Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2009

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:ComputerHotline - Iphiclides podalirius (by) (1).jpg[edit]

ComputerHotline - Iphiclides podalirius (by) (1).jpg

  • Nomination Iphiclides podalirius --ComputerHotline 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient DOF, both wings should be sharp. -- Smial 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my view OK. Meets the criteria. --High Contrast 19:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Right wing is blurred. --Bgag 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 07:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Villa Emo Fanzolo fronte 2009-07-18 f05b.jpg[edit]

Villa Emo Fanzolo fronte 2009-07-18 f05b.jpg

  • Nomination After removal of some minor distortion I believe this photo of Villa Emo in Fanzolo di Vedelago by Marcok should be QI. -- Smial 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Symbol support vote.svg Support nice picture of a great building --Mbdortmund 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of noise, escpecially in shadow areas. --Afrank99 09:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Noise removed; better contrast. --Marcok 00:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Afrank: This is noise... Please consider: If you oppose to images with this comparatively low amount of noise (for a compact digital camera) you will exclude anyone from QI who does not own a DSLR. Should this really be the goal? Yes, there is some noise, but it is not visible at normal magnification, only in poster size, and QI is not FP or de:WP:KEB -- smial (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what type of equipment the photographer used. If it's a compact camera, I'm fine. If it's noisy, I'm not. There is no point in saying "it's good for a p&s cam". Would you promote this one when it would have been taken with a Hasselblad H3D? How much noise do you tolerate in mobile phone shots? Different judgement for different cameras? This one's no QI for me, sorry. (BTW, noise reduction made it worse now IMHO) --Afrank99 (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Again: The photo does NOT show too much noise, regardless of camera type. But you will see: Any compact digital camera will have the same oder higher noise level, that's all. We should not set the limits too high, too many good photographers would be segregated. Pictures of this quality are fine to be watched at the computer screen, and are also fine to be printed. Noise ist often overrated, and the comparison with high end MF- or teletubby-cams is not appropriate. However, I agree: Noise reduction made it worse. I'll try another version tomorrow, ok? -- Smial 21:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Update: New version available, give it a try :-) -- Smial 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H005 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Burg Metternich BW 5.JPG[edit]

Burg Metternich BW 5.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Metternich Castle at the river Mosel --Berthold Werner 18:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Small stiching errors on bushes on bottom center. --kallerna 08:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I found a stitching error at the far end of the handrail. --Berthold Werner 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Since user doesn't seem willing to upload a fixed version. --Ferengi 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    It's not a question of willing but of seeing. I don't see a stiching error in the bushes. --Berthold Werner 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see an error in the bushes as well, but what about the handrail? It looks like it could be easily fixed manually. --Ferengi 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    I waited for a hint for the other error to fix both with one upload. --Berthold Werner 06:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentStitching error corrected --Berthold Werner 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Found the error in the bushes and it's pretty severe when you find it. It's a jagged stitch line going approximately from x:63.69 y:91.47 to x:71.41 y:76.81 (coordinates as reported by Photoshop). --Ferengi 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I can see clearly now... --Berthold Werner 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Better! --Ferengi 19:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Airbus 320-200 Wizz Air 2.JPG[edit]

Airbus 320-200 Wizz Air 2.JPG

  • Nomination Wizz Air's Airbus 320 (HA-LPK) landing. --Airwolf 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeLooks kind of unnatural with the grey background --Schlurcher 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC), after white balance correction it looks good for me. Symbol support vote.svg Support
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportWhite balance now matched to File:Airbus 320-200 Wizz Air 3.JPG, please review. -- Smial 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportShould the sky be green to match the airplane's colors? Photo is technically and compositionally sound. --Ferengi 06:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGrey sky is not so rare at central europe :-( --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, meets the criteria in any aspects. --High Contrast 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Airwolf (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Schwetzingen Schloss Eingang.jpg[edit]

Schwetzingen Schloss Eingang.jpg

  • Nomination Schwetzingen castle --Harke 15:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me. --Berthold Werner 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed, please correct. --Marcok 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Exposure looks ok to me, though it does seem a bit wonky. Mattbuck 14:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment exposure slightly reduced, perspective improved. Better? --Harke 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Ok. --Marcok 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If it were overexposed the sky and the greenery would be brighter, so I conclude the castle has such a light colour. Both versions are ok. But please add camera position, and in the future it would help if you indicate what you changed when uploading a new version. -- H005 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Geoposition added. --Harke 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment perspective slightly corrected --Mbdortmund 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Planispheric astrolabe img 2612.jpg[edit]

Planispheric astrolabe img 2612.jpg

  • Nomination: Planispheric astrolabe, made in Morocco during the 18th century. Brass. -- Rama 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop. Yann 23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The crop is excellent IMHO, the only issue I can see is the perspective, but not really preventing QI. -- H005 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lighting not ideal, but museum pieces are notoriously difficult to capture well. I think it's ok, though would prefer it rotated so the two supports at the bottom are level and even. Maedin 09:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Maedin 09:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg[edit]

Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg

  • Nomination Renomination of new edit where I think all dust spots have been removed, the color correction is better (thanks to Richard), and noise reduction has been applied more succesfully. --Slaunger 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportlooks OK --Mbdortmund 23:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO too blurry, especially the sea + other quality problems. --kallerna 12:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Further technical background information regarding the image can be found at its FPC nomination page. -- Slaunger 20:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Kallerna said, too blurry at the bottom. Shame, because it's a cool picture. Mattbuck 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think it's too blurry. I like it very much. -- H005 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, even if not perfect. --Marcok 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I figure if it's good enough to make FP it's good enough for QI. --Calibas 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bufo Bufo on doorstep.JPG[edit]

Bufo Bufo on doorstep.JPG

  • Nomination: A common toad --Korall 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and funny composition. Welcome, princess! Smile --George Chernilevsky 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, the rear part of the toad far too blurry for a QI. -- H005 11:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't have a problem with it's butt being a little blurry, but I'd like to see a good chunk of the right side cropped off. --Calibas 02:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't care about the blurriness, but the new crop is too heavy - it's now unbalanced. Create a crop somewhere between the 2 current versions and IMO it's promotion. Mattbuck 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Better now? Óðinn (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF is somewhat shallow, crop not ideal, nor is the position of the toad, and very distracting elements, such as the door and the doorstep and the white spots on the door. Maedin 09:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Maedin\talk 09:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Harpist hands img 4997-b.jpg[edit]

Harpist hands img 4997-b.jpg

  • Nomination Hand of a harpist playing -- Rama 20:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Too small -- Korall 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    Too small? At 2592 × 2592 pixel? Please explain. -- H005 21:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI misunderstood the guidelines and mixed up megabytes with megapixels. Im sorry. -- Korall (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I promoted it then. -- H005 21:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Delicate Arch sunset.jpg[edit]

Delicate Arch sunset.jpg

  • Nomination Delicate Arch dans le parc National des Arches (Utah) --Ymaup 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good.--Two+two=4 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong tilt. -- H005 17:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) --
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The rock formations are tilted, not the image. -- MJJR 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course they are, I've already been there, and even more tilted than on the image. But look at the clouds, they show what's supposed to be horizontal. -- H005 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you google Delicate Arch, you'll notice this photo is surely not tilted! Compare for example with the bottom crack on the arch. -- Ymaup 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bracebridge Falls.jpg[edit]

Bracebridge Falls.jpg

  • Nomination Bracebridge Falls in Bracebridge, Ontario, Canada. --Óðinn 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main object too small. -- H005 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - this is a very urbanized waterfall, so I wanted to adequately portray its surroundings as well. Óðinn (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I understand. Symbol support vote.svg Supported then. -- H005 20:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. -- Smial 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona.jpg[edit]

Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona.jpg

  • Nomination Ernesto Cardenal read his poems in Santiago of Chile. --Romanceor 20:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good portrait --Mbdortmund 02:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO it's too noisy. --kallerna 10:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok now. --kallerna 10:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Romanceor's picture show sometimes little technical weaknesses, but they tell a story and are very good concerning atmosphere and composition, I think the noise is acceptable here because of the other qualities. It's an available light picture and a flash would have reduced the noise but destroyed the atmosphere. --Mbdortmund 14:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Atmosphere well captured, available light snap shots cannot always be technically perfect. -- Smial 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All this needs is proper editing, it's a great shot. The problem is that it's not only got noise (and color noise), it's got jpeg artifacts in the noise. If you want to upload the original, I can fix it for you. Then I'd even support it as FP. --Calibas 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Marcok 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the noise issue could easily be addressed, I'll support it if that has been properly done. -- H005 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Issue sucessfully resolved. -- H005 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I denoised it a little bit, please have a look --Mbdortmund 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --George Chernilevsky 13:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new denoised version is nice. Jonathunder 14:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --High Contrast 20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:California Sea Lions at docks August 7 2009.jpg[edit]

California Sea Lions at docks August 7 2009.jpg

  • Nomination California Sea Lions --Two+two=4 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted, poor composition --Pudelek 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if it is tilted it could be corrected. I see nothing wrong with the composition.--Two+two=4 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid he's right about composition. Your main subjects are marginalized in favor of an uninteresting sailboat mast. 2/3 of the picture are completely unnecessary.--Vladanr 10:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It was the idea to show sailboats and the city and not just close up of sea lions.Sailboats and the city make the image unusual--Two+two=4 12:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the tilt is corrected, then I will support this photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand, but it's my opinion that you're not achieving your goal with this image as neither the lions nor the city capture the eye when looking at the photo. I will not oppose if someone supports though.--Vladan Radmilović (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although I too find it interesting to see the proximity of the sea lions' and homo sapiens sapiens' habitats, I do not think this huge amount of sky and mast is of any help in visualizing this. Currently a viewer who is just eyeballing the image will probably not even notice the sea lions but just a sailboat at a landing stage and a house. -- H005 13:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If the mast were cut off the image would have been opposed because of a bad crop. Pictogram voting delete.svg too boring to continue the arguing. Two+two=4 18:14,17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Air gun pellet.JPG[edit]

Air gun pellet.JPG

  • Nomination Air gun pellets. --kallerna 09:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some loss of sharpness at the lower end, but overall quality ok and good edicational value. -- H005 11:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp --George Chernilevsky 14:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This type of image should really be sharp across the board.--Vladanr 09:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bryce Canyon (Bryce Point).jpg[edit]

Bryce Canyon (Bryce Point).jpg

  • Nomination Bryce Canyon depuis Bryce Point (Utah) --Ymaup 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough.--Two+two=4 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry for having to disagree. I can't see a lack of sharpness. -- H005 11:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp, dust speckles all over the picture, chromatic aberration... Not QI--Vladanr 08:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Vezelois (by) (3).jpg[edit]

ComputerHotline - Fort de Vezelois (by) (3).jpg

  • Nomination Inside the Vézelois fortifications --ComputerHotline 14:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good, interesting composition --Mbdortmund 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White balance? Also would be better as a portrait. Yann 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support White balance is correct, see the daylight at the end of the tunnel. TimVickers 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Really, I don't think so. See File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Vezelois 3.jpg. This is a very simple correction, as I am quite a beginner with image processing. Yann 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • What makes you think those are incandescent bulbs rather than sodium vapor lamps? TimVickers 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --George Chernilevsky 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree, good. --Herbythyme 19:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Solaris Center - roof1.JPG[edit]

Solaris Center - roof1.JPG

  • Nomination Solaris Center in Opole (Oppeln) - roof --Pudelek 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Really nice view, but unfortunately not sharp enough and too much chromatic aberration in the corner. -- H005 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my opinion this image is enough sharp --Pudelek 09:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to reduce CA and other issues --Mbdortmund 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mbdortmund's edit is an improvement. Ok now. Maedin 09:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, it's definitely a significant improvement, but the entire lower left corner is still suffering from strong CA and blurriness. Sorry, for me that's not QI, despite the otherwise good quality now. -- H005 09:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is hard object for good shot. Quality enough for QI request --George Chernilevsky 10:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Low Tatras - rock near Ďumbier.JPG[edit]

Low Tatras - rock near Ďumbier.JPG

  • Nomination Low Tatras - rock near hiking trail on Ďumbier --Pudelek 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately there's some strong chromatic aberration on the left side and a lack of sharpness close to the image border. The rest is ok, but not extraordinary enough to mitigate those issues. -- H005 11:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment in my opinion photo is enough for QI - sharpness and CA are normal --Pudelek 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is not to fast to close? The other votings from this date are still doing... --Pudelek 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Rule: 48 hours after last voting. It is declined 11:37, 16 August 2009 and no more votes. You find aesthetically very nice places, but technically quality of this photo is not excellent. I'm sorry, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 14:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bong diagram 2.svg[edit]

Bong diagram 2.svg

  • Nomination Diagram of a water pipe in use--Surachit 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I appreciate the effort, unfortunately there are several errors :
  • 1) when coming out of the stem and into the water chamber, the smoke comes in as bubbles.
  • 2) the smoke will fill the entire diameter of the air chamber almost as soon as it gets into it, it doesn't have a plume shape.
  • 3) Given the perspective, the stem's opening should be visible.
  • 4) IMHO a perspective more from the side rather than the top would be more useful.

--Ianare 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your feedback (you must be familiar with water pipes ;) I've uploaded an improved version. --Surachit 23:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better now, good work ! --Ianare 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Metro Helsinki.JPG[edit]

Metro Helsinki.JPG

  • Nomination A Helsinki metro train crossing the Vuosaari metro bridge, between the stations of Rastila and Puotila. --kallerna 15:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. Maedin 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Metro train very unsharp at movement. It is not QI for me, sorry --George Chernilevsky 13:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is the whole point of this image. --Kallerna 07:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to agree with George - for an intentional effect it's by far not blurry enough, and moreover as you're usually a skilled photographer I can't believe you chose aperture 5 and used the camera's standard program when wanting to create a speed effect. -- H005 21:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the reasons above -- H005 09:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Car with guano.JPG[edit]

Car with guano.JPG

  • Nomination Car with guano.--Two+two=4 03:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Please add a location and crop the foreground --Mbdortmund 04:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I did as you asked.Thanks for the review.--Two+two=4 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture looks good, categorization could be more accurate (car type) though. --Coyau 15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've changed category to more specific one.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many distracting objects. --kallerna 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kallerna. --Ymaup 12:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image does illustrate the situation well, but composition disqualifies it as a QI for me. --Relic38 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Schwetzingen Schlosspark Skulpturen 14.jpg[edit]

Schwetzingen Schlosspark Skulpturen 14.jpg

  • Nomination Schwetzingen Schlosspark, Flora, by Paddy --Mbdortmund 23:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good object, but strong CA, sorry --George Chernilevsky 13:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please, check my edit --Mbdortmund 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Editing result better, but not perfect. Aura still visible. More votes ? --George Chernilevsky 09:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA is often an issue when there's such a great contrast, you have to look very closely to see them, and apart from that the image quality is excellent. -- H005 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jcart1534 03:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The CA is acceptable considering the subject vs background. I would like to see a geocode, even though the location is popular. --Relic38 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Only minimal shortcomings, QI. -- Smial 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC) (Aber die Dame hätte sich mal die Füße waschen können...)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --George Chernilevsky 12:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Volcan Incahuasi.jpg[edit]

Volcan Incahuasi.jpg

  • Nomination Incahuasi volcan, Fiambala, Argentina --Lucash 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose informative but colors seem too blue and dark --Ianare 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have upload a new one. Is this one better?--Lucash 18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentNot at all, the original was better! @Ianare, this is a volcanic landscape, of course it is dark because the natural color of cold lava is black. But I agree something should be done about the blueish mist. -- H005 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Obviously the volcano is naturaly dark. But the foreground was too dark as well. --Ianare 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The foreground is volcanic as well, those rocks are spread dozens of kilometres around a volcano. -- H005 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have attempt some amend now and think that is better. What do you think? --Lucash 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • much better, but still a little too blue. When I get home I'll see if I can adjust it some. --Ianare 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Marcok 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H005 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Minikrentenbollen IMGP6988 wp.jpg[edit]

Minikrentenbollen IMGP6988 wp.jpg

  • Nomination Krentenbollen. Eet smakelijk :-) -- Smial 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mhhhhh, haben will! Not too fond of the crop though. --Dschwen 16:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Easy to take, so crop can be easily improved. --kallerna 20:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality --George Chernilevsky 06:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Crop was intended, and first I considered to crop it even a bit tighter, for the object is the broodje, not the knife. Possibly like here.-- Smial 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Tighter crop is better. This is nix halbes und nix ganzes. --Dschwen 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, done. -- Smial 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it now --Mbdortmund 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Changed also to Promotion --Schlurcher 15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Moscow Kadashevskaya Embankment 2009 pano.jpg[edit]

Moscow Kadashevskaya Embankment 2009 pano.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view of Kadashevskaya Embankment in Moscow. --S[1] 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I am really uncertain. It's a great view and the sky also is good, however the illumination of the main subject (the buildings) is a bit unfortunate. --Marcok 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a purple line in the center on the right, it looks like the image was corrupted. Would support otherwise. --Ianare 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I re downloaded from work and the image is fine. Guess some packets were lost when I downloaded at home. --Ianare 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very unique and well done. --Jcart1534 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H005 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Brachypelma_auratum_2009_G03.jpg[edit]

Brachypelma smithi 2009 G03.jpg

  • Nomination Mexican flameknee birdeater. Female (Brachypelma auratum) --George Chernilevsky 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Why would we need four QIs of the same subject? --kallerna 20:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that we are looking for the best picture of a certain object, here, but only judging , if the quality is OK or not. --Mbdortmund 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is a rare, big and poisonous spider. The first scientific description is created in 1993 only. I have made series of set of pictures, then has uploaded only best. I try to show it in different variants of movement --George Chernilevsky 06:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Yann 09:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And thank you very much George Chernilevsky for the lovely set of pictures! Four QI:s of one spider is far better than no QI of the spider!--Korall (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jcart1534 22:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Smial 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I added Promotion --Schlurcher 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 17:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Duomo di Milano, Dach seitlich.jpg[edit]

Duomo di Milano, Dach seitlich.jpg

  • Nomination Roof of the Milan cathedral -- H005 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline overexposed --Ianare 03:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Overexposed??? Can someone else please confirm that they also believe this is overexposed? Please keep in mind that this cathedral is made of a very light sandstone that had been cleaned shortly before the picture was taken. -- H005 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The darker parts are OK, but the lighter parts are effectively overexposed, so too much contrast. Yann 10:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- carol (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • OK - thank you, Yann, this I do understand. I've uploaded a new version with less contrast. Any better now? -- H005 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Soest-090822-10130-Fehde-Ritterhandschuhe.jpg[edit]

Soest-090822-10130-Fehde-Ritterhandschuhe.jpg

  • Nomination gauntlets, Soest, Germany --Mbdortmund 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --George Chernilevsky 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice subject, but at 100% magnification, it seems a bit unfocused/moved. --Marcok 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur, sorry. --Vladanr 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition, but, yes, motion blur. -- Smial 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Brachypelma_auratum_2009_G06.jpg[edit]

Brachypelma smithi 2009 G06.jpg

  • Nomination Mexican flameknee birdeater. Female (Brachypelma auratum) --George Chernilevsky 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Why would we need four QIs of the same subject? --kallerna 20:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Mbdortmund; uniqueness is not a criterion for QI Notyourbroom 02:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Korall 12:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Smial 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bouquetin.JPG[edit]

Bouquetin.JPG

  • Nomination Un bouquetin (Capra ibex). --Ymaup 12:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bonne photo d'un animal à l'approche difficile --Ianare 15:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad light, one half of the image is overexposed, the other underexposed --Vladanr 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • very weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ianare is absolutely right about this rare shot, but unfortunately I also have to agree with Vladanr that the lighting is very unlucky, which is a pity for this otherwise excellent photo. -- H005 19:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry, I forgot asking him to face the sun ;-))) -- Ymaup.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not your fault, I know. I'm jealous anyway, I wish I'd had a chance to get so close to this animal in the wilderness! -- H005 16:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Surely good enough for QI in my opinion.--Two+two=4 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Location missing, if it is taken in a zoo, it should be possible to take a better picture --Mbdortmund 10:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
     ??? Please look again - geocode is available since 18 Aug. -- H005 13:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as other opposers: unfortunate light. Lycaon 09:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Tour de télévision sur le Salève.jpg[edit]

Tour de télévision sur le Salève.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower on Salève, Haute-Savoie, France. Yann 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting question.svg Question Are you sure that "no FOP" doesn't apply here? --Coyau 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    not exactly an artistic building, looks like other TV towers, no ? --Ianare 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    No-FOP applies to any building (artistic or not) whose architect died less than 70 years ago in France. --Coyau 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think this is true. You need at least some originality. And I don't see any here. Yann 10:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    OK. --Coyau 11:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think copyright should be discussed here, it's a QI, whether it may remain on Commons is a matter to be discussed separately. -- H005 11:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks a bit underexposed to me. --Dschwen 15:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Abellón, abázcaro en Bastavales, Brión, 090726.jpg[edit]

Abellón, abázcaro en Bastavales, Brión, 090726.jpg

  • Nomination Thoracobombus, Bastavales, Brión, Galicia, Spain --Lmbuga 19:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Too small --Korall 15:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 3.000 × 2.250 pixel is too small? Please explain. --Marcok 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I misunderstood the guidelines and mixed up megabytes with megapixels. Im sorry. -- Korall (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors. Yann 09:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I agree with Yann, however the bright, unfocused center of the flower is distracting me from the subject which is at an odd angle. --Relic38 03:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like composition and colors. Kirua 08:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Libélula na praia da Aguieira, Nebra, Porto do Son 090719 03.jpg[edit]

Libélula na praia da Aguieira, Nebra, Porto do Son 090719 03.jpg

I think it's correct --ComputerHotline 07:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Can't see much of an issue with sharpness - all that remains is that someone will find out the exact species. -- H005 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's a Common Darter (Sympetrum striolatum), though it needs to be verified by someone whose entomological skills are better than mine. Óðinn (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a species determination scheme for the sympetrum species found in Europe. However, with only this image and the file below
Libélula na praia da Aguieira, Nebra, Porto do Son 090719 04.JPG
only I cannot determine the species for sure. The black legs (I am not 100% sure only from this image that the legs are totally black) and the black markings on the thorax tell us that it can be S. sanguienum or S. depressiusculum. To separate these two species we would need a look of the mating organ seen from the side, or maybe a better view of the wings could tell them apart. The book I used was Trollsländor i Europa by Åke Sandhall and the S. Depressisculum has a somewhat flatter body than S. sanguienum -- Korall (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- carol (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Port Lockroy Antarctic Peninsula.jpg[edit]

Port Lockroy Antarctic Peninsula 2.jpg

  • Nomination Main building Port Lockroy English Base "A", Peninsula Antarctica--Butterfly voyages 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion

* Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great shot but resolution too low. -Jcart1534 01:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment yes I'm sorry I have this one with high resolution of course, how do it now ? a new nomination ? --Butterfly voyages 22:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info1 I have changed with a high resolution version--Butterfly voyages 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info2 This version with less sky.--Butterfly voyages 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great one! And, for sure, it's much better with such a resolution. However, i'm a bit confused with that crop. There is maybe too much sky on the picture... isn't it? --Kirua 07:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Agreed. Now with higher res should be able to crop down the sky a bit. --Jcart1534 10:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree it would work better with different composition /perspective, perhaps showing more of the interesting looking rock in the foreground. However, resolution, sharpness, light and EV is why I support. --Vladanr 14:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I can support now. --Jcart1534 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Soest-090816-9802-Dom.jpg[edit]

Soest-090816-9802-Dom.jpg

  • Nomination Dom in Soest, Germany --Mbdortmund 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. -Jcart1534 01:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cluttered composition, foreground/background objects clashing. --Vladanr 10:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition for me --George Chernilevsky 13:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just to clarify - without DOF or significant light intensity difference between the foreground and background there is too much clashing going on where the light post and the building intersect IMO. --Vladanr 13:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I thought the contrast and distortion would look interesting, maybe a matter of taste, isn't it? --Mbdortmund 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In fact it is good. --Marcok 23:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not perfect in composition, but shows objects in good quality, so QI. -- Smial 12:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Black kitten July August 2009-1.jpg[edit]

Black kitten July August 2009-1.jpg

  • Nomination Black kitten at full sunshine over a white wall -- Alvesgaspar 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but most of the image is blurry, and the background is rather poor. Nice image though. Juliancolton 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Another opinion is welcome: this is a portrait and the background is, like in a studio shot, irrelevant Alvesgaspar 10:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are the overexposed parts of the wall gray and not white? (P.S.: I largely agree with your studio shot opinion) --Dschwen 15:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Juliancolton. --kallerna 12:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:PostTower nachts blau.jpg[edit]

PostTower nachts blau.jpg

  • Nomination Night shot of the Post Tower in Bonn. -- H005 20:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn I guess this is a panorama because on top, on the left and on the right there are lines in the black that separates the really dark grey from the totally black. The detail of the building is very nice and the compisition is nice, but in order to get rid of the irregularities in the black area the new crop would probably look really unbalanced. Sorry. It seems like there was a lot of work done in order to create this image. Korall 21:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    You are right, I didn't notice that. I think I can fix that, but not tonight anymore, maybe tomorrow or Sunday. -- H005 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    I have uploaded an improved version, can someone please re-review? -- H005 22:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On one of my computers it looks OK, on the other it still lokks kind of strange. Im sorry but I do not have the guts to promote a panorama that fills out with a lot of black just for compsition when the standard procedure would have been cropping away the edges until you you fill up the whole image. --Korall 12:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like this picture but I still see artifacts in the black background. I guess this could be easily corrected. Kirua 09:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Thanks, I'll see what I can do, can you point me to their location? -- H005 12:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I highlighted some brownish traces i've seen. Hope it will help ;) -- Kirua 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :-) -- H005 17:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This is way too dark and now contains a solid black frame, with a sharp boundary to a dark gray artifacted region. --Dschwen 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi Dschwen, thanks for the comment, I can follow your argument about the boundary etc., but what exatly do you consider "way too dark"? The current light is very close to what you see if you are physically there: Just black with those blue lights and the white office light in some windows. I have taken different exposure times, those with a longer exposure time really are too far from reality, this is not Las Vegas. Look at the histogram, the DHL sign, the lit offices - a longer exposure would certainly not be an improvement, and HDRI also is of no help here, I tried it. -- H005 17:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Then apparently it is a bad time to take such a photo. I wont go out and take a picture of our University quad at night either because it would be mosltly black (like those joke postcards). There are rectangular regions on the left, right, and top that are just #000000, with sharp straight boundaries to the rest of the image. Looks like you padded the photo with black areas. --Dschwen 16:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Probably a matter of taste, but I deliberately chose a clear new moon night because I find that dark surrounding particularly appealing, nothing that distracts from the glim of the building. As for the other issues, I have well understood them and will see what I can do about it. -- H005 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have looked at this image on 2 different computers and I am sorry but I think I have to oppose this one. Not because it is a night shot but because of the the black border that looks strange to me. -Korall 19:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I see the issue with the black border, but currently have no time to address it, so I'm withdrawing it for the time being and will renominate after the problem has been resolved. -- H005 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:Varaderobeach1.JPG[edit]

Varaderobeach1.JPG

  • Nomination Beach in Varadero, Cuba --Kirua 17:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should be denoised, otherwise fine. -- H005 17:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colours and atmosphere , people on the left hand could be sharper, imo QI --Mbdortmund 17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC) I've denoised. For the sharpness, I think I can't have better from this file. Thanks ; --Kirua 20:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now, sharpness of people is no really an issue here. --H005 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, barely. I agree with everything said so far, and I do like the image, but the composition could be better. There is not much beach at all in this beach picture. --Relic38 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is borderline case, but composition and atmosphere are excellent. -- MJJR 08:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets the QI criteria in any points. --High Contrast 18:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per MJRR. --Vladanr 13:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is not there. Detail is lacking and there is too much CA IMO. Lycaon 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Lycaon 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)