Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2007

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Bee landing on flower[edit]

Bee-landing-on-flower-0a.jpg
  • Nomination Bee landing on flower. --Adamantios 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No identification (it is a type of Hybiscus, please check). Lycaon 14:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Does it make any difference in this case? It's not about the particular bee or flower, it's about the touchdown. Adamantios 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's a white flowered hybrid Hibiscus rosa-sinensis. Adamantios 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Expose. --Beyond silence 00:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Decticus verrucivorus[edit]

Warzenbeißer (Decticus verrucivorus) m 01 (HS).jpg
  • Nomination Decticus verrucivorus male --Hsuepfle 20:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A huge scary thing (I'm not so brave ;) ) nicely taken ! Benh 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, too small for QI and also because of the crop one antenna and one tarsus (leg) are cut! Lycaon 09:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough to QI. --Beyond silence 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If it is cropped, why not give us back the top of the antenna and the end of the middle leg/foot --Tony Wills 09:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Lycaon and Tony --Hsuepfle 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Decticus verrucivorus Edit[edit]

Warzenbeißer (Decticus verrucivorus) m 02 (HS).jpg
  • Nomination Decticus verrucivorus male, image less cropped. I think it was too late in the evening when I crooped it. Here you can see the rest of the antenna and tarsus. Also the size is now with 1600x1200px hopefully sufficient --Hsuepfle 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Focus a little soft perhaps, but shows good detail, good exposure - QI :-) --Tony Wills 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is better, but only narrowly cuts it for me (size is really on the limit for this kind of picture with lots of details!!). Lycaon 08:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dolls[edit]

Poupées anciennes 1.jpg
  • Nomination Dolls. Vassil 00:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you write more descripition? --Beyond silence 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoSorry,I can't.I took the pic in a sale, and I don't know anything about dolls.Vassil 00:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • weak oppose Dislike the composition, there are few aberrations in full view. still would like a second opinion on this one- LadyofHats 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Beyond silence 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Result:  no support (excluding the nominator),  0.5 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Suricate[edit]

Suricate 140803.jpg
  • Nomination A young suricate (Suricata suricatta) in a zoo. Vassil 21:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technicaly acceptable, good value. --Beyond silence 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop, even the whiskers are cut. -- Lycaon 12:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Whiskers are cut? --Beyond silence 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
At full resolution, above the eyes (perhaps they are eyebrows :-) --Tony Wills 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The eyebrows are cut, I missed this detail.I can't upload a larger crop because it's the original framing.Vassil 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise and blur --Orlovic (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support what's a few cm of eyebrows between friends? Ben Aveling 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

St. Suitbertus, Kaiserswerth (2)[edit]

Duesseldorf Kaiserswerth St Suitbertus 2.jpg
  • Nomination St Suitbertus church in Düsseldorf, Germany: Interior view- Till 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much CA. Lycaon 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Image has improved, dropping opposition. Lycaon 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I can hardly see any CA. Or is it my eyes? A second opinion please... (btw: it's a HDR image - Till 16:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If you look hard you can notice chromatic aberration down the black wires and lamp shade of the nearest lights, that could be fixed easily. But really it's minimal CA. Is there something I'm missing? --Tony Wills 12:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this is easily fixed, then please do, I'll drop my opposition then straight away. Lycaon 13:02, 20 August 2007
I see what you mean, but I found out it's not an issue of HDR creation - it seems to be an optical flaw of the lens due to the short focal length. So I guess I can't do anything about it in this case, because I neither have the time nor the patience to edit the two images pixel by pixel - and I don't want to crop the sides. Never mind about QI, then. - Till 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've reduced CA (thanks for the hint, Lycaon) and replaced the image by a corrected version. Hopefully it pleases the community. - Till 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I ask for a bit conrast/brightness. Now: Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Beyond silence 02:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Did you look at the image at full scale? I don't think it needs higher contrast or brightness. But viewed as a thumb, I agree that it seems a bit dull. - Till 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 07:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

View old on Dubrovnik[edit]

original-version

  • Nomination View on Dubrovnik --Beyond silence 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs perspective correction. Lycaon 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Really? --Beyond silence 16:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really. It's not too bad though, should be easily fixable. Thegreenj 01:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you think perspective correction? --Beyond silence 01:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What software are you using? There might be some sort of auto correct with you imputting verticals - I don't know. On Photoshop 5.0, select the image and go to Edit -> Transform -> Skew and use guides to mark verticals. I've never really done perspective correction well. I'm just curious - what did you do to the edit? Thegreenj 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

Edited[edit]

View Dubrovnik-6.jpg
  • Nomination View on Dubrovnik --Beyond silence 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion

✓ Done Corrected. Thanks for help! --Beyond silence 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The (slight) rotation has been corrected, and as it is obvious that one is looking downwards, I think that an architectural perspective/keystone correction with aligned verticals would not be appropriate. Image looking fine at full resolution. -- Klaus with K 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still have a problem with the 'snapshot' composition. Lycaon 05:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's really bad. Do you oppose for it? --Beyond silence 13:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
guess not ;-). Lycaon 16:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

View old city of Dubrovnik[edit]

View old city of Dubrovnik-7.jpg
  • Nomination View on Dubrovnik --Beyond silence 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Lycaon 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) More or less resolved. Lycaon 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think tilt is enough weak. --Beyond silence 16:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The tilt is easily fixable. I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support now that it's done. --Dschwen 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I fixed it before upload - but I didn't do it more because some building tilting to the other direction (as the cathedral at upper left corner). It can be because the city built to an hilly bay. --Beyond silence 18:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd take the horizon as a guideline. I don't want to sound like a smart-ass, but it is usually pretty horizontal over the sea ;-) --Dschwen 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(To Beyond Silence) Even houses built on hills are usually built straight up and down :-)

✓ Done I fixed it, thanks for feedback. --Beyond silence 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks sufficient to me --Tony Wills 12:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A calvaire in Brittany[edit]

ND de Tronoën Calvaire 2B.jpg

  • Nomination A calvaire in Brittany, France.(Edit) Vassil 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood light & sharpness. --Beyond silence 03:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disagree on the lighting, that was not the best time of the day to shoot this subject because of the shadows. Alvesgaspar 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The best is FP... --Beyond silence 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In Image:Gull Porto Covo July 2007-7.jpg isn't there shadow...? --Beyond silence 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • --Beyond silence please do not take every comment so personal, we are all trying to give our best here and what you achieve with such comments is only making this process more stressfull. Remember that whatever it is said it is ment for the pictures not for you. and if someone thinks diferent than you doesnt mean that you are wrong. it only means he thinks diferent or gives more weight to certain things more than others. in all cases it is not ment as an attack. Try to cool down and base your opinions in the picture you are qualifying. -LadyofHats 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah by the way *Weak Support the sky is well exposed and i dont mind the shadows, but it is quite a straight foward composition and actually a bit boring- LadyofHats 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • weak oppose Looks slightly tilted but that may be because one end of the foundation is covered by dirt and the other not. Also seems to have a perspective distortion in that it gets narrower towards the top. Also composition: could not that background building be left out by moving to one side? --Tony Wills 10:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition. I don't like the way it runs into the building, or the unbalanced space on each side of it. Ben Aveling 07:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1.5 support (excluding the nominator),  2.5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dullahan - Bartek Dębno-Artwiński[edit]

4.FMC - Dullahan - Bartek Dębno-Artwiński 01.JPG
  • Nomination Bartek Dębno-Artwiński from celtic band Dullahan. --Lestat 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Technicaly QI, but composition very poor and boring, sorry. If you don't agree take it consesual rw. --Beyond silence 07:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please for another opinion. QI means Quality images and don't concern very subjective feelings like i.e. boring. --Lestat 10:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Boring might be a composition question --Tony Wills 12:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unattractive composition. Lycaon 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Forgot about the clause in the rules which says to wait 15 days if no opinions other than first review. Need to wait another 10 days. --Tony Wills 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gyps fulvus[edit]

Gyps fulvus Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination Gyps fulvus, The Griffon Vulture --Richard Bartz 09:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline What a shame the quality is not good enough! The posture of the animal is superb. I've not the courage for opposing it right away... Alvesgaspar 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is a pity indeed, but i would opose it-LadyofHats 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality. Lycaon 05:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why did you close the voting after one vote? --Beyond silence 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, two people have voted (one neutral), but as per rules it was closed after 48hours during which there were no further comments/votes. --Tony Wills 21:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Forgot about the clause in the rules which says to wait 15 days if no opinions other than first review. Need to wait 4 more days. --Tony Wills 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp enough where it counts, given how good the composition is. Ben Aveling 07:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> (decline?) not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unknown Bivalve[edit]

Unknown Bivalve.JPG
  • Nomination Unknown Bivalve --Digon3 talk 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit too dark and purple fringing. --Dschwen 06:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have uploaded a new edit wich should get rid of those problems. --Digon3 talk 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Questionshouldnt be the species clarified first before proposing it here?-LadyofHats 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose needs species id . Lycaon 05:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Archived too soon. Need to wait 5 more days. --Tony Wills 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Distel und bienen[edit]

Cirsium arvense with Bees Richard Bartz.jpg
  • Nomination Distel und Bienen--Richard Bartz 10:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition, sharp. --Beyond silence 11:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • conditional Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would love an id on the thistle. Lycaon 11:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    This is a Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense) I think. --LC-de 12:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Condition met. Thank you LC-de. Lycaon 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Simon Tong[edit]

Simon Tong mg 6705.jpg
  • Nomination Simon Tong -- Rama 13:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically acceptable. --Beyond silence 14:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- i disagree with you, it is technically ok but it has a very poor composition-LadyofHats 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- ack LadyofHats. Lycaon 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lake Como from Varenna[edit]

Lake Como from Varenna 04.jpg
  • Nomination I don't think the image is too noisy. The shadow in the foreground adds to the effect of contrast, which shouldn't be a reason to decline. --Aconcagua 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNice composition and lighting, but noisy is so much and the foreground in shadow. Sorry --Beyond silence 08:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with the noisiness. Lycaon 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Shield bug running[edit]

Graphosoma italicum August 2007-1.jpg

  • Nomination A beautiful shield bug (Graphosoma lineatum) running from the photographer. In a moment, it flew away. - Alvesgaspar 12:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too shallow DOF, not sharp enough. Lycaon 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like a second opinion on this one. No, it is not sharp, but that is mainly the result of motion blur (the bug is running) - Alvesgaspar 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really not sharp, but head shadowy too. Difficult shot, but doesn't make more valuable his moving. --Beyond silence 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Baska Voda-beach[edit]

Baska Voda-beach1.jpg

  • Nomination Beach in Baška Voda (renominate edited version after decline) --Beyond silence 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt, overexposed, composition... --Lestat 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I like it, other opinion?
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My post seems to have disappeared (again). For the record, I originally opposed this because of tilt and composition. A new version was uploaded, and my decline was deleted...
In any case it is still tilted, poorly composed (mostly trees ands ky, little beach), and not very sharp, especially given the resolution. Thegreenj 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfly[edit]

Sympetrum sp Richard Bartz.jpg
  • Nomination Sympetrum is a genus of small to medium sized skimmer dragonflies --Richard Bartz 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe branch in the background ruins the composition. Also the image is noisy and not very sharp - Alvesgaspar 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good technical condition, background isn't ruins the composition. --Beyond silence 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I can't support because of the low resolution, but it looks pretty nice otherwise. -- Ram-Man 01:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low res. Lycaon 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
May "low" resolution not enough to oppose. --Beyond silence 08:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Resolution is one of the QI guidelines. Thegreenj 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What out to the QIC talk page! --Beyond silence 21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite understand you. If you are referring to this discussion, I believe that there was no real consensus on how strongly resolution influences QI eligibility. Judging from the last few comments, I believe that the general conclusion was that 1600px could be set as an arbitrary limit as long as common sense and community consensus acted for exceptional pictures that did not meet the limit. Though this picture is 1600px, it is so cropped vertically that it is less than 1.6 MP; if one holds that 1600px should be applied to the standard 4:3 aspect ratio, this falls short. Thegreenj 02:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Boundary stone[edit]

CH boundary stone Fuorcla Sesvenna 2.jpg
  • Nomination Boundary stone, italian side. --Dschwen 07:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Stone, the main subject too bright, sorry. If you want, you may fix it. --Beyond silence 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Beyond silence 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the same issue as the Rhone pic below. The stone is white marble and the sun shines on it. It is either blown out and thus unfixable becaus the detail is lost forever, or it is not blown out and thus there is nothing to fix. --Dschwen 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Your photo is, as usual, perfectly exposed - there is no significant over-exposed or blown out pixels. Maybe 'too bright' means something different from over exposed ;-) --Tony Wills 12:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The main subject is perfectly rendered: a bright white marble stone, but absolutely no blown out parts, and sharply detailed. The surroundings are also nice: more or less blurred for a good depth impression, correct lighting and colors. So: what's the problem? For me, it's undoubtably a QI. -- MJJR 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

St. Suitbertus, Kaiserswerth (1)[edit]

Duesseldorf Kaiserswerth St Suitbertus 1.jpg
  • Nomination St Suitbertus church in Düsseldorf, Germany: Interior view - Till 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much CA. Lycaon 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support resolved Lycaon 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I can hardly see any CA. Or is it my eyes? A second opinion please... (btw: it's a HDR image - Till 16:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment CA slightly more noticeable (again down wires and lamp shade of nearest lights) also slight CA around arches, most noticeable on nearest partial arches. I would fix the lighjts and crop off those partial arches. But really considering this is a 6MP image, that's really quibbling. --Tony Wills 12:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this is easily fixed, then please do, I'll drop my opposition then. Lycaon 13:02, 20 August 2007
I see what you mean, but I found out it's not an issue of HDR creation - it seems to be an optical flaw of the lens due to the short focal length. So I guess I can't do anything about it in this case, because I neither have the time nor the patience to edit the two images pixel by pixel - and I don't want to crop the sides. Never mind about QI, then. - Till 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to do it pixel by pixel. Try a colour replacement with adjacent colours as target. (never never mind) Lycaon 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've reduced CA (thanks for the hint, Lycaon) and replaced the image by a corrected version. Hopefully it pleases the community. - Till 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

CH_Julier_Pass_column[edit]

CH Julier Pass column 1.jpg
  • Nomination Ancient roman column fragment found on the julier pass, proving the early use of the pass.Julier pass in winter time, southern pass ramp in the background and an ancient roman column fragment in the foreground. --Dschwen 07:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As landsape may can not bad, but if we talking about the column - it is in snow. --Beyond silence 13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I withdraw my oppose. The picture may can be enough good, but I can't decide. --Beyond silence 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, sharp foreground. --Beyond silence 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info If it gets declined for the blurb I wrote then whats to stop me from changing it... --Dschwen 13:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral good only for excellent DoF. But the subject is unclear. --Orlovic (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rails in Puchberg am Schneeberg[edit]

Puchberg am Schneeberg-railwaystation.jpg

  • Nomination Rails in Puchberg am Schneeberg with mountain Schneeberg --Beyond silence 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question So... where is the railway station? - Till 05:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Next to the train (yellow building is that) --Beyond silence 05:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a bit noisy a bit CA and a slight CW tilt. Lycaon 10:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Biokovo mountain[edit]

Baska Voda-mountain.jpg

  • Nomination Biokovo at Baška Voda --Beyond silence 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI thin close to the border, but IMO on the decline side. 1. the lighting makes it flat 2. the image structure in full resolution looks a bit overprocessed, maybe at the camera level (1. strong noise reduction washout out most detail 2. what remained emphasized with unsharp mask) 3. I think the mountain has a more specific name. --Wikimol 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Name found: Biokovo. Only minimal postprocession used, mainly cropped. Is there other opinion? --Beyond silence 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Archived too soon. Need to wait 10 more days. --Tony Wills 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> (decline?) --Tony Wills 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg --Beyond silence 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Feather of Indian Peafowl[edit]

Pavo cristatus feather-mx.jpg

  • Nomination Feather of Indian Peafowl(new photo with better background and sharpness). --Beyond silence 14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline

It has acceptable sharpness and lighting, colors.--Frank47 14:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) invalid vote Lycaon 18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A flat object should be sharp all over. Weird CA problems too. Lycaon 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there other opinion?--Beyond silence 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Archived too soon. Need to wait 4 more days. --Tony Wills 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info After retrieving the original review from the page history, I see Lycaon's vote wasn't the review. So technically it was a valid closure.
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 07:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Tapir[edit]

Tapirus terrestris laying down.jpg

  • Nomination Tapir.. a lazy one.-LadyofHats 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, technical acceptable. Thanks --Beyond silence 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extreme crop - Alvesgaspar 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Thegreenj 00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-3[edit]

NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-3.jpg
  • Nomination Vanessa gonerilla head detail --Tony Wills 12:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small DOF, noisy and to few details. Lycaon 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The depth of field and angle were deliberately chosen to hi-light the head only. The head, eye, retracted tongue, and antenna are all clearly illustrated. The noise is only in the out of focus background, and I don't have an expensive camera that processes such things into fashionably smooth colours - if that is a problem can someone help me edit it? --Tony Wills 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF - sorry. --Beyond silence 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 10:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Grues couronnées[edit]

Grues couronnées 140805.jpg
  • Nomination Two black crowned cranes in a zoo. Vassil 10:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, technicaly acceptable. --Beyond silence 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small and main action is in the shadow and hardly visible. Lycaon 08:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded today another picture of these two birds with a higher resolution and a better lighting.Vassil 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination unsigned comment by Vassil 09:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) --Tony Wills 09:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

View old city of Dubrovnik[edit]

original image

  • Nomination View on Dubrovnik --Beyond silence 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Lycaon 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think tilt is enough weak. --Beyond silence 16:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The tilt is easily fixable. I'll support when it's done. --Dschwen 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg --Beyond silence 10:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI (withdraw) --Beyond silence 10:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed[edit]

View old city of Dubrovnik-6.jpg
  • Nomination View on Dubrovnik ✓ Done I fixed it, thanks for feedback. --Beyond silence 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) --Beyond silence 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I guess it's not going to get any straighter than this ;-). One personal note though, this 2MP image is not considerably sharper than the 12.7MP Rhone images which you commented on above. --Dschwen 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply at user talk. --Beyond silence 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Dictionary indentations[edit]

Dictionaryindents.jpg
  • Nomination Alphabetical indentations on a dictionary Thegreenj 01:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very low DOF, composition is weak too. --Beyond silence 04:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DOF is sufficient to illustrate the subject. Higher DOF would cause quality to degrade, and would cause distracting elements (eg text) to be in focus. Thegreenj 02:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I am understand you, but the composition in my opinion is weak too. It don't present well the indentations, so the low DOF not makes them stronger with sharpness, but everything else coverd by massive unsharpness. Sorry --Beyond silence 04:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Beyond silence. I think I might have a better version: Image:Dictionary indents headon.jpg, I'm thinking about nominating this one myself - sorry, no offense intended. - Till 09:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course not. That's a nice picture, definitely meets all the guidelines. Thegreenj 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 10:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Avenger[edit]

Avenger mg 3691.jpg
  • Nomination Avenger -- Rama 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • A bit dark & not too good composition, but at the engine looks good - technicaly acceptable. --Beyond silence 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Details are excellent, but the crop really kills this picture for me. The cut off wing and the red object sticking in are very distracting. Either the crop should be tighter to just include the engine/middle portion of the plane, or it should be farther out to include the entire plane. Thegreenj 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop. -- Slaunger 02:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 10:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unknown Butterfly on a Lantana[edit]

Gulf Fritillary Butterfly on a Lantana 18.jpg
  • Nomination Gulf Fritillary Butterfly on a Lantana --Digon3 talk 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very beautiful composition but I think you should try to identify the butterfly. In the meantime here are two suggestions: crop the pic around the flower and insect to emphasize them; try to darken the yellows in the flower, it seems overexposed to me. Alvesgaspar 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Yes, I like the composition too! But the overexpose distracting, if it can be fixed it may acceptable. Try using Photoshop!--Beyond silence 23:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Or The Gimp --Tony Wills 10:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I have darken the yellows in the flowers and added a new cropped picutre. --Digon3 talk 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 10:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question For any particular reason? --Tony Wills 12:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited[edit]

Gulf Fritillary Butterfly on a Lantana 18 crop.jpg

  • Nomination Butterfly on a Lantana --Digon3
  • Promotion
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Has good composition and colour. May can be more sharp, but I think can be enough to QI. --Beyond silence 00:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWeak Symbol support vote.svg Support it helps ;-) Lycaon 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Needs identification first. Sorry. Lycaon 08:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info My guess is Agraulis vanillae maculosa (apparently common in Buenos Aires province if that helps), no probably just Gulf Fritillary (Agraulis vanillae), why don't people say where they took their photos :-) --Tony Wills 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It was taken in Florida. I was strongly leaning toward Gulf fritillaries, even before I read your comment. --Digon3 talk 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  1.0 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Railway track[edit]

Railroad-Gyula.jpg

  • Nomination Railroad in Gyula
    (use simillar standars as Image:CH_Gleis_Furka-Bergstrecke.jpg, thanks) --Beyond silence 18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable quality, nice illustration of the 'railroad' subject; seems a little bit tilted at first sight, but is not. -- MJJR 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image may also be illustrative but the sky is badly overexposed and there is posterization in the top right corner. This is not the case in the other image. It wouldn't have been impossible to take a better exposed picture in this scene. --Ikiwaner 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky on Image:CH_Gleis_Furka-Bergstrecke.jpg is overexposed too like on it! This is that case! If you oppose it please oppose on that too! A better cammera may capture it better, but with lesser expose the main subject been too dark. --Beyond silence 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This is wrong. You can see clouds on the Furka image which you can't here. There is no posterization on the other image. That's why I won't oppose there. --Ikiwaner 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikiwaner. The composition more than makes up for the relatively isolated blown sky, whereas half of you picture is sky. Thegreenj 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the sky in this image ocupies almust half of the image, so that the overexposed area is bigger than your example. and also it "eats" the edges of many ofgects in the picture wich doesnt happen in the mountain foto.LadyofHats 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited[edit]

Railroad-Gyula-b.jpg

  • Nomination Hopefully dedicated for those, whoes don't like the cloudy autnum sky. --Beyond silence 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sufficient for QI --Tony Wills 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Am I the only one to see the artifacts in the sky? Around the wires, it looks like the image was edited with the clone tool - Alvesgaspar 11:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you only can see the sky? I tried reduct the overexpose sky, this makes some problem at here... I am sorry if it's a big fault. :( --Beyond silence 17:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar, sharpness is not too good either. Lycaon 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Because of it I didn't nominate to FP, yeah it's the Quality images candidates. --Beyond silence 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

CH_Viamala_Gorge_descent[edit]

CH Viamala Gorge descent.jpg
  • Nomination Descent into the Viamala gorge near Thusis, Switzerland. --Dschwen 13:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me if only the white van wasnt laying on its side Gnangarra 14:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is confusing me. Ah! makes sense, not that you moved the comment to this picture :-). This is what you see if you bend over the guard rails, look down, and turn you head left and right. This orientation is still more natural than 90° turned. --Dschwen 06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support May can be improve this picture (as with some contrast). But the composition realy impressive, and technicaly overall acceptable for me. --Beyond silence 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The white van on the right-hand side makes you stop and think about the perspective, and then suddenly you get the sense of depth. A well done panorama that's different from the regular ones. - Till 06:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Eristalis[edit]

Eristalis sp - July 2007-2.jpg

  • Nomination Drone-fly (Eristalis tenax) on flower. - Alvesgaspar 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionIs the species of the plant known? -- Slaunger 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I wish I knew. This is a cultivated plant, for sure of the Compositae family. Maybe a Bellis sp or a Aster sp ? I don't know. Alvesgaspar 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Hmm. Maybe somebody can help with the plant ID. The flower and insect is sharp, but personally I find the petals in the top and left borders distracting, but I'll like a second opinion on that. -- Slaunger 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough good. --Beyond silence 07:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted --Tony Wills 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Marketplace Miessen, Germany[edit]

Meissen-pano-markt3.jpg

  • Nomination marketplace Meissen, Germany Kolossos 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice resolution, sharpness, composition and lightning, but there are stiching errors and some wobbling. Look at the window frames to the lower left on the yellow building for the worst ones. For wobbling, see, e.g., the roof of the yellow building, which has an unnatural bulge. -- Slaunger 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For the stiching errors I can give you right, but the wobbling comes from the roof, it is realy so. --Kolossos 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The stiches needs to be fixed by having more spread out/better connection points. I realize the buildings are not straight, but are you sure there is no wobbling/warp in there? Look for instance at the tiles on the roof of the building with the large white facade. In isolated areas it is suddenly very non-straight. I suggest adding some horizontal connection points or guidelines if your stitching software offers this option to fix it. Other side issues is a stepwise blurred area on the same roof. Others would maybe grunt on the over-exposed sky and the unsharp top of the tower in the over-exposed area. In addition, I think the image page could benefit with some details concerning how you have generated the image (see here for an example). Also consider adding it to a relevant 'Panoramic' sub-category. If it is 'Created with Hugin' add that category also. If these issues are addressed in a reasonable manner I will change my vote. -- Slaunger 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes it is created with hugin. Unfortunally, I don't take my tripod with me on this day, so I try a lot on the Computer to stiching the images. If you or somebody else want, you can try our luck with the source-images at DSC00337.JPG - DSC00347.JPG. So you can also see whats true whoobling and whats not. With hugin I see no more changes to optimize the image, but i'm no expert. The only way I see on the computer would be to reduce the resolution to reduce the mistakes. So, perhaps I'm able to make a travel to this town again and make a new shout. The point with the categories I will do. --Kolossos 14:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Concerning wobbling, you are right. Its not geometrical distorion due to the stitching process. It is the way the buildings are in real life!. Concerning using a tripod or not, you may want to read this recent thread in Photography critiques. Although it is certainly a more controlled process to use a tripod, good results can actually be acheived without. This panorama, for instance, is based on 17 handheld zoomed photos taken while standing in a small boat that was even drifting during the shots. However, there I also had to put a considerable effort (2-3 hours) into editing auto-generated connection points in Hugin compared to this first attempt, which has stiching problems. I'm no expert either, but I found that, having a large overlap between images and spreading the connections points as much as possible especially close the borders gave good results sometimes supplemented by using the crop tab to cut bad quality areas away from individual photos. -- Slaunger 17:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very distracting distortion. --Beyond silence 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Beyond silence 03:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson[edit]

Marilyn Manson f10300967.jpg
  • Nomination Marilyn Manson --Rama 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very dramatic composition, good lighting, I know its just under the 1600px but only by a couple Gnangarra 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, this is absolutely no QI to me. Dramtic composition and famous subject, but QI is about technical standards, and this picture fails them (as do the other two manso pics) --Dschwen 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy. Note: unclear if Marilyn Manson, looks like Alice Cooper --Orlovic (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For noise and too much darkness. Sorry --Beyond silence 01:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI--Beyond silence 03:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Darter's head[edit]

Darter August 2007-25.jpg

  • Nomination Head of a dragonfly with compound eyes. Captions of the various parts of the head are in the image file - Alvesgaspar 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info To help the reviewer's dilemma a slightly larger file was uploaded - Alvesgaspar 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm going to decline anyway. It's just not sharp enough despite mitigating circumstances. Other photographers, like Makro Freak, have taken great pictures at this magnification, so it is possible. Feel free to take it to CR for larger discussion if you care about precedent. -- Ram-Man 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I really think you are putting the bar too high for QIC and this kind of macro shots. Alvesgaspar 09:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why do the left and right hand-sides of the compound eye look so differently? In one the individual elements are clearly visible, in the other not. What is this big blob on one of the compound eyes. Is that a real feature or caused by some lightning effect? In thumb size it looks like an additional object. -- Slaunger 10:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I'm very ignorant on the subject but I think that the red and blue parts of the eye have different specialized functions and that the individual elements in one of them are much smaller (and not resolved by the sensor). The big blob, as well as the red spot, are the result of a direct reflection of the sun. I think that the fuzzier aspect of the left eye is a consequence of overexposure, also due to the direct lighting of the sun. This shot was really at the very limit of my equipment. It could be a little sharper if a higher f number was used but then motion blur would spoil everything. A higher ISO would result in visible noise. Note that this is a photo of a living and nervous creature, taken outside and with wind. In a studio, with controlled conditions, a much better depiction (like the one by Fir0002), would be possible - Alvesgaspar 10:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Thank you for the explanation. I realize it is a very difficult field shot, resulting in some technical problems. I think it is borderline. -- Slaunger 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Difficult shot, main problem is DOF. Slightly strange reflections from the eyes (but the dragon fly eyes all look a bit strange in other pictures - usually sort of fuzzy) and I think it is better in some ways than the Fir0002 shot you mentioned. --Tony Wills 21:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose High DOF makes less sharp part. Sorry --Beyond silence 18:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe you mean "low DOF" ... - Alvesgaspar 18:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know this must have been a difficult shot. However, it has some problems. 1)So-so resolution - I wouldn't mind this too much because of the circumstances and the fact that its still in the borderline area, except for 2)Low detail - yes, I know - no NR from the RAW, but it really looks like a median filter has been run through this. There is almost no fine detail. 3)DOF I cannot really tell where this starts and ends due to the median-filterish look, but I don't think that the entire head is in focus. This is a fine result, and very close, but I think it just has a problem too many. Thegreenj 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Beyond silence 03:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aegypius monachus[edit]

Aegypius monachus.jpg

  • Nomination Aegypius monachus --JuliusR 12:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, technicaly acceptable. --Beyond silence 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Unfortunate crop, lighting problems (with an extense zone overexposed), image noisy. Alvesgaspar 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What problem with the crop do you have? --Beyond silence 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
...and where are the extense overexposed zones? --LC-de 06:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice portrait shot. Ok quality. --Simonizer 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - slightly overexposed head but reasonable enough for QI-LadyofHats 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 21:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Palácio de Estoi[edit]

Estoi Park 01.jpg

  • Nomination Gardens of the Palácio de Estoi in Estoi (Algarve, Portugal) with blooming Robinia pseudoacacia. -- MJJR 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful composition and lighting! --Beyond silence 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image looks a bit overexposed to me and there is purple fringing in the upper branches and gate. Also, the focus is on the soft side as a result of a wrong exposure choice. For this theme a higher F number was necessary. But the composition is nice. Alvesgaspar 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i agree with Alvesgaspar the compotition is nice yet the exposition it is not, specially the lost detail in the door anoys me -LadyofHats 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why did you close the voting after 3 or 2 days? --Beyond silence 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Because it is written in the Rules: 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 - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed, according to the Guidelines - Alvesgaspar 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a too short time. --Beyond silence 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Olympus E410[edit]

Olympus E410 img 1028.jpg
  • Nomination Olympus E410 -- Rama 20:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A pretty good image, a little noisy in places. But my main complaint is the background, much better if a plain desktop, or even if the blue background extended right across (even if chained down, could it be moved along the shelf, or a better angle to give a consistent background? --Tony Wills 11:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Ok, a very good edit out of the background. A slight blue halo left over in places but not too detrimental. So I come back to the noise, the front of the lens looks quite noisy, what do others think? --Tony Wills 12:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sorry for modifying the image like this, I hope is doesn't appear too cavalier. This photograph was taken through the window of a shop with a Canon G7, so I wouldn't be too surprised if it was noisy and if disturbing effects arose; it just seemed to turn out rather lucky. Rama 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well the money they spend washing their windows every day is well worth the effort, I certainly would not have guessed it was taken through a window :-) --Tony Wills 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background removal edit was a vast improvement, but the blue reflection and halo on parts of the camera bother me, and the noise is still pretty high, considering the smudgy noise reduction. It really is close to borderline - if you can remove the halo/reflections, I think I'd be neutral on this. Thegreenj 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why did you close the voting after one vote? --Beyond silence 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well two people have voted (mine was changed to neutral), but as per rules it was closed after 48hours during which there were no further comments/votes. --Tony Wills 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Macroeconomics diagram[edit]

Circulation in macroeconomics.svg

  • Nomination With help by LadyofHats it made in svg version!--Beyond silence 22:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC) The Investment arrow is missing the t. --Dschwen 06:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) and Government is missing the n. Lycaon 07:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)✓ Done THX.--Beyond silence 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I believe that a QI should serve as a positive example for people to learn about shooting a photo or making a good illustration (that statement was once part of the guidelines if I recall well). But this illustration is carelessly done. It is cluttered and not appealing to the eye. Also the symbols should be explained in a legend or in the image file. Finally the colouring of legends and arrows seems randomly chosen (in some words, the first letter has a different colour, why?) - Alvesgaspar 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The legends are economic standards! These are used in study everywhere. I don't think that is a oppose reason if you don't interesting in the macroeconomics. --Beyond silence 15:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar was talking about the colors. The abbreviations are standard, but are you sure those colors are standard for such a diagram as well? - I go with Alvesgaspar's opinion. - Till 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Being a macro-economics newbie I would like to ask whether there is some kind of logic in the format used for the shapes in the diagram. Some have an edge, others do not. Some have a gradient, others do not. One has a shadow, the rest do not. I have a feeling it could be more consistent? BTW, I like the colurs used. -- Slaunger 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why did you close the voting after one vote? --Beyond silence 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As per rules it was closed after 48hours during which there were no further comments/votes. --Tony Wills 20:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortifications at Ston (Croatia)[edit]

Ston-Fort-06.jpg
  • Nomination Fortifications at Ston (Croatia). --Beyond silence 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Blurry. Looks like a painting --Orlovic (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Big resulotion, anybody can support it? --Beyond silence 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See posterized sky. Extreme jpg compression? --Ikiwaner 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about any extreme jpg compression. I don't think the sky is on the main decision. --Beyond silence 23:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Judging from the fairly large file size, I don't think that jpeg compression is the problem, unless you've been doing editing and saving jpeg repeatedly. Thegreenj 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Over-exposed sky, harsh light. Morning/evening light would probably work better. -- Slaunger 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky on Image:CH_Gleis_Furka-Bergstrecke.jpg is overexposed too like on it! --Beyond silence 14:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, but in that image the lightning on the subject is better IMO, it's not an absolute science...and I did not promote that image. -- Slaunger 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pyrolusite Mineral with Dendrite[edit]

Pyrolusite Mineral with Dendrite Macro.JPG
  • Nomination Pyrolusite Mineral with Dendrite --Digon3 talk 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the plant so valuable, technicaly acceptable. --Beyond silence 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentCould you reshoot this one too, please? It also has the same tint as the alledged (:-)) tourmaline had until you uploaded a better version. --Dschwen 06:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reuploaded. Should be gone now. --Digon3 talk 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

PortoCovo Gull[edit]

Gull Porto Covo July 2007-7.jpg
  • Nomination Seagull in flight (Larus michahellis) - Alvesgaspar 11:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMaybe the first picture that i support because of highlights, but here they emphasize the outline of the gull. Beautiful! --Simonizer 12:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shadow. --Beyond silence 02:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even though the body of the gull is in shadow, the structure of the wings and tail is superbly shown. Could be a bit bigger (lots of empty sky), but then we make allowances for "photos in the field" :-) --Tony Wills 05:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support clear and image the underboby areas are clearly visable these area is to be expected be in shadow. Gnangarra 06:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would be nice with a Date on the image page... -- Slaunger 23:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Branzi panorama[edit]

Branzi panorama.jpg
  • Nomination View of Branzi (Italy) --Luigi Chiesa 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol support vote.svg Support problem resolved Lycaon 22:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Quit nice (looks like a painting), but is tilted CW. Lycaon 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have adjusted the perspective. Now is it ok? Branzi panorama 2.jpg --Luigi Chiesa 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. -- Slaunger 00:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Stairs[edit]

Rijeka-Trsat-stairs1.JPG
  • Nomination Stairs to Trsat district in city Rijeka (2mgpixel not requirement by Tony Wills) --Beyond silence 12:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small not a QI Gnangarra 02:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it enough to decline? --Beyond silence 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is confusing, in the thumb I thought I was looking down the stairs, full size is looking up. -Fcb981 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The confusing is in your mind. --Beyond silence 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I had the same experience as mentioned by Fcb981, but I actually find this aspect of the photo intriguing. However, the resolution is on the low side and I find it slightly tilted. -- Slaunger 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Basilique St Remi[edit]

Basilique St Remi 08.jpg
  • Nomination A stained glass window,12th century,Reims,France.Vassil 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportTechnicaly acceptable.--Beyond silence 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To my eye this image has a number of problems - perspective distortion, gets narrower towards top, probably tilted (but maybe that's just the uneveness to the leading), and there is severe over and under exposure (look at a colour distribution histogram for it) --Tony Wills 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Then see Image:Vitraux Cathédrale d'Auch 05.jpg, if that's promoted by Lycaon it must be too! --Beyond silence 12:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree for the distortion (I think that I didn't straighten the perspective, but I deleted the original pic), but under- and overexposure on the histogram seem unavoidable for a stained glass window.This picture is sharper than Vitraux Cathédrale d'Auch 05, but it's a closer detail. Vassil 13:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colours are fine IMO, but as mentioned, tilt and/or perspective problems distract. -- Slaunger 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Schrattenflue[edit]

Mittlist Gfaell 02.JPG
  • Nomination View from Mittlist Gfaell to Schrattenflue --Simonizer 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice mood, warm colours --Ikiwaner 09:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. --Beyond silence 12:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice lighting its reflective of the weather conditions, strong composition the sunrays are a focal feature that would be lost in a lightened image Gnangarra 13:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ack Gnangarra. --Thermos 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Totally agree with supporters, I'm not sure if this is a good candidate for FP - Alvesgaspar 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

plagiomnium_affine_laminazellen[edit]

Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg
  • Nomination Big lamina cells of the moss Plagiomnium affine where chloroplasts and cells walls are visible. Resolution is at maximum. The picture comes right out of the camera of the microscope. encyclopedic purposes: moss, cells, chloroplasts. Fabelfroh 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThis is great material, and you have more on your gallery. Unfortunately to qualify for QI they would have to be at least 2Mpx, lets say 1600x1250. Lycaon 15:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tony Wills said that 2Mpx is not requirement. --Beyond silence 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes as I continue to point out in FP and QI, 2MP is a guideline, not a cut-off limit. --Tony Wills 04:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If ever there are mitigating circumstances for size, I think microscopic pictures has to be a clear case. A quick survey of Category:Microscopic_images show most images around 800x600, a few large images 1200x900. A look at Image:Whipworm egg.JPG which is 2592×1944 gives you some idea why - looking through a microscope you get a circular image, once you've cropped a rectangle out of that field of view you get an image of max dimensions about 1616x1212. Smaller images must be expected to be the norm. Also one needs to expect a small depth of field. Perhaps we need a seperate QI category for microscopic images too. --Tony Wills 04:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry but I don't agree on this one. 800x600 is really too small. I can make anything look good at that resolution. What you say about microscope pictures is not true. Resolution of older dedicated microscopy cameras tends to be at the lower size: 1300x1030 for a midrange camera (Zeiss AxioCam MR, the HR goes 4164x3120) two years ago (this example is 1200x900 after cropping). If you actually use a non-dedicated digital SLR on a c-mount, your resolution issues are completely gone.
    What depth of field is concerned: As microscopic images are often static and circumstance controlled it is easy to use software to obtain extended depth of field images. Propriety software is often included with dedicated cameras, but open source software is also available (e.g. CombineZM). A last word on QI. I have tons of microscopy images (some are here and here) that are quite good, but I find them too small (1200x900) for QI (FP is another kettle of fish). It is not because an image doesn't qualify for QI that the image is no good, it just doesn't qualify for the standards of QI, that's all. My 2½€-cents. Lycaon 07:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I accept your superior knowledge about cameras on microscopes. But my point is that the 2MP figure is not magic, it just corresponds to what can reasonably be produced with current technology, giving a good display on current monitors and prints of some arbitrary size. 5 years ago it would be considered high resolution, 5 years from now, low resolution. I expect people will keep pushing up what is seen as a 'minimum' - it is a technology related figure rather than a magic 'quality' resolution. The current crop of microscope images appears to have greater resolution limitations, so 'quality' evaluation of them needs to take that into account. Should we propose a 1200x900 guideline for microscope images? --Tony Wills 09:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that 2Mpx should not be the no-give cut-off rule. But we should set a minimum resolution limit, if not people are going to keep on arguing over puny pictures. It is something that has to be discussed with the community of regular contributors. Maybe 1200x900 is good enough, I'm not sure. Mitigation should get stronger fast with smaller size. But as the 'rules' are now, they don't work as they are not rules but guidelines. Guidelines are fine in most cases but minimal, acceptable and maybe optimal values for size should be set. And then no exceptions any more. Like min(1200x900) (with strong mitigation), acc(1600x1200), opt(3200x2400) (were the other rules can be slightly relaxed). Lycaon 14:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me comment as the author of that picture. It is true that some "high resolution" microscope-cameras exist but they also have their disadvantages. For example: low sharpness, high noise, low depth of field, physical related errors like purple fringing. Some of them can be compensated with special computer software but not everything. When people are buying a digital camera most of them think that megapixel is the no 1 criteria. But this is wrong. lens properties, low noise profile, etc. are more important than megapixels. The same counts for microscopes. There's a reason why e.g. Zeiss optics are considered superior than Olympus because they have better optical resolution. You can't make a bad optical performance of a cheap lens better with more megapixels. And finally, where I work there's no money for a better camera.
Another thing: the photos of the galleries Lycaon has proposed are taken with a binocular and NOT a microscope. There's a big difference between a microscope and a binocular which is more like a very good and big magnifying glass.
But put the technical issues aside. In my opinion the content, subject, composition of that photo is more important than image size. Maybe not particular in this case but I have other photos where you can search the internet or even books and cannot find such illustrations. Isn't a good microscope photo of a very rare plant more important than the 100th outstanding photo of a very common one? The reason why I think this photo qualifies as a quality image is also it's uniqueness among the internet. You can search the internet (linking does not work here) for similar microscope photos of that particular moss and can find only 1 or 2. And that photo has much of what it would qualify as a quality image: high depth of field (for a microscope), sharpness, visibility of details, an encyclopedic purpose. It's just my opinion. Fabelfroh 16:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that there is no money for a better camera. But that is no a reason to forcefully want to promote small pictures of rare items to QI. It's a discussion we've had before. It is not because this picture is rare (even the only one on the internet for this species) and even relatively hires (2400x1800), that is should be QI. No, the quality is not good enough. This is QI on Commons. On en:FP, for instance, 'value', content and applicability are far more important. Here technical quality (including size, focus, exposure, noise, correct identification and DOF issues) are most important. FP looks next to these more at composition and 'mood'. And about the difference between a stereoscopic microscope and a 'regular' microscope, there is none in this case. The camera uses one channel of the stereoscopic microscope and the same camera is used on my 'regular' microscopes (like this unprocessed image, also the only one of its kind on the internet), yielding similar resolution and quality as with the bino. Lycaon 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't forcefully want to promote my photo. It's just that I think that composition and quality in this case is more important than image size. That's why I put it in the candidates list. But lets focus more on general quality requirements for microscope photos. I have some more quite good microscope photos of the same resolution and consider them as QI candidates. If this photo won't get QI just because of it's image size all the other photos won't even have a chance. So maybe discussing general requirements of microscope photos for QI is important too. Fabelfroh 19:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Special good picture. --Beyond silence 12:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the composition and colours. I can overlook the size, special circumstances and all that. I guess I'd just like the green blobs to be a bit more sharply focused, if that's possible? (And rarity is not an issue here, this is QI. It would count in your favour at FP.) Regards, Ben Aveling 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this kind of pictures must be an exception of the guidlines --Simonizer 08:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Fluorite[edit]

Fluorite Macro 1.JPG

  • Nomination Fluorite again --Digon3 talk 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sure, that this is Fluorite? In most cases they are green, blue, violett or colorless. --LC-de 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Large portions are out of focus, you might be able to reshoot it under a slightly highte angle and have the whole front face in focus (plus I'm also not yet convinced that the ID is correct). --Dschwen 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine with me now, make it support when you are sure it's sulfur. --Dschwen 06:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I actually think it is sulfur now. As for the focus, is this better? --Digon3 talk 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, better, but you should reupload under a correct name (I can delete these later). --Dschwen 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) So can I :) --Digon3 talk 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It should be easy to verify if this is sulfur or not: Sulfur is flammable an melts before burning. On the other side fluorite shows fluorescence under ultraviolet light. --LC-de 06:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not going to burn my only sample and I don't have a UV lamp. However, I have found my fluorite sample that I confused this with and am pretty sure its sulfur. --Digon3 talk 13:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Name changed and a slightly different angle was uploaded. --Digon3 talk 13:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sulphur (hardness 2) can be scratched with your finger nail (hardness 2½), fluorite (hardness 4) not. Lycaon 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In that case it is Fluorite. I am going to wait a bit before change the filenames. --Digon3 talk 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd really suggest burning a tiny shard. You'll smell the answer (seriously). --Dschwen 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough sharp. --Beyond silence 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pieris rapae closer[edit]

Pieris rapae closer Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination The Small White (Pieris rapae) is a small to mid-sized butterfly species of the Yellows-and-Whites family Pieridae. Here with a amazing close up. --Richard Bartz 09:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great zoom at hard subject, high resultion. --Beyond silence 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and nothing really sharp. Sorry Richard. Lycaon 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
How large sharpness do you excepting at a small insect's head to be QI? --Beyond silence 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice, but what are those blobs in the image? Dust specks? Can they be removed? -- Slaunger 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- i do think it is good enough to be QI -LadyofHats 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dendrocopos Minor[edit]

DendrocoposMinorNaturalHabitat.jpg

  • Nomination Lesser spotted woodpecker in natural habitat (Dendrocopos Minor). What I would really like to know, is whether images of birds which naturally reside within dense forest can be accepted as QI with branches and such in front of the bird, while keeping the bird in focus by limiting the DOF to subject like in this image. After all, it may well be more authentic way to see such birds. Perhaps this could also be considered as an example how to judge pictures that utilise selective DOF. ----Thermos 10:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting foreground. --Beyond silence 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- agree the foreground is killing the image -LadyofHats 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Old man[edit]

Old man-1.jpg
  • Nomination Old man at Lokrum isle (2mgpixel not requirement by Tony Wills) --Beyond silence 12:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small - no mitigation. -- Lycaon 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThere isn't 2 megapixel size requiement. --Beyond silence 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is, the rules or guidelines have not changed. Any picture can be made 'to look good' at 1Mpx, but it is too small for us to judge any details. Lycaon 18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
There wasn't my idea that the guidelines isn't requiements. But it isn't a very small picture, may I can resize it or forget it. --Beyond silence 20:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
My point about the 2MP guideline is that images shouldn't be failed just because they are smaller than that. It is not a cut-off limit. If an image is 'perfect' in all other respects and shows good detail of the image, size alone shouldn't fail it. I disagree that any picture can be made 'to look good' at 1Mpx - downsampling a larger picture can hide defects, but whether it 'looks good' is a different matter. --Tony Wills 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1600px was created as an minimum size and that images below this size were to be decline the purpose was to encourage the uploading of the best possible image, exceptional circumstances within about 10% can be accepted. An image of just 1300 px isnt a Quality Image, ignoring size the composition isnt QI anyway. Gnangarra 12:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • side issue as the person is the subject of the image did you obtain a model release? Gnangarra 15:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Renault 4[edit]

Renault 4-cro.jpg

  • Nomination An Renault 4 --Beyond silence 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several flaws: What bothers me most are the background objects which distract from the main subject. Then the short focal length seems to distort the car front. And lastly I would like to see more of the car's side. Till 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you found mistake in everything? Oh my god, hard to take technicaly better photo for me. --Beyond silence 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sharp and well exposed. Some artifacts (blame the camera). Take Tills comments as advice and try a reshoot. Step back and zoom in (maybe shoot slightly more from the side), if possible choose a wider apperture. --Dschwen 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't reshot, do you want vote? --Beyond silence 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that it is good enough for QI. A well worn Renault 4. Nice detail and the background doesn't bother me. After all, traffic is natural habitat for this car. --Thermos 10:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice perspective and lighting. Too bad the new car on the right spoils the composition. --Ikiwaner 09:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you resolved it? --Beyond silence 12:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The covered area is so big that I would have to copy street and bushes from another image here. That's too much a fake then. --Ikiwaner 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition either more side on view or directly front on, also background factors clashing with the new car both in age an appearance. Gnangarra 13:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Gnangarra. Lycaon 13:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ranunculus circinatus[edit]

Ranunculus circinatus LC0078.jpg

  • Nomination Ranunculus circinatus --LC-de 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good quality --Orchi 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ...but for the ugly plastic bag in the background (you couldn't camouflage it a wee bit, couldn't you?)... Lycaon 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure it's a bag? It might be a wet half rotten leaf. --Dschwen 06:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Image analysis and photospectrography of the object tells us... hmmm ... nothing. Just kidding. No I can't be sure so the benefit of the doubt. Despite the bit cluttered composition, the flowers are quite sharp. Lycaon 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much rain... sorry --Beyond silence 14:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Rain? There was no rain. This is a semiaquatic plant and I shot this image standing in the river where the plants were floating. --LC-de 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really?, then I support because of sharpness. --Beyond silence 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mushroom Coral (Fungia) Top Macro[edit]

Mushroom Coral (Fungia) Top Macro 91.JPG

  • Nomination Mushroom Coral, cleaned this time. --Digon3 talk 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work, maybe time to upgrade your camera... --Dschwen 06:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background clean-up was not so successful this time, especially at the bottom. Try not to use a fill or an automatic selection tool. I personally painstakingly remove BGs bit by bit at 800% to 1200% magnification. It is a lot of work but the results are worth it. I also find the lighting a bit off (too much yellow). Try different WB settings for your camera, adjust afterwards or use a white cold light source (the last one is a bit tougher to implement). Lycaon 07:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background moves in and out of coral. I find white backgrounds are easier (though probably no as effective with something like this) - I just photograph on a thick sheet of paper and use masks to selectively brighten the background. Thegreenj 15:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have uploaded a new edit which should solve the problems. --Digon3 talk 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Denali National Park Wonder Lake[edit]

Denali National Park Wonder Lake 3264px.jpg

  • Nomination Wonder Lake in Denali National Park. -- Ram-Man 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Symbol support vote.svg Support can't let it sit in limbo Lycaon 17:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Mainly on composition: the combination of curved and oblique lines give a tilted impression, though I believe the horizon is actually straight. Also sharpness is not QI-standard with additionally thin halos around the tree tops. Lycaon 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree about the halos, but I think sharpness is acceptable and the the composition is fine, especially the symmetrical form of the cloud in the upper right and the bank in the lower left is great. I would support it after the halos are corrected --Simonizer 13:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've overwritten the older version with an new one without halos, but that shouldn't affect the vote count. Now, as for Lycaon's comments, the sharpness of this image is much better than many other QIs that come through here. The resolution and sharpness are high enough that you can actually see the individual stalks of grass. Unlike other brands of digital cameras, Nikon point-and-shoot cameras do not use high levels of detail reducing noise reduction. The image is 8MP and was taken on a tripod, although at this shutter speed it really wouldn't matter. Only a high quality DSLR could produce marginally better images. As for the composition, it would all be forgiven if the clouds were not shrouding Mount McKinley. -- Ram-Man 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find it a little noisy, especially the sky. Sharpness is nice in the foreground more unsharp at the trees. Nice composition. With the tripos couldn't you have chosen a smaller aperture and a longer exposure time to increase overall sharpness? -- Slaunger 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • With this particular sensor size, f/4.2 has the same depth-of-field as ~f/13 on my Nikon SLR and ~f/18 on a film/full-frame SLR. Using a USM on the tree line causes halos. The trees are farther away, so they would have less detail, but it is still better than many other cameras. At 100% the detail is quite good and it takes a trained eye to see the fine-grained noise, which is perfectly acceptable, even if the QI standard was 8MP. (I look at QI and FP candidates every day and can't see the noise in the sky at 100%) And viewing at 100% on the monitor is the same as viewing it at 33" x 22". I'd say it looks remarkably good at that large magnification, considering the 2MP standard. Compare the detail with this, this, and this, and you'll see that this image is clearly more detailed. -- Ram-Man 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Regarding the comparison of detail I agree that the second image is less detailed, and I would probably have opposed its nomination. Concerning the first image I am in doubt and with the third image the subject (the waterfall) is sharp and there I find it is no problem that other fetaures in the landscape are unsharp. The opinion on sharpness in general is a little subjective I think, and in my opinion it is borderline in this case when viewing in full scale. -- Slaunger 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see as it's really straight... :(--Beyond silence 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral As far as I know lenses show generally their highest center to corner sharpness at f/8 independently of DOF and crop factor. The image is good but I can't really identify a main subject. --Ikiwaner 20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There are a couple of problems with that statement. First of all, even among SLRs, not all lenses are the same. Of the three lenses that I have, one is sharpest at f/5.6 (Macro lens), another at f/8 (generic zoom), and still another at f/11 (long zoom). The lens does matter, but only if the sensor is capable of resolving that much detail. Thus, center sharpness is a factor of both sensor resolution and the specific lens and aperture used. In point-and-shoots, f/8 is getting to the physical optical limitations and diffraction at that aperture will severely degrade image sharpness (similar to f/22-f/32 on an SLR). Lastly, landscapes do not appear sharp unless they have lots of depth of field, so shooting at the "sharpest" aperture may not be ideal if the whole image is not sharp enough. This image has the maximum DoF without degrading the image sharpness through diffraction. -- Ram-Man 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The fact that you can't see the main subject is the whole point of this image. The largest mountain in the Americas is hidden by clouds more days than it is visible. The lake itself is also a very popular location. Even Ansel Adams himself took a picture of the mountain and this lake on a clear day (in black and white, of course). -- Ram-Man 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> (more votes needed) --Tony Wills 05:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This image is about to drop through into un-assessed images after being here for 15 days without decision

Schlingenpass[edit]

CH IT Schlingenpass.jpg

  • Nomination Schlingenpass, the border of Switzerland and Italy, seen from above. --Dschwen 12:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Majestic landscape! Good composition, a bit fogy but enough sharp and high resolution. --Beyond silence 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust on the sensor should not be tolerated. Colours look flat because of mist. Both could be corrected, see right version. --Ikiwaner 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is dust. That is fog, and not a big problem. But can be vote to the other too. --Beyond silence 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
He referred to the dark blotches in the sky. --Dschwen 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> (more votes needed) --Tony Wills 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Schlingenpass corrected[edit]

CH IT Schlingenpass ret.jpg

  • Nomination Schlingenpass, fog and sensor dust corrected by user:ikiwaner
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Majestic landscape! Good composition. --Beyond silence 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good job, I prefer this one too. Might as well upload over the old one. --Dschwen 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job indeed. Lycaon 05:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrysotoxum intermedium (?)[edit]

Chrysotoxum cautum Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination A rare Hoverfly (Chrysotoxum intermedium) --Richard Bartz 09:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp, light.--Beyond silence 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have my doubts about the identification. For me it looks more like a C. caudum. Also when you blur the background, you might select it a little better: there is some noise to the left side of the eye and the thorax. With a confirmed id and a bit of noise cleaning I'll support. -- Lycaon 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) resolved Lycaon 05:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ok, done. I replaced it with a edited version, where i worked on the blur/noise issue and changed the filename, because Lycaon was right with his more exact identification. I cant tell when a Admin will do the replacement, the badname template is applied. Finaly I have to admit that i own really crappy literature. Thank you for doublecheck! :-) <3 --Richard Bartz 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Badname will just lead to the deletion of the version it is applied to. You have to replace all uses of the old image yourself. --Dschwen 05:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • done. --Dschwen 05:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Did a badname (with replacing) on the badname as the previously renamed was badly renamed (are you still following?) to caudum instead of cautum. Lycaon 05:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tockus leucomelas[edit]

Tockus leucomelas 2.jpg
  • Nomination Southern Yellow-billed Hornbill (Tockus leucomelas) at Sesfontein, Namibia. -- Lycaon 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great picture - if it wasn't for the palm leaf that's right behind the head, which I find very distracting. --Till 11:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a wild bird that you don't move about as you 'ld wish. It is not a building where you can choose your angle. Other opinions (or the same?)? Lycaon 23:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Promote, good photo of subject. -- Infrogmation 14:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can be better technicaly, but acceptable. The value and the composition really good. --Beyond silence 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, I do not find the leaf distracting. -- Slaunger 03:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

St Lambertus Church, Düsseldorf[edit]

St Lambertus Duesseldorf 1.jpg
  • Nomination Interior view of St. Lambertus church, Düsseldorf, Germany (HDR image). --Till 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs a bit of perspective correction. At least the lamps have to hang straight. Lycaon 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lamps do hang straight — optical illusion. --Till 21:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PC good, quite well done DRI. Technically only colour aberrations are not perfect. However the monitor on the floor is very bad style for a church. --Ikiwaner 23:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, technicaly acceptable. --Beyond silence 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. -- Slaunger 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Smederevo Fortress map[edit]

Smederevo Fortress map.svg
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

African elephants rushing for the water[edit]

Loxodonta africana (Rush for the water).jpg

  • Nomination African elephants rushing for the water at sundown in Okaukuejo, Etosha. Lycaon 22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting light, but really bad on subject.--Beyond silence 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Does everyone have the same opinion? Lycaon 17:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is kind of abstract. Not much noise too. Good composition and well chosen contrast. An error in the geotag is unacceptable in a Quality image -> fix it. --Ikiwaner 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Mea culpa, you were right, I fixed the geotag, thanks for pointing that out. Lycaon 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Was as small thing, good picture! --Ikiwaner 19:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It refreshing to see a common subject matter presented differently Gnangarra 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What kind of post-processing has been done on this image? It looks posterized to me. Besides that I find it QI-worthy. -- Slaunger 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, only cropping & slightly rescaling. I'm normally not the 'artsy' type of photographer, I prefer to take clear pictures for e.g. species illustration and then I need sharpening, and sometimes WB-correction or retouching the background. I almost threw this one away ;-). I was getting late (by 18:35 it was pitch dark) and the light was 'just' right. -- Lycaon 05:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oh, I see. Although it is very nice composition I think there are too many problems with noise and the sharpness of the elephants. -- Slaunger 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It's got a lot of wow factor, but probably not quite enough for an FP, given the faults. And it has just a few too many technical problems for a QI. A great image in many ways, but just a bit too compromised in others. Bugger. Ben Aveling 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Changed my mind. Too much to like to be so picky. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ben Aveling 07:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Terrific; exciting opportunity, very well exploited. The light on the flying dust makes it very artistic. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Szilas (talk • contribs) at 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good, but I can't see the elephants enough well. Sorry--Frank47 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC) invalid vote Lycaon 18:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice light. Special picture. Not perfect, but good. Christof01 02:16, 7 August 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Same as Chistof01 above. Compared to other images that make it to QI, this definitely should be one of them. Till 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  5 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Bastille day flyover.4264[edit]

Bastille day flyover.4264.JPG

  • Nomination Lead jets in Bastille Day fly-over. Ben Aveling 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • All aspects except composition are QI, is composition near enough to promote Gnangarra 00:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Composition can be subjective. Can you explain what it is that you dislike? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While the planes and the coloured smoke are the subject they aren't dominant and occupy about 25% of the image with the balance being the sky, additionally the first blue line only just enters the picture. Gnangarra 07:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right. Sometimes less is more. Bastille day flyover.4264.2.JPG. Ben Aveling 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the composition is fine in both examples. -- Ram-Man 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I clearly prefer the first version for compositional reasons. This composition leaves room to where the planes are flying. The diagonal lines give some dynamics. Sharpnes is far below excellent though. --Ikiwaner 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find that the cropped image is an improvement, but the resolution is marginal. In my opinion the composition could be improved further by rotating the original image a few degrees in the clockwise direction and then do the cropping such that the lines of planes are as close as possible to horizontal and vertical. -- Slaunger 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I quite like the dramatic colours and texture of the sky which tends to be lost when cropping, but I might try this version: Bastille day flyover.4264-crop.jpg, drawing the eye to the leading plane. I think I'll vote in support of the original version :-) --Tony Wills 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Like the empty sky in the first picture. Christof01 02:16, 7 August 2007
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)




Wasp looking hoverfly[edit]

Pollen wasp August-1.jpg

  • Nomination Wasp looking hoverfly on flower (Chrysotoxum sp.) - Thank you Lycaon - Alvesgaspar 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Super low DOF, no flower is in focus and only the center back of the wasp is sharp. --Dschwen 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Let's have a second opinion on this one. With a lesser aperture motion blur and diffraction would start be a problem, so this was kind of a limit situation. Remember this is not FPC - Alvesgaspar 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoops, I just noticed you used f/18 in this image. Odd, why is the DOF still so low? --Dschwen 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the unsharpness in the insect is mainly due to motion blur, that is a restles creature! - Alvesgaspar 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • So I guess it just needs more light (or higher ISO). --Dschwen 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sand dollar[edit]

Unknown Sand dollar 1 Macro.JPG

  • Nomination Sand dollar. --Digon3 talk 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeLacking DOF (no surprise at f/2.8...) --Till 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's really enough sharp to QI. --Beyond silence 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For studio + something this flat, it's not unreasonable to expect more. f/4 would have been more appropriate. Thegreenj 04:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: If we talking about featured picture I agree with you, but at QI I don't think need more. A QI is not need to be absolut perfect, the reason of QI to "encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users efforts in providing quality images to Commons."--Beyond silence 12:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I never said anything about FP and I think that too shallow DOF, in this particular case, is a flaw significant enough, and yet so easily fixable (just stop down one step), that this should not be promoted to QI. Thegreenj 15:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The camera I took this with does not allow me the change the DOF manually. I am stuck at f/2.8 this close to the subject. --Digon3 talk 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Basilica of Tongeren[edit]

Basilica of Tongeren, detail.JPG

  • Nomination Part of the side facade - against the sun--Szilas 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I improved on picture (with accept of author). It been much better, but I think need others opinion to resolve the decision.--Beyond silence 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer the original version - the new one looks oversharpened with visible jpeg artifacts. I am reverting the image back to its original state. Please upload your edit as, say Basilica of Tongeren, detail edit.JPG so that we can discuss preferences. Thegreenj 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you are right, but please discuss with the author about he agree your edit! --Beyond silence 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I made no edit - I just reverted it back to the original version. Thegreenj 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree to have the two versions side by side, so the community could decide, which is the best. Thanks for your interest.--Szilas 17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes much better to upload modified versions as separate versions unless you are the author of the image --Tony Wills 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is not so well composed. I would prefer when the sun would be shining on the facade (like here). The door and the statue in front are cropped. The image is leaning to the left. There is no perspective correction. There is no geotag no proper description (side or main portal) and poor categorization. --Ikiwaner 23:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To request a geotag for a town in Europe is bit strange for me, but it's your right. The portal is side portal, as I mentioned in the description (north east, if you wish). The image you like (here) is badly cropped. The sun shining from behind the structure is the meaning of the whole picture, that's why I made the photo. The door is cropped because there is building material in front of it. But all your comments are welcome, of course.--Szilas 08:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Geotags are not necessary but help identifying objects inside a city. I also see that there is a construction yard so you might not be able to shoot a good image in the next months. However the church is hundreds of years old so it might be worth to wait until it has gone. Maybe I don't like the composition too much because it's a somewhat unclear mixture of artsy and documentary image. --Ikiwaner 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited

Basilica of Tongeren, detail2.jpg

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

50mm lens[edit]

CanonEF50mmCM.jpg

  • Nomination Canon EF f/2.5 Compact Macro --Thegreenj 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Underexposed front part of the lens and too shallow DOF. This would have needed a light form front. --Ikiwaner 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Underexposed? Maybe, but there's still plenty of detail in the shadow areas. Aperture was at f/13 - any noticably higher DOF (unlikely except at very small apertures) would be at the expense of heavy diffraction problems. Thegreenj 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much dark part. --Beyond silence 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rock in Omiš[edit]

Omis-11.jpg
  • Nomination Rock in Omiš --Beyond silence 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Lower black part is irritating, lacking detail. --Till 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it has a correct detail.--Beyond silence 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think that small part is irritating, but has good sharpness and lighting.--Frank47 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC) invalid vote Lycaon 18:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eared Seals[edit]

Eared-seals-playing-and-sunbathing.jpg
  • Nomination Eared seals, Berlin zoo. --Adamantios 08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The only part that can be seen is the bottom of the jaw and the throat, not so interesting. --Nattfodd 10:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh! Okay, anyone else? Adamantios 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's a funny and interesting a shot! But tehnicaly is not too strong, and the seal there is a bit too far.--Beyond silence 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is the species known? -- Slaunger 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no proper identification. Lycaon 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC) resolved (this is the Cape Fur Seal then) Lycaon 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The species is Arctocephalus pusillus. Adamantios 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Metrioptera Roeselii[edit]

Metrioptera roeselii Female.jpg

  • Nomination Metrioptera Roeselii --JuliusR 07:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeCrop, distracting foreground, dust spot. -- Ram-Man 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vers good sharpness!--Beyond silence 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very good if it wasn't for the crop and distracting blob in the foreground, sorry. -- Slaunger 03:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good sharpness.--Frank47 14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC) invalid vote Lycaon 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Feather of a male Indian Peafowl[edit]

Pavo cristatus feather-2.jpg

  • Nomination Feather of a male Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) --Beyond silence 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Barely below the 2MP requirement and it doesn't seem to have much detail to make up for the lack of resolution. Thegreenj 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done Replaced with the 2,2 megapixel version.--Beyond silence 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barely meets size requirements, and is still low on detail. The bottom corners are particularly unsharp, and the distracting, low contrast background is a minor issue. Thegreenj 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is no size requirement --Tony Wills 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have a problem with the background, which I find distracts from the subject of the image. -- Slaunger 03:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Uloborus Walckenaerius weaving[edit]

Uloborus walckenaerius weaving.jpg
  • Nomination A Uloborus walckenaerius spider weaving its web --Nattfodd 07:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF is a bit to low, resulting too large out of focus areas. Lycaon 11:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know DoF is not perfect, but you have to consider that the spider is 2mm long and the magnification was about 1.4:1. I don't know if it is enough to reconsider QI status. --Nattfodd 10:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • 2mm long? That's a bit more than 1.4:1 magnification, isn't it? Thegreenj 17:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, it was taken with 68mm of extension tube on a 50mm lens, which is 1.36:1 if focused at infinity, probably a bit more if focused closer. Of course, it's on a digital sensor, so there's a 1.5x factor, which makes a total of about 2.1:1. The point is, with that amount of light coming in, it's really hard to get a big DoF. --Nattfodd 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why was the aperture removed from the EXIF information? -- Ram-Man 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It was not removed, it never was there. The extension tubes I use don't have any cpu, so the camera doesn't even realize it has a lens attached, and everything goes to full manual (I have an aperture ring on the 50mm). I think the aperture was around f/5.6 (or perhaps f/4). --Nattfodd 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

South view from the top of a dune[edit]

Sossusvlei south view.jpg
  • Nomination South view from the top of a dune over Sossusvlei, Namibia -- Lycaon 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support Simply stunning. Thegreenj 01:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only for a technical detail, one can still see the vignetting from the original photos, four of them I presume. If you wish some advice on how to remove the vignetting when stitching again please leave a note on my talk page. -- Klaus with K 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good picture!--Beyond silence 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture. The vignetting is not enough to decline QI. --Till 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)†
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Vignetting has been removed, but at the price of faint horizontal lines in the sky. Second opinions? -- Klaus with K 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Piazza San Marco Venezia[edit]

Piazza san marco.jpg

  • Nomination Piazza San Marco and its pigeons, in Venice, Italy --Nattfodd 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unacceptable editing (b&W).--Beyond silence 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Indeed, digital cameras don't leave the option of using directly B&W film, so there has to be editing afterwards if one wants to use B&W. Plus, I don't understand the whole "editing is evil" thing, but that's another debate. --Nattfodd 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • B/W images should be as welcome as colour images! In this case I like B/W because the building is grey anyway. Still not a true quality image because of no perspective correction. --Ikiwaner 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Which distorsion are you complaining about? There is a very light barrel distorsion visible on the background monument, but I didn't consider it annoying enough to require correction. Otherwise, it's only the normal perspective at 11mm. --Nattfodd 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not complaining about distortion at all. The wall on the right side is falling into the image. This is because there is no Perspective correction in this image. Perspective correction is required unless you use it as an element of style. --Ikiwaner 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Then yes, it definitely is used as an element of style, to drag the viewer in the picture, in the opposite direction from the pigeons. Wide-angle is very fun, and I much prefer exploiting the unusual perspective it provides rather than correcting it, which often only flattens the image and makes it lose its dynamics. But then, it's just my opinion. :-) --Nattfodd 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment would love to see the original (colour) version Lycaon 22:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I'll try to upload it this evening, if you want. --Nattfodd 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Lycaon 10:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Here it comes: [1]. --Nattfodd 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this picture is a good example of turning a relatively unimpressive color picture into an interesting one by using B&W --Inkwina 09:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack Inkwina, it really is an improvement from the colour version, and it was not done to hide some blemishes in the original. Lycaon 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is the tilt intentional as well? -- Slaunger 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The original colour version is absolutely nice too, but the B&W one is more interesting indeed, as Lycaon says. I regret that there is no perspective correction (ShiftN is a good tool e.g., but unfortunately not working on Mac). It needs also a (very slight) tilt correction. But nevertheless, I'd like to support this image as QI, also because B&W is wrongly underestimated here on Commons! -- MJJR 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Roof Iris Iris tectorum[edit]

Japanese Roof Iris Iris tectorum 2299px.jpg

  • Nomination Iris tectorum flower. -- Ram-Man 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good isolation, clear focus Gnangarra 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose left leaf seems to be hanging there, not being connected to anything. Better remove it? Lycaon 09:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very nice, but I agree w Lycaon that the hanging leaf is distracting, and since the image already has had its background removed I am in favor of remong the leaf too. -- Slaunger 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reitoria da UFMT[edit]

Reitoria da UFMT.jpg

  • Nomination Rectorate of the Federal University of Mato Grosso. Mateus Hidalgo 14:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs perspective correction and a bit of a crop on the right. Lycaon 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionWhy crop the right of the image? Can I update the corrected image with the same name, or to this is necessary a new name to it? Mateus Hidalgo 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can upload a new version over top of the old, or upload a new version as a new file and put if next to this one. --Tony Wills 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough good.--Beyond silence 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose could be a QI with a little editing: Perspective correction and crop a few pixels on the right to remove the pole. Vignetting in the top right corner is easy to correct too. --Ikiwaner 17:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I correct the image, but I can't put here :( -- Mateus Hidalgo 02:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Does not quite meet the 2M size requirement. Needs cropping. -- Slaunger 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is not a minimum size 'requirement', there are guidelines, 1600x1200 is a quiet adequate size. --Tony Wills 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The resoltion guideline says: 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more. I'd say this is an 'easy to take' image, so 2 megs is the absolute lower limit, and I do not agree 1600x1200 is an adequate size. -- Slaunger 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh please! The difference between 1600 × 1200 and 1600 × 1250 is 50 pixels in one direction! It, for all practical purposes, is non-existant. In fact, most of the time, I can't tell a difference in detail from 2 to 3 megapixels and to qibble about .08MP.... Upsample to 3 MP and do a little USM. It comes out looking almost as sharp as this pic! Thegreenj 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited version
Reitoria da UFMT2.jpg

Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is not a minimum size 'requirement', there are guidelines, 1600x1200 is a quiet adequate size. --Tony Wills 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The resoltion guideline says: 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more. I'd say this is an 'easy to take' image, so 2 megs is the absolute lower limit, and I do not agree 1600x1200 is an adequate size. -- Slaunger 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition is good now. It's an illustrative image which will print nicely up to about 12x16 cm. I don't see a reason why I'd need a poster size print of this image. --Ikiwaner 20:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support you just have to paint the building now ;-) Lycaon 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QIO --Tony Wills 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Galleria borghese facade[edit]

Galleria borghese facade.jpg

  • Nomination Facade of Galleria Borghese in Rome, Italy. It's made of 3 pics stitched together, with corrected prospective. Alessio Damato 19:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Try to correct the colour tint and noise, will shure be QI then. --Ikiwaner 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC).
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have fixed the white balance. Alessio Damato 10:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per white balance fix. -- Ram-Man 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise has not yet been reduced. Lycaon 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Da noise has gone! --Ikiwaner 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lo and behold!! ;-) Lycaon 09:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nicely done. Can't even guess where the stiches are. -- Slaunger 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted -- Lycaon 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Silurian Orthoceras Fossil Macro[edit]

original

  • Nomination Silurian Orthoceras Fossil --Digon3 talk 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good isolation, clear focus Gnangarra 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a problem with the greenish colour cast of both stone and shadow. -- Lycaon 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC) resolved Lycaon 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
      • added edit Lycaon 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 21:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral DOF is somewhat shallow in my opinion. -- Slaunger 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted -- Lycaon 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Malachite Macro[edit]

new version

  • Nomination Malachite (copper ore). --Digon3 talk 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good isolation, clear focus Gnangarra 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a problem with the greenish colour cast of both stone and shadow. -- Lycaon 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC) resolved Lycaon 07:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The rock is naturally this color. As for the shadows, they do look a bit green. I'll mess around with it and see if I can make it more black. --Digon3 talk 17:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • added edit Lycaon 23:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Quality images must be categorized, have meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for Plants, Animals etc". Sorry. Ben Aveling 10:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)resolved --Beyond silence 09:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done. Lycaon 11:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger 02:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted -- Lycaon 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Amethyst Quartz Macro[edit]

original

  • Nomination Amethyst. --Digon3 talk 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good isolation, clear focus Gnangarra 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a problem with the greenish colour cast of both stone and shadow. -- Lycaon 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC) resolved Lycaon 07:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Added edit. Lycaon 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Ahh, I see it now. Your edit is a lot better. So all you did was white balance? --Digon3 talk 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Yep ;-) Lycaon 07:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks just fine on my monitor. --Digon3 talk 17:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me. -- Slaunger 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted -- Lycaon 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mayapple Leaf[edit]

Mayapple Podophylum peltatum Leaf 2150px.jpg

  • Nomination Mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum) leaf. -- Ram-Man 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a too static composition in my eyes --Ikiwaner 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is supposed to be a static composition. Its purpose is for illustrative value in the Wikipedia article for this species. It meets the basic requirements for QI even though it is rather boring and would never have a dream of being a FP. -- Ram-Man 13:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree, technically ok (even composition is fine for a leaf). Lycaon 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Detailed, clear, informative. Good for QI! Thegreenj 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree. Being a real pedantic I would suggest correcting the typo in the image name, although it is a pain... (podophylum -> podophyllum). -- Slaunger 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 03:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arctica islandica valves[edit]

Arctica islandica valves.jpg

  • Nomination Studio photograph of Arctica islandica Lycaon 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not sure if black is the best choice of background, but it's clearly a QI. -- Ram-Man 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My review of this last month was "A neutral grey background may have been better. Harsh reflection on right shell. Difficult to make out the detail. Is this an old dried out shell?". I expect studio photos to be of very high quality, no excuse for bad lighting or background, has this image improved since last month (or am I wrong ;-) ? --Tony Wills 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot the previous review. I left on holiday for a whole month after submission and never even checked the outcome.
The shell was fresh (bought in a supermarket, the photo was a request from a Dutch wikipedian). Background was chosen in function of all my other species illustration images, to be consistent and neutral. In this case, with a dark shell, the contrast with the outside is admittedly not that high. Other images can be seen on my gallery.
If you think resubmitting is to soon, then please consider this image withdrawn. Lycaon 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
With dark images it depends a bit upon which monitor its viewed on, might look ok on LCD screens (tend to be brighter, better contrast). Perhaps treat this as a CR process for the original submission, perhaps a third opinion? --Tony Wills 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
PS yes we noticed you've been away taking the odd snapshot ;-) --Tony Wills 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At first I frowned at the black background seen on the thumbnail, but in full size I think it is OK. Even though it is a studio shot, I do not think it has to be better than the general QI requirements, which I find it fulfills. -- Slaunger 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The dark background is very distracting and drowns the upper, dark side of the shell at any size but 100%. --Florian Prischl 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough good.--Beyond silence 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuiaba[edit]

Cuiaba.jpg

  • Nomination View of Cuiabá. Mateus Hidalgo 14:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cluttered composition and needs noise reduction, especially in the sky. Lycaon 07:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is a well-known view of the city, what's the problem with the composition? Moreover, this and this images have noise too but was promoted. Mateus Hidalgo 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp. Weak composition.--Beyond silence 12:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Beyond silence. --Nattfodd 10:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy sky, unsharp see e.g. features at chimney. -- Slaunger 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs correction of perspective distortion. --Till 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  5 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Morro da Luz (Cuiaba)[edit]

Morro da Luz (Cuiaba).jpg

  • Nomination Morro da Luz (Hill of the Light), in Cuiabá. Mateus Hidalgo 14:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and quality. If this is a picture of the hill, then the tree line has poor detail from noise reduction. Compositionally, there is too much sky, not enough content. The very dark foreground trees are distracting. -- Ram-Man 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoSorry if I don't understanding you very well, but the image wasn't edited. This is the original image. Mateus Hidalgo 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This picture was taken with a Kodak camera. From some other recent QI noms from others with Kodak cameras, it seems that these cameras use high noise reduction, even in bright sunlight. In landscape shots like this, that turns fine detail in trees into mush. The "editing" was done in-camera, and while not your fault is still a technical quality fault with this picture. -- Ram-Man 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Ram-Man --Ikiwaner 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To illustrate the city, it has too much sky, and the sky doesn't offer anything interesting. --Till 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted -- Lycaon 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus[edit]

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Body 2000px.jpg

  • Nomination Bald Eagle. -- Ram-Man 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment image is washed out, what's between the lens and subject, depending clarification maybe move to CR. Gnangarra 13:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Shot through glass. -- Ram-Man 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Through glass shooting may have spoiled the picture. Lack of focus for such a close-up, fringing (very visible on the branch in front) and indeed washed out colours. Lycaon 07:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough in my opinion. -- Slaunger 01:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 03:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Katowice - Młyńska Street[edit]

Katowice - ul. Młyńska.jpg

  • Nomination Młyńska street in Katowice --Lestat 13:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sure what value this has, but the quality is too low, likely due to excessive in-camera noise reduction. There is no detail fine detail in the brick, roof, etc. -- Ram-Man 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't agree, please for another opinion. --Lestat 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The composition is a problem, we mainly see parts of two buildings a lot of sky, and can't really see much of the street. What is the focus of the photograph? And I agree with Ram-Man that there is surprisingly little detail on the stonework and building ornaments, sort of smudged (a bit like over exposed looks) - perhaps just too high a jpg compression level - was this stored at maximum quality settings in your camera? --Tony Wills 00:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, lighting, sharpness. Sorry. Ben Aveling 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find that the composition and sharpness is insufficient for QI. Also, fringing around the tower. -- Slaunger 00:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacks details (I second Ram-Mans suspicion that this is due to noise-reduction) and has way too much sky shown - the building should be in full view, I think. --Florian Prischl 13:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 03:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pentaceratops dinosaur[edit]

Original version[2]

  • Nomination Pentaceratops-LadyofHats 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • So good.--Beyond silence 10:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a little problem with the colouring of the two epijugal (suborbital) horns versus the two on the distal rim of the head shield. Shouldn't the former be pale and the latter dark? According to the generic name prominence should be given to the five on the head rather than to the ones on the shield. (I could be wrong of course) Lycaon 05:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not an a-typical LOH work number of minor finishing touches appear to have been missed, rear leg across the back on the front animal. on the back and face of the rear one Gnangarra 13:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please state your reason for opposing. Lycaon 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could we wait another week to close this one, as to give LoH an opportunity to comment? Lycaon 13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • since there is a requirement that if no further comments are made it gets closed after a certain time, cant remember or see atm what that was I'm sure that others will have an opinion during that period. Gnangarra 08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It does not meet the 2MPixel requirement. In addition, I find that the illustration should have more depth by using darker tones for the dino in the back as has also been menstioned by Lycaon. --Slaunger 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Slaunger noted, it is rather small. Also, the left rear leg of the dinosaur in front seems to be too small, even when accounting for the perspective. --Florian Prischl 13:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • the image is changed, but i actually wanted to add it on the top rather than here. so you can close this dialog -LadyofHats 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)