Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 10 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Thyssen_Krupp_Quartier_Luftaufnahme_Nordost_2014.jpg[edit]

the noise was reduced distinctive, so I strike my contra, but for QI IMO not really enough, I vote neutral --Taxiarchos228 09:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's surely up to you, but I do not see a reason why this should not be QI. --Tuxyso 11:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already argued: you have turned a really worse picture into a reasonably ordinary picture, but for me far away from good. And QI has to be a good image. I have made 2012 hundreds of aerial pictures. ISO 1600 is to high, even for a Nikon D7000, as I use by the way too. --Taxiarchos228 20:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, but we are not talking about good pictures (in that case 80% percent of QICs had to be denied) but about a check if some quality criteria are met. Your argument seems to be rather mechanically: D7000 at ISO1600 equals bad picture. You can surely make QIs at IS3200 with the D7000. Let's wait for further opinions. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never rise my opinion to a general. But I guess as own of the same camera like yours and a person with practice in aerial shots I have a solid opinion. The QI criteria is clear and the strong noise at this picture you can't deny. I as you can see I am not alone with my opinion. I never said ISO 1600 can`t never get QI, but in this case ISO 1600 was needless and voidable and has for the result a bad influence. --Taxiarchos228 20:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Apart from discussions about what could and should be done with D7000s, I think we can all agree that the denoised version really is not doing the image any good at all. Making the roads and the grass look like something that resembles a painting, certainly is not adding quality when looking at the situation with common sense - if it fitting the requirement of "low noise" for QI, so be it, but the expense of detail is immense. (IMO, the original image is of more use for most people out there.) However, it does probably mean that we will not really get a QI out of it in any version. --DXR 23:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this moment I take it back and revert to the previous version. IMHO DXR is right regarding the details and usefullless for other people. If I have more time I will rework on this image. Probably downscaling without dedicated NR preserves most of the details and meets QI criteria. I guess a 2 MP version will have less noise and lot of details. BTW: For me level of deails (and noise) is sufficient for QI. Look of all that downscaled and noisy sport shots. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]