Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2010

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:T-atspz-2010jan05.jpg[edit]

T-atspz-2010jan05.jpg

  • Nomination Pereslavl bus station with New Year decorations --PereslavlFoto 12:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White balance looks artificial. Also, I would like to see the pole on the left cropped away or shown fully. There is also quite a lot of ground at the bottom, but the tree is cut at the top. --MattiPaavola 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry for my misunderstanding, I beg you to explain me something. In the darkness any WB is artificial; there is no natural light at night. The tree doesn't contribute to the image. The ground is a real problem — I just tried to escape tilt. And what is "pole"? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to adjust the WB myself, but I didn't manage to get a pleasant result. There are many kinds of different light sources, which makes it difficult - the street lamps in the background might even be monochromatic which makes it even harder. With "pole" I meant that big wooden "stick" supporting the electrical wires. :-) I open this image for discussion since it is not at all a bad image - I just personally don't think it is a QI, but others might think differently. --MattiPaavola 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Cathedrale_de_senlis.jpg[edit]

Cathedrale de senlis.jpg

  • Nomination Cathedral of Senlis, France. Stiched from 7 photographs. --Stephanemartin 14:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An interesting image. There do seem some significant perspective problems here, the tower on the left is leaning rather a lot? --Herbythyme 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting picture for sure. It looks like an HDR picture that has been tone-mapped. If it is, this should be indicated, e.g. using the {{RetouchedPicture}} template, otherwise it can't qualify for QI according to the Commons:Image guidelines. --NormanB 01:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Because the image was generated from several wide-angle pictures, there are some difficulties with either horizontal or vertical lines. I chose to keep the strange verticals cause it was more aesthetic. It is not HDR though, just contrast and color corrected with classical tools. Template added. You can see another image here or here, for examples of a non-stitched photo. --Stephanemartin 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    I think the difficulties with perspective would prevent me from making this qi so I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but put it in for discussion, thanks --Herbythyme 14:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Gravestone in Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) - part.JPG[edit]

Gravestone in Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) - part.JPG

  • Nomination Part of gravestone in Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár), Evangelical Cemetery --Pudelek 15:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slight ca on top edges? --Herbythyme 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment maybe now is better? --Pudelek 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see something still but I have seen worse so Symbol support vote.svg Support and discuss I think --Herbythyme 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA now acceptable IMO. --Cayambe 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Julie Monaco 1 (DFdB).JPG[edit]

Julie Monaco 1 (DFdB).JPG

  • Nomination Portrait of the Austrian artist Julie Monaco --Dein Freund der Baum 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent portrait. --Cayambe 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The front eye is out of focus. --MattiPaavola 10:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly I agree with Matti --Herbythyme 12:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 15:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Bench Linnakepuisto.JPG[edit]

Bench Linnakepuisto.JPG

  • Nomination Bench in near shore of Linnakepuisto in Reposaari, Pori, Finland. --kallerna 18:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find the tilt of the bench rather odd? Is it really like that? --Herbythyme 11:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes it is, probably because of the surface. --kallerna 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As the turbine shaft is tilted I think it likely the images is. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull/underexposed too, discuss--Herbythyme 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Floor is sharp, but upper half of image is blurry. --Leuo 07:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Romanian cat.JPG[edit]

Romanian cat.JPG

  • Nomination Cat in Romania - Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) --Pudelek 12:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok with me & don't you love those eyes! --Herbythyme 16:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but IMO the composition is not good enough for QI. Maybe if you crop the picture so you don't see any leaves sticking out of the pot? Furthermore there is no species indication of the cat. --NormanB 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not know the types of cats. Can anyone identify species indication of this cat? --Pudelek 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Siamese Felis silvestris catus, Felis catus (Linnaeus, 1758) Category:Siamese cats
I agree about crop --George Chernilevsky 16:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Temporary oppose I can support this photo with better crop --George Chernilevsky 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I very like this crop, so Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek 11:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ruddy_daggerwing_in_Loxahatchee_National_Wildlife_Refuge.JPG[edit]

Ruddy daggerwing in Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge.JPG

  • Nomination Ruddy Daggerwing--Korall 18:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect and useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hard shadows caused by direct flash. May be good for VI, not for QI, sorry --Pjt56 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Pjt56 First of all you cant decline a promoted image. You have to change to discuss and put the promotion comment as support.
Second, as shown in the EXIF data I did not use a flash, the shadows come from the sun. I see you have uploaded macros so I guess you would understand that light conditions have to be very good, otherwise the DOF will be so shallow that almost nothing is in focus. If daylight is not an acceptable light source for insect macros, please tell me how to light them. --Korall 20:30 19 jan 2010
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really sorry that I didn't adhere to rules pertaining to promotion/discussion, sorry again that I didn't look very deeply into the EXIF data. And of course I'm aware of the difficulties of lighting macros and achieving sufficient DOF. Still the shadows and the reflections on the leaf are IMO not up to QI standards. --Pjt56 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback anyway. It will help me improve as a photographer.--Korall 23:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Without controversy I still find this quality image IQ. The conditions in vivo are very different from work in the studio. It deserves, at least, to be presented in VI-- --Archaeodontosaurus 08:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Pedantic comment Please fill in the mandatory date field in the information template. Yes, I know it is in the EXIF, but adding it to the {{information}} in yyyy-mm-dd format gives a nice language localized representation, such that the date is written in a manner where month-date, etc. is unlikely to be mixed up and swapped and misuderstood. And yes I could do it myself much faster than writing this, but that is not the point.... Meanwhile I will think about my vote...--Slaunger 21:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality enough IMO --George Chernilevsky 07:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 13:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Fish in the water.jpg[edit]

Fish in the water.jpg

  • Nomination Koi Carps in the water in the Autostadt Wolfsburg. --High Contrast 00:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --George Chernilevsky 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Valuable image, but I'm not sure if the quality is there. The composition is good, but the contrast is really low and the fishes are barely visible. --MattiPaavola 09:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That the fish (note the plural) is barely visible is volitional. The image shows fish scarcely below the water surface. That the contrast is too low is not appropriate. --High Contrast 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. Two fish in murky waters could render a nice picture, but here I'm missing something on the water surface acting as a contrast: a leaf, an insect, an interesting reflection. Without that the photo really appears somewhat dull. - Till.niermann 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Chrysolina herbacea-pjt.jpg[edit]

Chrysolina herbacea-pjt.jpg

  • Nomination Chrysalina sp., probably C. herbacea --Pjt56 17:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Unfortunately inclined to decline due to RGB artifacts. ZooFari 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment new version uploaded --Pjt56 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks better, but I'll put this into discussion and see what others think. ZooFari 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's good. - Till.niermann 19:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --MichaelBueker 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Kallon majakka mesestä.JPG[edit]

Kallon majakka mesestä.JPG

  • Nomination Kallo Lighthouse photographed through windscreen of Mercedes-Benz S203. --kallerna 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Funny snap but no QI. --Iotatau 13:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why not? --kallerna 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment According to the title the main subject is the lighthouse. COM:I states that "every important object on the picture should be sharp". The lighthouse is clearly out of focus, instead some water drops on the windshield are sharp. Additionally the dashboard is distractingly cropped and has moiré. --Iotatau 14:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be much of a photo, if I would have focused it to the lighthouse. :D I agree about the moiré, but it's unavoidable. --kallerna 15:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
As so often - it depends. My D200 has a strong anti-alias filter and I never get moiré. The concomitant disadvantage is that the default output is soft and must be sharpened in postprocessing. --Iotatau 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is an interesting image. However what we have is a portion of the car dashboard nicely sharp. To me this means that the lighthouse which is the intended subject could not have been the subject of the focussing of the image. Had the lighthouse been in focus more it might have been qi (the dash then would be out of focus though and might overwhelm the image). --Herby talk thyme 13:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The idea of the image could actually work, but here the dashboard makes up too much of the image. You can see parts of the fan controls that are too distracting. There is also a person walking in front of the house, distracting from the motive. --MichaelBueker 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Supplemental: With a little luck, you might be able to crop those elements away. In that case, I'd support the image.
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz S203 -04.JPG[edit]

Mercedes-Benz S203 -04.JPG

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz S203 -04 (photographed during snowfall). --kallerna 13:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. Image quality is ok. --High Contrast 09:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At 1:1 the vehicle is not sharp. --Herbythyme 14:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How sharp should it be? The lightning conditions were quite extreme (darkness due the snowfall, time of the day and finnish winter). Compare just for instance to this QI. And it could always also be downsampled. --kallerna 15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as relevant to this image however the one you point to I took a long time ago & I have learnt a lot since. Additionally it is not actually my upload not did I nominate it for QI. To me your image is simply not sharp given the vehicle was static --Herbythyme 16:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I just took one QI, and suddently it was taken by you. I meant that that picture is QI, it's subject is also static but it's quality is much lower. That was my point. --kallerna 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue to me is that you had the opportunity to take an image of a static (sharp) vehicle in snow. Had you got that it might well have been good. However we have an image of blurred snow (understandable) and un sharp car - not understandable. --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bad composition, IMO - Darius Baužys 08:09 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the compsition works quite well, with the extra space to the rear end of the car. --MichaelBueker 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor lighting conditions ok. It can be ignored if there is something else in return. To be rude, if you want to take a photo of the car, why did you put the car on a forest road during snowfall and with poor lighting conditions? Or, if you want to take a photo of a forest road, why give the car such a dominant position? It is not a very good photo of the car, nor of the forest road. I can not see how the combination of the car and the snow adds value to the photo.--Ankara 14:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Lamp Hansa shopping centre.JPG[edit]

Lamp Hansa shopping centre.JPG

  • Nomination Lamp in Hansa shopping centre. --kallerna 15:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality --Dein Freund der Baum 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The reflection of the lamps means there is appreciable clipping --Herbythyme 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In a picture like this symmetry should be perfect – here the photographer was standing too far to the left. - Till.niermann 19:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The building itself isn't perfectly symmetric. --kallerna 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The pole in the center appears tilted. --MichaelBueker 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Alter Dom Linz (DFdB).JPG[edit]

Alter Dom Linz (DFdB).JPG

  • Nomination Alter Dom Linz --Dein Freund der Baum 10:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sky is blown, but it is natural look at moment of photo. QI for me --George Chernilevsky 18:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd like to discuss this. For me the blown sky, the slight tilt CW and the framing (cut tower at the lower left) don't make it QI. --Leuo 08:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral With the latest correction I no longer oppose, and also would consider the blown sky as part of the fog - not perfect, but ok. --Leuo 14:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With tilt correction, some cropping and a color touchup, I could support this image. Is anyone up for it? --MichaelBueker 13:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploded a new version. Better?--Ankara 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ditto :) I've cleared the clipping that was still extensive and hopefully sorted the tilt out too, + a couple of other tweaks. Revert if not good enough :) Regards --Herbythyme 13:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Herbythyme, your version was identical to the original image (uploaded the wrong file?). I reverted to Ankara's version, which I now support. --MichaelBueker 14:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hum - looking at the thumbs I am not sure I agree but I did not adjust the colour very much, you can tell mine is different as the upper left corner has been adjusted in mine (there was too much brightness there). I've just resaved it again and looked at it. The whole sky on the current version is clipped to me so I would have to oppose this version I think. --Herbythyme 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Herbythyme: Maybe you could take the original image, rotate and crop just like this one and do the colors your way? --MichaelBueker 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it good, but weak support. --High Contrast 20:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Horse Race Taste El Fresno Mexico 2004.jpg[edit]

Horse Race Taste El Fresno Mexico 2004.jpg

  • Nomination Instead of a normal nomination, I've put this image right in Consensual Review, because it's probably going to be controversial. Kindly allow me to make my point. --MichaelBueker
  • Decline This image falls short of the 2 MP limit, having only 1.92 MP. However, it was taken in 2004, and the Image guidelines state:
    "The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commoner skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality, a recognition that is not erased by later advances." Clearly, by mid-2004 standards, this image had a high resolution. The reason I'm uploading this image only now, six years later, is that I have only recently taken to publishing my works on Commons. However, as can be seen by my old user account's record on the German Wikipedia, I was very much active there in 2004 already, so with some good faith, I think this qualifies as the work of a Commoner. This is one of my favorite photos, and I recently spent a few hours researching to exactly geocode this image. So, I nomiate this image on the grounds expained here, quoting the Image guidelines again:
    "Happy nominating, happy judging, and remember… rules can be broken." Thank your for your time :-) --MichaelBueker (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not about size, it is about quality as whole. 98% is not sharp, noised and blurred. For panning camera technique photo need far much crop. In my fair opinion it is far not QI IMO, sorry --George Chernilevsky 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I would oppose, too. Like George said. 1.9MP is not the problem, the image would need a much tighter crop around the horses, so they are at least 1/3 of the image, otherwise there is simply too much blur, even for 2004 standars. But, current image size doesn't support more cropping. I suggest still cropping it a bit and nominating it as valued image. --Leuo 20:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, I agree with Leuo. And look this photo. Shot taken in 2004 too and it is valued image in scope panning. With best regards --George Chernilevsky 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Lord Est @ Bar Kino - Est 3.JPG[edit]

Lord Est @ Bar Kino - Est 3.JPG

  • Nomination Est from Lord Est performing at Bar Kino, Pori, Finland. --kallerna 16:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is some noise, but the image is good considering the lighting conditions. The hand is blurred, which is nice because it indicates a gesture typical for rap musicians. --MichaelBueker 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much blurred and noised, not sharp. It is far not QI, sorry --George Chernilevsky 11:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image for the context I guess but per George not qi --Herbythyme 13:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

File:PuntaTombo2007.jpg[edit]

PuntaTombo2007.jpg

  • Nomination Magellanic Penguins, Punta Tombo in Argentina. --Ankara 09:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extreme high contrast, overprocessed? -- Smial 09:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Better now?--Ankara 09:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Loss of fine detail (noise reduction/Gaussian blur/too strong USM?) but otherwise ok. --Iotatau 12:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is the original image File:PuntaTombo2007.jpgFile:PuntaTombo2007b.jpg, unedited. I'm very grateful for advice on how I could improve the editing process. I was using GIMP (GREYCtoration, Unsharp mask), and also Iphoto to enhance the colors.--Ankara 13:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comparing the submitted version to the original it is clear that the postprocessing is ok. --Iotatau 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI and useful --Archaeodontosaurus 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I still see very big artifacts on the feathers. I'm not sure where you mean that the original is, because the link points at the same file. Perhaps VI? --99of9 (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I assume that the first of the three versions is the original. I guess that the artifacts are "detail smearing" by the built-in camera noise suppression. If Ankara used base ISO there's nothing that he could have done better with the camera he was using. It really is a principal question to what extent the quality of the employed camera should influence the QI judgement. Ideally it's only about the result but if the required standards have a certain level then many contributors using simple cameras would find it very hard to get any promotions. On the other hand, with used DSLR starting around $100, most of those people could afford a better tool. --Iotatau 11:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After all, I believe the camera presets were set to contrast=highest, sharpening=highest or something like that. This makes it very difficult to repair this quite nice shot. If a camera does not support RAW format, it is always a good idea to use medium settings (colour intensity, contrast, sharpening, noise reduction etc.) - in most cases this results in acceptable quality, and if there are some issues, they can be enhanced later. -- smial (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not have so many options on the camera, I can change ISO from but I did not do as far as I remember. The conditions were perhaps not ideal for a simpler camera. There was strong sun, reflector from the sea, and a dry (on the edge of the desert) and colorless environment. Anyway, thanks for all the comments.--Ankara (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know about the limitations of the camera, no offence intended. -- Smial 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
processed differently
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now I see the original (with the corrected filename), and I like it better than your processed version! I believe your processing has put in too much contrast and too much sharpening. The camera is not great, but it's not entirely to blame here!--99of9 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had a go at processing it for you (in GIMP). See if you like the result (this is mostly what I learnt from my images being processed by others. I had similar exposure issues to you). --99of9 (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think your version is the best one.--Ankara 14:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. You might like to withdraw this nomination and propose version c. --99of9 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, please withdraw and nominate the last version, this is QI for me. -- Smial 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. But i dont know how to withdrawn?--Ankara 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Just change the /Discuss at the start to /Withdrawn. --99of9 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --99of9 (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Gatow_Lockheed_T-33A_(2009).jpg[edit]

Gatow Lockheed T-33A (2009).jpg

  • Nomination Gatow museum: Lockheed T-33A. --Iotatau 09:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extreme wide angle is not suitable for a realistc illustration, proportions distorted. -- Smial 09:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to see more opinions here. Unwarranted wide-angle representation isn't mentioned anywhere in the image guidelines. The representation is optically correct and I eliminated perspective distortion present in the original. --Iotatau 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting and good quality photo. And look like natural (human's look, not wide-angle camera). it is QI for me --George Chernilevsky 14:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See Commons:Image guidelines: "Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant." -- Smial 12:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The discussion column solely mentions perspective distortion in architecture, i.e. "keystoning" or converging verticals. This is not present here. --Iotatau 13:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the above. --Herbythyme 13:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Gatow_Republic_F-84F_(2009).jpg[edit]

Gatow Republic F-84F (2009).jpg

  • Nomination Gatow museum: Republic F-84F Thunderstreak. --Iotatau 09:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extreme wide angle is not suitable for a realistc illustration, proportions distorted. Slightly over exposed. -- Smial 09:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Check histogram - it is centered, no blown highlights. 21 mm equiv. FL is not that wide and is the only way to eliminate disturbing elements here. Unwarranted wide-angle representation isn't mentioned anywhere in the image guidelines, I encounter this argument for the first time. --Iotatau 09:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo. And look like natural (human's look, not wide-angle camera). it is QI for me --George Chernilevsky 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See Commons:Image guidelines: "Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant." -- Smial 12:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The discussion column solely mentions perspective distortion in architecture, i.e. "keystoning" or converging verticals. This is not present here. Furthermore, due to the orthogonal look on the subject, I consider the wide-angle distortion you refer to as insignificant in this case. --Iotatau 13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the above. --Herbythyme 13:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Gatow_Republic_RF-84F_(2009).jpg[edit]

Gatow Republic RF-84F (2009).jpg

  • Nomination Gatow museum: Republic RF-84F Thunderflash (recon variant). --Iotatau 09:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extreme wide angle is not suitable for a realistc illustration, proportions distorted. -- Smial 09:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my view an aesthetic judgement not supported by the quality image guidelines. I'd like to see more opinions. --Iotatau 10:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality photo. And look like natural (human's look, not wide-angle camera). it is QI for me --George Chernilevsky 14:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See Commons:Image guidelines: "Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant." -- Smial 12:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The discussion column solely mentions perspective distortion in architecture, i.e. "keystoning" or converging verticals. This is not present here. I admit, though, that the wide-angle distortion you mention is most obvious in this image of the three ones you declined. It leads to a bigger front of the plane - which actually has a purpose in this case: it is a reconnaissance variant, the camera openings at the bottom become more prominent. --Iotatau 13:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the above. --Herbythyme 13:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:NihonbashiTokyo.jpg[edit]

NihonbashiTokyo.jpg

  • Nomination Lion figure at Nihonbashi, Tokyo/Japan --Leuo 07:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Awkward composition. The main subject (the lion) is quite close to the edge. --Stephanemartin 12:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me I think --Herbythyme 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Are the letters in the top left related to the lion? --Iotatau 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Odd composition. --kallerna 15:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my view, the composition actually works when you're not just looking at the thumbnail. --MichaelBueker 14:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop is not ideal, but acceptable. All other is OK --George Chernilevsky 11:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop, the point of interest is too low in this photo, interesting bottom cropped out.--PereslavlFoto 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could someone please give the deciding vote to release the poor lion from his yellow prison? Thanks! --Leuo 06:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No answer to my question above but I found it myself in the English Nihonbashi article. I don't speak Japanese but the characters of the bridge name (日本橋) seem to be the same as the ones in the image, so lion and characters are related and justify the composition. On crop: as per George. All in all: Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Iotatau 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 20:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Srebrenica massacre memorial gravestones 2009 1.jpg[edit]

Srebrenica massacre memorial gravestones 2009 1.jpg

  • Nomination Gravestones and the pavillon at the Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Center. --MichaelBueker 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sky is overexposed--Pudelek 15:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, the sky is somewhat overexposed. However, this photo of the same scenery got promoted regardless—see the archive here (just search the page for my username). I'm not trying to push it for all my photos, but this shot is important, since it also shows the Memorial Center behind the graves. --MichaelBueker 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I promoted the the other photo linked above. My reasons were that the composition seemed good, and although the sky was overexposed, it was only a small part of the whole picture. Borderline, but IMO it was good enough. The sky makes up a bigger part of the current picture, and the composition is not nearly as strong, so I would not promote this one. -- Avenue (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Avenue (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I can see your reasoning, Avenue. It's a pity, but I guess you're right. I hope I'll visit that place again, and take some real quality photos! --MichaelBueker (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iotatau 13:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

File:RO B Union Square Unirea Shopping Center.jpg[edit]

RO B Union Square Unirea Shopping Center.jpg

  • Nomination Unirea Shopping Center in Bucharest, Romania. Andrei Stroe 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strong distortion --Pudelek 22:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC) now is OK --Pudelek 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version with perspective correction uploaded, image moved to /Discuss. As an image editor I have to abstain. --Iotatau 08:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI now to me. --Cayambe (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed --Herbythyme 13:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image, definatley QI. Etincelles 10:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 13:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Château d'eau Laganne.JPG[edit]

Château d'eau Laganne.JPG

  • Nomination Laganne Water Tower (Monument Historique), Toulouse, France -- Florent Pécassou 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC). Basically good. The tower is CW tilted, and it needs a perspective correction. The crop should be tighter at the bottom (too much green). --Cayambe 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Coming back to this image... I'm ready to change my previous review. The camera being directed upwards (there is no other way to capture this picture), I now think that the perspective distortion is acceptable here. --Cayambe 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose imho perspective correction is necessary (and possible) --Berthold Werner 08:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC) --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done--Archaeodontosaurus 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline_-_A36_(by)_(2).jpg[edit]

ComputerHotline - A36 (by) (2).jpg

  • Nomination Trails on the "Autoroute A36" (Highway A36), near Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted --Pudelek 15:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, it's tilted, but it's obviously an extraordinary photo. My understanding of best practise is to leave a comment and allow the nominator to fix it, not decline it straight away. --MichaelBueker 15:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Still supporting it. I don't see how the sky is that big a problem. --MichaelBueker 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The light from the cars is excellent but the background is not, however excellent, and it destroys the whole. I think the photo would have been much better if it had been taken later in the evening / night.--Ankara 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Larus delawarensis21.jpg[edit]

Larus delawarensis21.jpg

  • Nomination Adult Ring-billed Gull in non-breeding plumage (Larus delawarensis) --Basar 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good detail in beak, but the composition is poor - much of the bird is missing, and there is a lot of blank space above and to the left. The white feathers on its front seem overexposed too. -- Avenue 13:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't believe it's overexposed per the histogram. It's intended as a portrait which is why the rest of the bird was purposely left out, and some open space on the left is needed to balance the composition. Nonetheless, I see your point and have adjusted the composition. Other opinions? Basar 07:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Much better composition with that crop, thanks. I didn't realise how much removing the belly would help. Now it looks more like a portrait. You're right about no overexposure - my mistake. Parts still seem harshly bright to me; have you considered muting it a bit? I'm not sure that sharpness on the body is critical for a portrait like this, so I'm withdrawing my opposition. -- Avenue (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Shows no exposure clipping for me but colour channels are looking clipped. Sharpness on the eye and the beak are good but the body is not good. Not qi for me I'm afraid Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Herbythyme 16:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Borey class SSBN.svg[edit]

Borey class SSBN.svg

  • Nomination Exact and detailed vector profile of Russian up-to-date SSBN Borei-class. --Rave 07:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No references are given. --Ianare 20:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question References to what? This work is self-made by author using alot of sources. --Rave 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you know the sources add the important ones and change the submission status to "/Discuss". The submitter is allowed to challenge a review. --Iotatau 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok. I asked uploader for sources and i'll change status back if there will no reaction in 2 days. --Rave 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Source added. --Rave 19:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for adding the source. There is no need to change the status yourself now that the SVG is in the "Discuss" section. I hope Ianare has time to come back and check the source. I have no experience with assessing drawings and thus stay Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. --Iotatau 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK 4 me. --Nevit 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think so, too. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good drawing. --High Contrast 10:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The details look as if they could have been made with paint. IMO should require more detail. Pbroks13 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made this draw with Inkscape and I didn't use paint for any purpose. Author.--Mike1979 Russia 10:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)\
      • Well of course, as far as I know, paint cant make vector images. What I meant was I think more detail should be added instead of mostly just using black stroke lines. Pbroks13 05:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)