Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 19 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:ChristineManie2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Defender and captain of the Cameroon women's national football team (by Happiraphael) --Adoscam 09:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 17:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! Not really sharp and massive CAs on the face, the arm an the shirt. --Steindy 23:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for CAs, but you mean the arms. -- Ikan Kekek 12:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is IMO ok for such high resolution, but indeed there is lot of strong CAs --Jakubhal 14:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Pichavaram_Mangrove_Forest_in_2021.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pichavaram Mangrove Forest in 2021 --Satdeep Gill 14:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 19:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can't distinguish anything in this darkness, but the little I see is either unsharp or out of focus --Basile Morin 03:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basile Morin --Sandro Halank 13:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Great photo, which I think looks extremely natural, both the colours and the lighting. If you can't see any details in the dark parts of the picture, you should urgently check the calibration of your screens. Details are visible everywhere, nothing is completely black. The sharpness and image noise are also absolutely acceptable, considering the high image resolution and the conditions when the picture was taken. --Smial 10:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support With Smial. --Augustgeyler 00:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Basile Morin. IMO f/4 is too wide for adequate DoF. The Sony A7R3 is capable of much higher ISO for better exposure with smaller aperture. --Tagooty 05:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    •  Comment Even if the camera is capable of doing this, it does not mean that you should, because the ISO setting chosen by the photographer is already quite high for a landscape shot. In order to achieve a significantly greater depth of field at the chosen focal length, the photographer would have had to stop down to f/8 or even f/11, which would have meant ISO2600 or ISO5200. With such a setting, there would have been nothing but mud left in the dark areas of the image, even with the acknowledged good Sony sensors. Any detail would have been lost. It's just a technically difficult shooting situation, and I think the photographer has found a very good compromise. --Smial 10:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
      •  Comment I disagree that this is a good compromise. The shutter speed could have been reduced without increasing ISO: from 1/250 + f/4 to 1/60 + f/8 or 1/30 + f/11. With a 105mm lens, 1/60 or 1/30 will freeze motion given the camera's IBIS. --Tagooty 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
        •  Comment Was the photographer standing on solid ground or possibly on a swaying boat? And, no, all these anti-shake functions have their limits. The statements of the camera manufacturers promising an improvement of another aperture stop every two years are, to put it mildly, overly optimistic. There is another peculiarity: the old rule of thumb that an exposure time roughly equal to the reciprocal of the 35 mm focal length is sufficient for blur-free pictures has always been only adequate for low demands. In other words, for images under favorable conditions that are not enlarged too much. Even with high-resolution conventional film, it only applied to a limited extent; with the generation of 6-mpixel DSLRs, it was extremely borderline, and with current cameras with more than 16 mpixels (crop) or over 36 mpixels (FF), it has become completely obsolete. Or to put it the other way around: With the help of modern anti-shake functions, the only thing that can really be achieved today is that the old rule of thumb can still be considered suitable for high-resolution sensors. The promised three or four (do we already have something with five or six?) f-stops are window dressing. --Smial 11:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
          •  Comment My experience with anti-shake has been quite positive. See for eg this image (1/40 sec with a 500mm lens, hand held). I haven't done systematic tests, but have noticed very significant blurring when I accidentally turned VR off. I guess we may agree to disagree on this issue! :-) --Tagooty 03:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tagooty concerning the aperture, because 105mm is a relatively long focal length. Thus the blurred parts are exacerbated. I also don't think shooting black night desserves QI just because it's difficult to chase photons in full darkness. This image is currently underexposed, per COM:I. Not everything should be granted with the label, for the particular shooting conditions. Otherwise we could explain all the technical issues of every picture, like "I did not have that lens with me at the moment", or "no tripod, the boat was moving", etc. Only the result counts, and here it's black, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Needs better categorization, at the moment only the location, nothing about the motive. --Marsupium 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dark, too low DOF and noise in dark areas. --Nino Verde (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Basile Morin 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)