Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 19 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Hainfelder_Hütte_Panorama_Ost_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Panorama from Hainfeld Hut (Lower Austria) eastwards --Uoaei1 23:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I love the scenery & composition but there's this massive painting effect over the entire image that one can see on all the vegetation except those in the foreground near the bottom of the image. -- KTC 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support There are some areas showing minor blur (I pointed out one) but for a single shot at the resolution given, this is neglectible (a prime instead of a megazoom might have done better here). For a higher level of detail you need a stitched panoramic. --Kreuzschnabel 06:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info This is my very first experiment with stitching, my D7100 has just a resolution of 6000x4000! The original images can be found here: left part and right part.  Question What could I do better here with stitching, or maybe with sharpening? I guess the deficiencies you mention are already in the originals. --Uoaei1 10:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • All right, so I am mistaken assuming it was a single shot :-) I don’t see actual stitching errors (yet haven’t looked too hard for them), so well done. The blurry areas mostly come from lenses getting a bit blurred towards the edges (and worse, corners). Always make sure to have ample overlapping (half the frame is not too much) between adjacent frames, so the stitching software has got enough sharp material to pick. Maybe you ought to test your lens for an aperture setting giving most overall sharpness. --Kreuzschnabel 11:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 00:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. --Steindy 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Klagenfurt Lendkanal Wasserspiegelung 07102008 1113.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Water reflection on the water surface of the Lendkanal, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very nice but too posterized.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
     Support A successful experiment. Therefore, the water is something surreal in motion and mirroring. The sharpness is impeccable. --Steindy 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, oversaturated, oversharpened. -- Smial 05:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice idea but saturation and (worse) sharpness are overdone, the image is full of sharpening artifacts (white linings around dark objects). Will support after rework. --Kreuzschnabel 07:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Reworked version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 08:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The foliage reflection in the bottom half is still a bit grainy but all in all QI now for me. --Kreuzschnabel 11:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support as for Kreuzschnabel. Vote changed. -- Smial 14:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK It's better--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 21:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:ColognePride_2014_-_Heumarkt_1655_-_Horse_McDonald-2192.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Performance of Horse McDonald on the street festival of the ColognePride. By User:Raymond --Achim Raschka 13:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Great. --Smial 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavy CAs on the sholders and the arms. --Steindy 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Dearest Steindy, CA is a lens error, not an effect caused by blue LED spotlights. --Smial 05:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Poor microphone but good quality. Minor motion blur is inavoidable in this light. --Kreuzschnabel 06:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 15:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Stepping_Stones_Swale_Healaugh.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stepping Stones crossing the Swale river, North Yorkshire --Kreuzschnabel 16:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good composition and QI -- Spurzem 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry Spurzem. The blurred grasses and branches interferes. This is not a QI IMO. --Steindy 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment To your information: There was a very narrow gap in the shrubbery to take this picture. A few inches to the left there was another bush interfering. It took me some minutes to find a suitable viewpoint to get most of the stepstone bridge into the frame, so I decided for a DoF that would leave them blurred so they wouldn’t interfere too much. And I’m not sure I’m allowed to cut some of the branches off in a national park :-) --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Kreuzschnabel, you do not need to „inform“ me. I know these problems very well and often has to make compromises. But I would not say the contrary, that it is a QI. But they've got to get their consents, therefore they rejoice at it. Regards --Steindy 23:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good use of DOF. -- Smial 05:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 20:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Swaledale-footpath-Muker-Thwaite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Public footpath from Muker towards Thwaite, upper Swaledale --Kreuzschnabel 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose the unsharp wall in the foreground is disturbing for me. The wall in the center is sharp. Was this intended? Second opinion appreciated. --Hubertl 19:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Certainly it’s intended. The foreground wall is clearly part of the composition, leading the eye in the direction of the path. To get it sharp, I would have had to stop down at least to f/16, blurring the rest of the image by diffraction. I even find it nicer that way because it adds some depth to the image. Well, if you want a second opinion (I don’t know why, but anyway), let’s go to CR, but, generally asking, if you can’t make up your mind about a nomination, why do you say anything at all? This is not a photography workshop to discuss image compositions. --Kreuzschnabel 08:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment I find it unfavorable, that the wall in the foreground is unsharp. That makes absolutely no sense for me, because it is pretty dominant for the composition.--Hubertl 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support a wider view (at left) would have been better IMO, however QI --Christian Ferrer 06:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Hubertl. --Steindy 01:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Obvisiously perfectly meeting QI criteria. -- Smial 05:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 20:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 15:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Crab spider 07040.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Crab spider --Vengolis 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
     Question, maybe a small crop to get rid of the upper-left brown whatever, or better a bold crop with far less black background? –Be..anyone 01:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
     Support Probably ok. Mattbuck 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but the head / eyes (upper parts of the body(?)) are out of focus and imo it is overexposed. --Hockei 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    YES.Not the best.Thank you :) --Vengolis 01:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   Apparently withdrawn. --C messier 15:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Feldberg_-_Jumping_Snowboarder9.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jumping snowboarder at Feldberg, Germany --Taxiarchos228 11:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 12:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Billy69150 12:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It could be great but unfortunately it is out of focus (which is on the branches in the foreground). --Kadellar 16:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kadellar, sorry --Kreuzschnabel 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kadellar --XRay 13:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus --Σπάρτακος 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Steindy 01:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2012_05_27_062_Irokesenschnitt.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blue mohawk haircut --F. Riedelio 10:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • weak  Support Too many Unsharp areas, please see my note--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thank you for the review. It is an intentional blur, so that the subject (blue mohawk haircut) better comes into its own. --F. Riedelio 18:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The blurred foreground is OK of course but the mohawk man is not really sharp either, there’s some (motion?) blur on his head, and visible oversharpening on the collar/neck line. I’d excuse this on a 16 mpix image but at 4 mpix it’s too unsharp IMHO --Kreuzschnabel 07:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The motif is the blue hair. So the person in the foreground is disturbing. --XRay 16:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay Poco a poco 12:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-01-31_21-20-14_catch-belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Angel's Bombita (in black and white) and Miss Agathe. --ComputerHotline 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Red eyes, flat lighting by direct flash. --Smial 08:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Will support as soon as the red eyes are fixed. Flash reflections are unfavourable but not too bad here IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 10:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, eyes are not so red. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment It’s very easy to fix them, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be done before promotion. --Kreuzschnabel 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good sharpness but the red eyes are a no go. --Steindy 01:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   not done --C messier 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Reliktowy_Park_Narodowy_Rica,_Widok_na_jezioro_Rica_od_strony_południowo-zachodniej_(01).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Lake Ritsa from the south-west. Ritsa Relict National Park, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing really sharp, lacks contrast. --Mattbuck 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really sharp, too hazy, perspective issues, sorry.--XRay 13:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice mountains, but image is not sharp. --Shansov.net 02:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Steindy 00:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Columbia-Lycoming County line 1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Columbia/Lycoming County line. Jakec 03:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not that good --Billy69150 12:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'd prefer a reason based on the image guidelines, not personal taste. Thanks. Jakec 15:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support, though it could probably do with being less red. Mattbuck 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Considerable chromatic aberration (the road ahead showing blue and red brinks even in the preview), oversharpened (white seams around any dark detail) --Kreuzschnabel 06:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:20140705-TFF-Rudolstadt-RUTH-Verleihung-Liloba-5552.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination RUTH winners Liloba at TFF-Rudolstadt 2014. By User:Carstor --Achim Raschka 09:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support There are some lacks in sharpness, but overall QI --Hubertl 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the left half would be QI, but the woman is too blurry. --Mattbuck 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mattbuck. --XRay 16:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Beeston MMB 86.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Snow in Beeston. Mattbuck 09:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 18:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, partly too dark --Hubertl 15:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Dnalor 01 16:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Hubertl: ✓ Done. @Dnalor 01: I assume it was brightening you wanted? Please add reasons when you oppose! Mattbuck 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Hubertl --Palauenc05 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    I already brightened it, low sun in winter creates fairly dark shadows. Mattbuck 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too low DOF in the middle. The roof is not so sharp like beside. --Steindy 01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptably sharp and brightness is OK. --C messier 15:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a shadow image. Not QI for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Avonmouth railway station MMB 25 150261.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 150261 at Avonmouth. Mattbuck 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)*  Comment a simple automatic tonality curve correction makes it a great picture! --Hubertl 16:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Comment. I can't imagine that it is fixable. The upper part of the building is overexposed and the lower part is too dark as well as the train. For me  Oppose. -- Spurzem 13:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, because I already fixed it at my computer. It looks surprisingly good! But Mattbuck should do it.--Hubertl 18:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    I had a go but it didn't seem to go well. Please upload your version. Mattbuck 22:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done please review Mattbuck, if you don´t like it, revert it!--Hubertl 23:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    I do like it, but what did you mean by "more depth" in your upload comments? Mattbuck 10:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It´s probably a translation problem: I didn´t wrote "more depth" I wrote: "decreasing depth". In this case it means decreasing/reducing the dark areas. --Hubertl 12:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Contrast. Mattbuck 14:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really. Contrast changing (I always try to avoid it) increases the dark and raises the light at the same time. What I did, was reducing the dark areas except black, but keeping the lights. Decreasing black makes every picture flat.--Hubertl 22:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI for me. --Dnalor 01 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Code 09:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. --Shansov.net 03:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem --Livioandronico2013 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support It's ok to me. -- DerFussi 09:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Minor CA on the outmost edges but all in all Hubertl’s version complies well with image guidelines. (Question still unsolved whether Hubertl is still entitled to vote.) --Kreuzschnabel 11:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)