP out of spite. Mattbuck 21:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 19:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Face_of_ogre.jpg[edit]

Face of ogre.jpg

  • Nomeação Face of ogre --Livioandronico2013 20:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Not in focus. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please --Livioandronico2013 07:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Focus point is not perfect, but there is stil enough detail. --MB-one 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Heads_of_lions_in_quartiere_coppedè.jpg[edit]

Heads of lions in quartiere coppedè.jpg

  • Nomeação Heads of lions in quartiere coppedè --Livioandronico2013 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Overexposed. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Is simple fixable,how do you decline for a simple thing like this??? Then,Mattbuck, do not complain that someone has problems with you,have a nice day Clin --Livioandronico2013 07:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Overexposure generally is not fixable. The problem is a loss of information, you can remap it to grey but that won't bring back the detail. As for my FP nomination, I think there's a difference - if you take a photo of a light source, it will be overexposed. Mattbuck 13:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneYes, it is different, the problem, in my opinion, is your way to make hasty, I take the only sensible thing you've said "generally", in fact if it is possible to fix a photo, by at least a chance. --Livioandronico2013 14:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good light and good image. @ Mattbuck: We can not only take night photos on sunny days. -- Spurzem 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Gummer's How MMB 19 Lake Windermere.jpg[edit]

Gummer's How MMB 19 Lake Windermere.jpg

  • Nomeação Lake Windermere. Mattbuck 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Insufficient quality. Sorry. It's too dusty. --XRay 08:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've done some recolouring, let me know if it's any better. --Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «W5 Canary Wharf.jpg[edit]

London MMB «W5 Canary Wharf.jpg

  • Nomeação Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Insufficient quality. Sorry. Nice image, but IMO the foreground is too dark. --XRay 08:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I did that purposefully - the buildings look good as near-silhouettes IMO. --Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File: Hansa 1100, Bj. 1959 (2014-08-31 6769).JPG[edit]

Hansa 1100, Bj. 1959 (2014-08-31 6769).JPG

  • Nomeação Hansa 1100 from 1959 at spa gardens of Bad Neuenahr, Germany -- Spurzem 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão The van in the background is too disturbing. --Mattbuck 23:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support In this case is possible ask a crop,anyway the van isn't so disturbing for me. --Livioandronico2013 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is enough separation (in this case by color and brightness), ok for me - the crop would be ok as well but not required. --Generic1139 16:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kimanis_Sabah_Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpg[edit]

Kimanis Sabah Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpg

  • Nomeação Kimanis, Sabah: Lighthouse and control tower of Kimanis Maritim Traffic Monitoring Station --Cccefalon 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Wire spoils it. --Mattbuck 23:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, a wire itself is not a reason for decline. especialle here it is not only a wire but also a pole and a bird on the wire. Do we have a new policy to decline every image with a visible wire? --Cccefalon 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Historisches_Rathaus_--_2014_--_6852.jpg[edit]

Münster, Historisches Rathaus -- 2014 -- 6852.jpg

  • Nomeação Historical town hall, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp in the upper part (hardly fixable), CAs, tilted --Uoaei1 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your reviews. Some of your advices are fixed.--XRay 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Still quite unsharp in the upper parts - I would like to ask for other opinions --Uoaei1 17:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably effect of perspective correction by software. This has limits. -- Smial 23:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPG[edit]

Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPG

  • Nomeação Valtice (Feldsberg) - Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary --Pudelek 09:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Not sharp enough for this rather low resolution --Uoaei1 06:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion is enough sharp --Pudelek 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good photo, sharp enough. -- Spurzem 10:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharp enough for QI, indeed. More disturbing are the redlink categories. Why introducing a category when not linking to an appropriate superior category? --Cccefalon 17:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC) I will support, when the redlinks are removed or linked to a higher category. --Cccefalon 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (083).jpg[edit]

1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (083).jpg

  • Nomeação Marcel Sabitzer, FC Red Bull Salzburg. --Steindy 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Left side of the face out of focus (not enought depth of field) --MB-one 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion. --Steindy 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but not disturbing. Very good lighting for a non studio shot. -- Smial 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Eyepart is not sharp enough. Also, as a matter of courtesy, it is not polite, to show the bad teeth of people in a portrait photo. --Cccefalon 16:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bad teeth? Want the professional player who is examined several times a year on health, offend? Quite apart from the fact that as a photographer I can not help you choose outrageous arguments to discredit just to my photo? If you is fun, then do so. Removed personal insults by User:Steindy --A.Savin 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC) --Steindy (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a possibility to bleach such a defect. I pointed out at several other portrait reviews, that a portrait shot has to obey some curtesy retouchments, e.g. pimple removal etc. Especially a portrait photo of a public person in WikiCommons has to follow higher requirements of respect, as this photo might be published in different media. --Cccefalon 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So you think that I should make a fake photo?! Just incredible what turned out to take some users here. This makes your photos appear in a new light. And I thought it's about an encyclopedia here. For some, just the ego is important. --Steindy 19:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment guys, look what I've found here:SV Mattersburg vs. SK Rapid Wien 2013018 (49).jpg from about a year earlyer. He may or may not be examined several times a year on health. But what he does about it is still his own buisness.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
And what do you want with this overexposed photo say (besides, of me)? Want to tell me that this is better? --Steindy 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
He is running around like this for over a year. Despite medical check up. Besides: This was directed towrds Cccefalon--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. And next time just ask the guy or his management if they like the picture. There are people proud of scars and I doubt german actor Jürgen Vogel or american actor Michael Dorn in Worf make up will have a problem showing so called bad teeth. There are also people with gold teeth.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have rarely read such witty comments. I have rarely read such witty comments. Have they missed the forum or just discovered this page? --Steindy 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Smial. --Dnalor 01 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The depicted person is obviously posing. It is not a motion shot, so I may demand a certain minimum of crispness which is not the case here. Also, I agree with Uwe. Also, one of the supporters is widely known as quite a careless QI reviewer. --A.Savin 17:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (085).jpg[edit]

1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (085).jpg

  • Nomeação Valentino Lazaro, FC Red Bull Salzburg. --Steindy 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão not enough depth of field --MB-one 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion. --Steindy 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but not disturbing. Very good lighting for a non studio shot. -- Smial 23:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop on top. The border is cutting off a part of the hairs. --Cccefalon 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So you know how long his hair is? Respect! Okay, and 12 pixels from the left and 45 from the top is also blurred. Look even sure if you still do not find something to discredit the photo. See also the comment one over it (Marcel Sabitzer). Removed personal insults by User:Steindy --A.Savin 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC) --Steindy 18:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Smial. --Dnalor 01 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Someone may argue about the hair and ear. But for me it's just a testament of photographic style in this age. You nailed that one quite well. Try to Improove upon it. I know that I will.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Lądek-Zdrój,_rynek_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Lądek-Zdrój, rynek 02.JPG

  • Nomeação Town hall in Lądek-Zdrój --Jacek Halicki 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Insufficient quality. Sorry. The image is tilted CW and the shadow in the front is very disturbing. --XRay 12:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 17:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Netherfield railway station MMB 07.jpg[edit]

Netherfield railway station MMB 07.jpg

  • Nomeação Netherfield railway station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO the image needs perspective correction. Please have a look to the ligths.--XRay 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    too dark --Taxiarchos228 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Brightened. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment both sides are leaning out --Christian Ferrer 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't notice the perspective correction comment. I disagree however - the streetlamp on the left is pretty clearly leaning - even if there were perspective distortion it would be nowhere near enough to make it that bad. The right side of the shelter looks pretty much vertical and the signal box in the background was likely where I took my reference point from. Further, if there were any perspective distortion it would have been the other way - leaning in, not out. Mattbuck 23:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the right and the middle of the image are straight however the left wall of the bridge is leaning, it was where I took my reference point from because I know that the streetlamp on the left is maybe not a good reference. So I correct my sentence : both side are not leaning out, only the left is leaning out. --Christian Ferrer 05:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Cap_de_Capdepera1.jpg[edit]

Mallorca - Cap de Capdepera1.jpg

  • Nomeação Cap of Capdepera --Taxiarchos228 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please have a look to the horizon. It looks like a barrel.--XRay 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support - I disagree , its correct --Ralf Roletschek 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barrel distortion is not ok. --Iifar 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a wide angle shot. The earth is not flat. -- Smial 11:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until it's fixed (easy to fix) --Christian Ferrer 17:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks as spherical as it does on google earth (I guess)--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Komisch: Panoramaaufnahmen mit Kurven, wo in Wirklichkeit Geraden sind, werden an anderer Stelle als exzellent ausgezeichnet. Und hier soll die leichte Biegung des Horizonts ein gravierender Mangel sein? -- Spurzem 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See [1], you need to be around 35,000 feet (10.6km) to hope to see the curvature of the horizon. The first report of seeing it was 51,783 ft in Germany(1931), the first photo was from a trip up to 72,395 ft. Pilots report seeing it around 50,000 ft. This image, on the other hand, has barrel distortion which is easily corrected. --Generic1139 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


File:Canon_EF_35-70mm_F3.5-4.5.jpg[edit]

Canon EF 35-70mm F3.5-4.5.jpg

  • Nomeação Old Canon EF 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 Objective. Had to choose between diffraction blur and sharpness. Loosing a bit out on featureless edges. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry but two problems (see notes, please) : blown out higlights and blurry lower right part of the lens. --JLPC 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment By adjusting the exposure for an 18% greycard, I get 97% / RGB 247 for the infinity wall. Which by accident matches the checkmate requirements for the product background on turbosquid.com. And the complaint is for going over 94% / RGB 240 ? It is true that the lens CAP isn't sharp. But the area in the rectangular note is just part of the shadow!--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 03:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness, DOF, and colours are ok. RGB(f8f8f8) is not blown. Noise level somewhat high, but acceptable. Why ISO800 with a still shot? I don't like the artifical looking shadows and the soft edges at the lens cap, but these are minor issues and unimportant for QI standards. -- Smial 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The setup worked well for the Camera
    Concord Eye-Q 1M Camera card slot usb rs232 view.jpg
    Do you like this one better?
    Headbands brown with comb and red with dots.jpg
    Note that this setup has over all less scharpness and will also introduces a nasty highlight on the ring with the lens name.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 02:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reshoot with lower ISO due to lower flash gun position. Note reflection around EF letters. Had to add a couple of graduation filters to even out the light fall off and sharpening the bottom. Still missed the cap which isn't the subject anyway.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Now it is a completely different image. Why uploaded with the same name? The central reflection is very distracting now. Noise is much better, sharpness again nice. -- Smial 11:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • It is same view of the same Item. Unless the old one gets deleted, it makes no sense to upload under another name. Btw. did a lokal adjustment on the highlights. Also trie to lit it with an improvised V-Flat. Almost no shadows or reflections and looking somewhat boring and unnatural. So I did not bother to upload. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • The last version is the best, but, no, it is not exactly the same setup like the first version, it has a slightly different view. My supporting vote from above remains active. -- Smial 10:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The first prerequisite for such a picture that the lens cleaned so that no dust particles are seen. In addition, the property photo is not sharp enough. --Steindy 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Removed spots caused by dust on the image sensor.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is all I can do for now. Got my better tripod back and propper reflective umbrella plus a 3x flash gun bracket is in the mail.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 05:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Aerial_view_-_Lörrach_-_Rosenfels_Campus1.jpg[edit]

Aerial view - Lörrach - Rosenfels Campus1.jpg

  • Nomeação Aerial view of "Rosenfels-Campus" in Lörrach --Taxiarchos228 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Perspectives : both sides are leaning out --Christian Ferrer 10:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also clipping issue bottom left. Mattbuck 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    nothing is leaning, look note --~~~~ Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not done --Christian Ferrer 05:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    here is n.th. to be done --Taxiarchos228 04:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well how about getting rid of the clipping error for a start... Mattbuck 20:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Make clear what should be wrong with this picture. --Taxiarchos228 04:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

    1. Perspective distortion - both sides are leaning out
    2. The crop exceeds the bounds of the photo at the bottom left. -mattbuck (Talk)

(1) As I already said there is no significant distortion (see image notes) (2) The crop shows exactly what it has to show, the Rosenfels Campus. Your arguments are not clear. Please proof againt or explain in a reasonable way what should be here the problem for a QI. --Taxiarchos228 07:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Regarding the crop; I suppose that Mattbuck are refering to the lower left corner (see note).--ArildV 07:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this I see now, I'll correct this soon. But the distortion is not relevant IMO for a aerial view. --Taxiarchos228 10:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain why ?--Jebulon 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
because it's minor and doesn't effect the image impression --Taxiarchos228 06:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
lol --Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely natural view just as it is expected by the average viewer. This is aerial photography, not a drawing by an architect. I've tried a 100% correction at home - this looks more amusing instead of more natural. -- Smial 11:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Smial, the bottom left corner crop exceeds the image limits - an image with that cannot be QI, surely. Mattbuck 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left vertical lines are tilted. Right vertical lines seems Ok. Improvable and perhaps QI if you want--Lmbuga 07:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version. -- Smial 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Generic1139 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps is the cache, but left vertical lines are tilted CW and right vertical lines are straight--Lmbuga 22:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph.jpg[edit]

Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph.jpg

  • Nomeação Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph. --Dnalor 01 11:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Not very sharp. --Mattbuck 10:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I can't find any problem with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 07:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality! What against sharpness? Sharpness is good. -- Spurzem 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Magenta/green CA. A lot of noise which contributes to the fuzziness --Generic1139 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And compare to this File:Taschenuhr Omega 1900 - H3463.jpg and File:Montre revolutionnaire-IMG 4629-black.jpg at 1:1 to see sharp watch faces and hands --Generic1139 21:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC) And this one didn't show up in my first search because it was too new to have the quality image assigned, but the recently promoted File:Omega Genève Handaufzug, Cal. 613.jpg by User:Dnalor 01 is also a nice sharp image --Generic1139 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your statement, you're right, I've seen the differences! But I've uploaded a new version now, so the problem could be solved ... --Dnalor 01 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version is much better. Looks good to me. --Generic1139 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, for a studio shot not sharp enough and too much noise --Berthold Werner 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is not overwhelming, but acceptable. Yet noise is too high for a studio shot and some areas are clipping. -- Smial 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is good --Livioandronico2013 19:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Smial --Lmbuga 07:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment noise reduction. ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 19:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support May not look good if you have to zoom in and scroll around on 1080p. But will look nice on the coming 8K.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg

  • Nomeação Putti on cenotaph holding coat of arms of Wittelsbach, Habsburger mausoleum, Seckau basilica, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 09:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão This one lacks sharpness --Poco a poco 09:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I can't find any problem with the sharpness ... --Dnalor 01 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    I do, compare it with the head of Charles II. If you don't agree go ahead and put it on discussion, no problem with that Poco a poco 10:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)For me there are no problems with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 10:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is OK IMO. Yann 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpness is ok, but noise is too strong, especially in the background (ISO 1600!). Can you try to reduce it? --Uoaei1 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I'm very sorry, but unfortunately I'm not able to do that by myself ... --Dnalor 01 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise --A.Savin 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment noise reduction. ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 19:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm almost opposeing it b/c of sharpness. Almost.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 04:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tabela de tempo (8 dias após a nomeação)[edit]

qua 10 Set. → qui 18 Set.
qui 11 Set. → sex 19 Set.
sex 12 Set. → sáb 20 Set.
sáb 13 Set. → dom 21 Set.
dom 14 Set. → seg 22 Set.
seg 15 Set. → ter 23 Set.
ter 16 Set. → qua 24 Set.
qua 17 Set. → qui 25 Set.
qui 18 Set. → sex 26 Set.