Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2007

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

Archive repair[edit]

Nominations that should have been archived from 9th March but seem to have been ommitted. --Tony Wills 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

End of archive repair --Tony Wills 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Original archive[edit]

Consensual Review[edit]

James H. Clark Center at night.jpg
  • Nomination Stanford's Clark Center --Starwiz 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Good composition, nice and sharp. But the overexposed parts must be fixed. Alvesgaspar 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all overexposure isn't something that could be fixed. Especially at night with artificial lights partial or full exposure is something that can't be avoided completely. The contrast of a lamp in the dark is too high both for a camera and for a human eye. In this case I like the composition and that there is no perspective distortion because the photographer climbed up on the balcony. It's perfectly sharp for a shutter speed of 25 s! Overexposure in all RGB channels is limited to smaller areas which is very good under these circumstances. --Ikiwaner 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with Alvesgaspar. even if it is a night shot and there is a hard contrast to be expected. there is a proper midle point. Meaning, a point in wich you win the maximum in usefull detail. in the case of this picture, being less exposed would mean to loose detail the trees in the background and some of the windows at the sides. but would also mean to win detail on the midle. and on the floor at the front. from the point of view of composition this elements "weight" more and should be payed more atention to. in resume i also decline this nomination -LadyofHats 13:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 1 Support  2 Oppose ---> Not Promoted


Infant smile.jpg
  • Nomination Another version was nominated before. This one is in focus. We don't have much pictures of Infants on Wiki. And this one is artistic (the baby's face) and encyclopedic. --Arad 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor technical quality, unfortunate composition, distracting background - Alvesgaspar 12:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it qualifies for QI (in technical part). If possible give me some opinion of how to improve. --Arad 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Alvesgaspar. Blurred, not QI. Lestat 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • how to improve it: if it is a "film" camera a higer iso would have helped. in general more light would have allowed a shaper image. also about 90% of blury effect comes from a shaking hand and in this case a moving baby. to place the camera in a stable position, with a higer speed.

as for the background, we maybe it would have not been so distracting if it was in focus :P but that is a matter of taste .-LadyofHats 08:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 0 Support 2 Oppose ---> Not promoted


Mikołów - Kamienica - Pl. Karpeckiego.JPG
  • Nomination Karpecki square in Mikołów. --Lestat 10:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 10:33
  • Decline from the point of view of composition there is no really any central point. the eye goes back and foward between the tree and the house. there is also no clear reason why did you chose such a composition. there is slight noise in full view. but i find the composition problem more anoying -LadyofHats 23:08, 29 January 2007
  • I dont find the composition that bad. Only thing on this picture that disturbs me ist the cut off woman at the bottom left side. But the quality is ok in my opinion. I would promote it for QI. -- Simonizer 11:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • as i said before from the point of view of the photograph it is tecnically well done. the composition is what i find too dull and non concentrated. if you still want to promote it. then go ahead, i have not a trong oposition in this case -LadyofHats 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there are other issues wich prevent the picture to be QI: the quality (grain and sharpness) is poor, which is most visible in the darker parts of the building; there is an annoying tilt in the building; motion blur makes the leaves a green amorphus mass. Alvesgaspar 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You are right, i overlooked that. I watched only on the composition -- Simonizer 13:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 1 Support 2 Oppose ---> Not promoted