Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2008

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Image:Washington_Monument_evening.jpg[edit]

Washington Monument evening.jpg Washington Monument evening-spots.jpg

  • Nomination Washington Monument. --Dschwen 18:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good composition. --Lestath 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It seams like that red halo at the top could be removed. -- carol 04:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The thumb seems tilted CW to me here, but the thermometer also say something over 90F. I will be making my vote at another time and temperature.... -- carol (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose .75° CCW tilt and disturbing CA fringes. Lycaon 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Rotated and fringes desaturated. --Dschwen 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --.snoopy. 15:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You forgot to put it in Category:Phallic symbols. :O Calibas 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I only have a little understanding of that category. Does Statue of Liberty frontal 2.jpg also belong in that category? -- \mathbf{C} 12:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      Nah, but TheGherkin behindStAndrewUndershaft.jpg does. --Calibas 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There's still slight CA at the peak but not enough not to promote this. Geotag please! --Dilaudid 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. --Dschwen 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What time in the evening? (I haven't looked at the exif yet but it looks like very early in the evening.... -- carol (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Heh, ~13:00EDT in the evening? like an hour after noon? -- carol (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Uhm, I'm pretty sure my camera is on UTC, so with EST equal UTC-5 it must have been half past seven. --Dschwen 16:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is ~33F different now and interestingly enough, I have a headache and thought it only fair to share it -- carol (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Dschwen 15:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nuit de fête Place Flagey.JPG[edit]

Nuit de fête Place Flagey.JPG

  • Nomination Nocturn activity in Place Eugène Flagey in Brussels --Romanceor 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice, but needs CCW rotation. --Dilaudid 10:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Judging from the electric poles I think it's already level. --Lerdsuwa 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Which are more likely to be completely vertical, poles or buildings? :) --Dilaudid 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I rotated 0.9° left ; I think it's all right now. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 12:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support still has my support. --Lerdsuwa 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks! –Dilaudid 10:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bower in park in Tarnowskie Góry.[edit]

Tarnowskie Góry - Altana 01.jpg

  • Nomination Bower in park in Tarnowskie Góry. --Lestath 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hm, quite a bit of CA in the upper part. --Dschwen 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose And not all that, too confused composition from scribble and some blanches in front of the subject. _Fukutaro 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this composition is bad. Please for another opinion. --Lestath 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - enough for QI -Pudelek 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too little detail, oversaturated and tilted. Lycaon 11:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

Image:Discovery World Milwaukee Wisconsin 5598.jpg[edit]

Discovery World Milwaukee Wisconsin 5598.jpg

  • Nomination Discovery World museum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dori 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO this needs a perspectivic adjustment --Berthold Werner 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nah, this small amounts of perspective distortion are ok (naturally looking). IMO you should not obsess too much about PC. --Dschwen 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs perspective correction, the buildings look like they weren't built straight. --Dilaudid 09:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Dilaudid and Berthold Werner. Lycaon 11:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brauner Waldvogel Aphantopus hyperantus quadrat.jpg[edit]

Brauner Waldvogel Aphantopus hyperantus quadrat.jpg

  • Nomination The Ringlet (Aphantopus hyperantus) with Taxo crop --Richard Bartz 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In light of other nom this has no value :) I'm guessing you want just one to be QI right? Dori 04:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment and Symbol support vote.svg Support No where does it say that if one version is QI'ed the other version can't. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's under Rule 32, Section 10, Paragraph 2-a, exception 1. Dori 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Muhammad Mahdi Karim. Lycaon 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't get this at all, you do realize that you can have close to an infinite number of crops on an image, would they all be QI? At which point does their value drop? Dori 00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tawny frogmouth wholebody444.jpg[edit]

Tawny frogmouth wholebody444.jpg

  • Nomination Tawny Frogmouth at night Benjamint444 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below 2MP, looks like unnecessary downsampling. --Dschwen 13:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry but what maths did you do to work out that 2,083,750 is less than 2mp? It's a night time shot of a wild bird with a camera that is terible for noise and wouldn't focus on the bird because the eye was the only thing that had enough contrast, I think I was lucky to salvage anything.Benjamint444 10:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The correct math. 1MP equals 1024² Pixels. --Dschwen 14:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed. Lycaon 10:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anything in particular, something that I could fix? Benjamint444 10:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, upload larger size, less processed. --Dschwen 14:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? carol (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Transept Nord Cathédrale de Reims 210608 02.jpg[edit]

Transept Nord Cathédrale de Reims 210608 02.jpg Transept Nord Cathédrale de Reims 210608 02 B.jpg

  • Nomination Statues of Reims Cathedral. Vassil 08:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets Quality Image Guidelines--Mifter 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose that is, if the tilt were corrected. Lycaon 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I uploaded an edit with corrected distortion. Vassil (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? carol 05:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this also needs to be perspective corrected – if your original has the room for that. As it stands it's cramped and needs room to breathe: the slanted lines and tight crop increase the tension and steal the attention from the main subject, the statues. Dilaudid 11:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Vassil 09:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Baumweissling[edit]

Baumweissling Aporia crataegi.jpg

  • Nomination Baumweissling (Aporia crataegi) --Richard Bartz 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insects ruin this perfectly good photograph of a flower. -- carol 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a weird assessment. The butterflies are the main topic of this images. I would promote as QI. Estrilda 16:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful image, I also support promoting as QI. Chmehl 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Flower ruins this perfectly good photograph of a flower :-) Thegreenj 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The insects and the flower ruin this perfectly good photograph of blurred grass. –Dilaudid 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Baumweissling Aporia crataegi 2.jpg[edit]

Baumweissling Aporia crataegi 2.jpg

  • Nomination Baumweissling (Aporia crataegi) --Richard Bartz 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion I can't put a QI stamp on this one, Richard. At low res it looks perfect, but on close inspection it to clearly reveals the partial noise reduction that you applied. Lycaon 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fixed --Richard Bartz 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polytelis swainsonii (Wroclaw zoo).JPG[edit]

Polytelis swainsonii (Wroclaw zoo).JPG

  • Nomination Polytelis swainsonii (Desmarest, 1826) in the zoo of Wrocław (Poland) --Guérin Nicolas 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion Noisy at full resolution (especially the background). But because of nice composition, colours and cute subject: just acceptable for QI. -- MJJR 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but IMHO no attribute makes up for this amount of noise. Also to my eye the background weakens the composition. –Dilaudid 04:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Twenty_eight_31_gnangarra.jpg[edit]

Twenty eight 31 gnangarra.jpg

  • Nomination Twenty Eight Gnangarra 11:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion Composition could be better but quality is ok --Simonizer 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bird is flattened and its colours distorted by flash. –Dilaudid 04:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dicentra-spectabilis.jpg[edit]

Dicentra-spectabilis.jpg

  • Nomination bloom of Dicentra spectabilis --Wuzur 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Simonizer 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, don't agree. There are some disturbing haloes. Lycaon 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I dont think that the halos are lensmade and i dot think they are disturbing. But lets see what others will say --Simonizer (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The tip at the left looks a bit strange, but the rest is fairly good, so it's ok for QI, in my opinion. -- א (Aleph) 18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? א (Aleph) 18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:UIUC_Mumford_Hall.jpg[edit]

UIUC Mumford Hall 2.jpg UIUC Mumford Hall.jpg UIUC Mumford Hall-spotted.jpg

  • Nomination Mumford Hall, University of Illinois. --Dschwen 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I very much dislike the composition and the building appears to be tilted, sorry.--Massimo Catarinella 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO it is not tilted. And if the oppose reason amounts to something as fuzzy as disliking the composition then I'd prefer some more opinions (even if it gets rejected anyways) --Dschwen 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It is not tilted. It has a perspective that I don't like, but technically it is QI, but because of the 'not like' part I'll refrain from voting. I'm sure someone will support... Lycaon 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While it could be argued that none of the dust spots are worth repairing, I found several (and marked) that I would not have downloaded and marked without the more obvious ones. Not found in this image was UFO landing sign in the clouds (I looked carefully). Are all little blurry dark spots in images going to be birds now? The stitching is nice, however, I also suggested a cropline. -- carol (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded an edit. Sensor dust removed, perspective corrected using hugin, cropped the beautiful clouds (sigh ;-) ). --Dschwen 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It was a nice sky, maybe put the statue of liberty behind it? -- carol (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Eh, I forgot to vote. Technically the original has fallen into "decline", I am not certain what to do with the number of days and the new upload. And, additionally, I slept through when the nit-picky closure occurred. Now that we are all seemingly non-productive nit-pickers what to do about this? -- carol 04:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    withdraw this one, and nominate the edit for a fresh start? --Dschwen 12:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have had every single thing I have done which was not to an image or a category questioned and the absolute worst assumed and without asking the people it was done to first for so long now -- It seems really stupid to do that with this image, it is ready to leave the page now. I am going to vote favorably for it, with the great wish that others who only have rules, assumptions of badness and little else to communicate will also drop in, vote favorably for it so it can get the hell off the QI page and make room for more -- carol 13:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Certainly meets QI requirements. Chmehl 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Budapest from Gellert Hill MC.jpg[edit]

Budapest from Gellert Hill MC.jpg

  • Nomination Budapest from the Gellért Hill Chmehl 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice panorama of a beautiful city! --Massimo Catarinella 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much that is just black for me. If it were only the castle, e.g., I'd support. Lycaon 19:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a picture showing only the castle in a tight framing which I will upload separately. This panorama version is intended to show the different buildings in a context, i.e., their location in the city. Chmehl 09:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a beautiful panorama. -- carol 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Elisenbrunnen Panorama.jpg[edit]

Elisenbrunnen Panorama.jpg

  • Nomination The Elisenbrunnen fountain in Aachen, Germany. -- א 12:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion I can see some stitching problems on the columns, e.g. the center-left one. --JDrewes 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg I wonder why I didn't see this. I reworked the image and uploaded a new version. --א 09:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work, although a little bit too contrasted and moiré in the windows of the Deutsche Bank. -- MJJR 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? CarolSpears 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pj-harvey-athens-0a.jpg[edit]

Pj-harvey-athens-0a.jpg|

  • Nomination PJ Harvey in concert --Adamantios 20:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, disturbing background plus we cannot see much of the musician's face. -- א 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ofcourse, it's a live performance in a concert hall... -- Adamantios 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as א. –Dilaudid 11:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? CarolSpears 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Disneyland June 2008-8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Main Street Rail Station, Disneyland, France - Alvesgaspar 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Building cut of f--Massimo Catarinella 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So what? -- Alvesgaspar 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can see that slightly tilt...? _Fukutaro 14:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt, composition. I'd cut off some of the sky. –Dilaudid 11:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? CarolSpears 16:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lviv - Arsenal - 26.jpg[edit]

Lviv - Arsenal - 26.jpg

  • Nomination Helberds --Lestath 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp --Massimo Catarinella 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoFocus is on the helberds and photo is sharp. --Lestath 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems OK --Nevit 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? CarolSpears 16:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bytom - Ul. Powstańców Warszawskich 01.jpg[edit]

Bytom - Ul. Powstańców Warszawskich 01.jpg

  • Nomination Tenement house on the Powstańców Warszawskich Street in Bytom. --Lestath 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs perspective correction. --Dilaudid 10:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective corrected and geocoded. --Lestath 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support promoted Gnangarra 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)<
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy in the sky. Lycaon 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? carol 05:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Kraków - Collegium Maius - Płaskorzeźba[edit]

Kraków - Collegium Maius - Płaskorzeźba 01.jpg

  • Nomination: Zbigniew Oleśnicki Bishop of Krakow as founder of bursary in the Jagiellonian University. --Lestath 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The shadows could use some deepening I think. Also please geotag this. --Dilaudid 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Geotaged --Lestath 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is ok for QI --Berthold Werner 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I think its quality is not much for QI. detail and is slightly slanted frame (the shoot position was aside?) _Fukutaro 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not allways possible get right in front of the object and perspective is sufficient corrected (IMHO). --Berthold Werner 08:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
In this case was you so? Indeed could be corrected, I believe to it is gradually lost truth when do be edited; to perspective, color, lighting, etc., though. _Fukutaro (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support, 1 oppose -> (a draw)  carol (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sankt Paulin BW 2.JPG[edit]

Sankt Paulin BW 2.JPG Image-Sankt Paulin BW 2 a.JPG

  • Nomination: Organ of St. Paulin, Trier, Germany --Berthold Werner 08:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Review Beautiful image and light, but unfortunately shaken :( --Dilaudid 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • One of the photos I used for DRI was vertical 9 pixel out of alignment. I did a manuell adjustment, so please check again.--Berthold Werner 08:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture but underexposed IMO --Pom² 10:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the fix! It's a bit dark but making it lighter would result in loss of focus and drama. --Dilaudid 11:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral For me too dark. --Lestath 14:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have made a new brighter mix --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support, 1 oppose -> (a draw) carol (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polytelis swainsonii (Wroclaw zoo).JPG[edit]

Polytelis swainsonii (Wroclaw zoo).JPG

  • Nomination Polytelis swainsonii (Desmarest, 1826) in the zoo of Wrocław (Poland) --Guérin Nicolas 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Noisy at full resolution (especially the background). But because of nice composition, colours and cute subject: just acceptable for QI. -- MJJR 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but IMHO no attribute makes up for this amount of noise. Also to my eye the background weakens the composition. –Dilaudid 04:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? carol (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Twenty_eight_31_gnangarra.jpg[edit]

Twenty eight 31 gnangarra.jpg

  • Nomination Twenty Eight Gnangarra 11:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Composition could be better but quality is ok --Simonizer 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bird is flattened and its colours distorted by flash. –Dilaudid 04:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? carol (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Elisenbrunnen Panorama.jpg[edit]

Elisenbrunnen Panorama.jpg

  • Nomination The Elisenbrunnen fountain in Aachen, Germany. -- א 12:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion I can see some stitching problems on the columns, e.g. the center-left one. --JDrewes 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg I wonder why I didn't see this. I reworked the image and uploaded a new version. --א 09:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work, although a little bit too contrasted and moiré in the windows of the Deutsche Bank. -- MJJR 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bytom - Ul. Powstańców Warszawskich 01.jpg[edit]

Bytom - Ul. Powstańców Warszawskich 01.jpg

  • Nomination: Tenement house on the Powstańców Warszawskich Street in Bytom. --Lestath 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs perspective correction. --Dilaudid 10:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective corrected and geocoded. --Lestath 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support promoted Gnangarra 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)<
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy in the sky. Lycaon 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (draw) -- carol (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dicentra-spectabilis.jpg[edit]

Dicentra-spectabilis.jpg

  • Nomination bloom of Dicentra spectabilis --Wuzur 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Simonizer 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, don't agree. There are some disturbing haloes. Lycaon 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I dont think that the halos are lensmade and i dot think they are disturbing. But lets see what others will say --Simonizer (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The tip at the left looks a bit strange, but the rest is fairly good, so it's ok for QI, in my opinion. -- א (Aleph) 18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Budapest from Gellert Hill MC.jpg[edit]

Budapest from Gellert Hill MC.jpg

  • Nomination Budapest from the Gellért Hill Chmehl 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice panorama of a beautiful city! --Massimo Catarinella 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much that is just black for me. If it were only the castle, e.g., I'd support. Lycaon 19:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a picture showing only the castle in a tight framing which I will upload separately. This panorama version is intended to show the different buildings in a context, i.e., their location in the city. Chmehl 09:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a beautiful panorama. -- carol 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Baumweissling[edit]

Baumweissling Aporia crataegi.jpg

  • Nomination Baumweissling (Aporia crataegi) --Richard Bartz 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insects ruin this perfectly good photograph of a flower. -- carol 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a weird assessment. The butterflies are the main topic of this images. I would promote as QI. Estrilda 16:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful image, I also support promoting as QI. Chmehl 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Flower ruins this perfectly good photograph of a flower :-) Thegreenj 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The insects and the flower ruin this perfectly good photograph of blurred grass. –Dilaudid 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Willkommen im Teletubbieland! --Mbdortmund 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 08:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:NYC_TotR_Queens.jpg[edit]

NYC TotR Queens.jpg

  • Nomination Citigroup Center and view across Queens, high res. --Dschwen 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is way too noisy. --Massimo Catarinella 13:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The editorial value of an extremely noisy sky when viewed from RCenter is worth mentioning here. The dust spots don't lend to the editorial though.... -- carol 11:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What!? Whatever little amount of noise is in the sky is far offset by the resolution. And what dust spots? I'm sure they're there, but that's quibbling... Thegreenj 00:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You call that carpet of haze a little amount of noise..? And I do see some dust spots, but they are neglectable in my opinion. He could stop by the nearest camera shop and let his camera being cleaned to avoid this in the future. --Massimo Catarinella 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Haze and noise are two totally different things. Haze is inevitable in an urban environment like this. Noise has nothing to do with it. Thegreenj 04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support most major urban environments will an occurrence of haze though an unwanted part of the environment Gnangarra 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Apricots real.jpg[edit]

Apricots real.jpg

  • Nomination Apricots, beautiful in their non-uniform real appearance. -- carol 05:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, too shallow DOF. –Dilaudid 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If they were "sharp" they would be "nectarines". -- carol 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps you could have used a tripod and a higher F number – just about any image regardless of subject is prone to be unsharp with an f of 2.8. –Dilaudid 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good composition but spoilt by rather an unfortunate choice of fruit Gnangarra 13:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lviv - Arsenal - 26.jpg[edit]

Lviv - Arsenal - 26.jpg

  • Nomination Helberds --Lestath 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp --Massimo Catarinella 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoFocus is on the helberds and photo is sharp. --Lestath 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems OK --Nevit 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose focus ok but two appear to have the pointy end cut off. Gnangarra 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:UIUC_Mumford_Hall.jpg with vaccation-value enhancement[edit]

UIUC Mumford Hall-liberty.jpg UIUC Mumford Hall.jpg UIUC Mumford Hall-spotted.jpg

  • Nomination Mumford Hall, University of Illinois. --Dschwen 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I very much dislike the composition and the building appears to be tilted, sorry.--Massimo Catarinella 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO it is not tilted. And if the oppose reason amounts to something as fuzzy as disliking the composition then I'd prefer some more opinions (even if it gets rejected anyways) --Dschwen 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It is not tilted. It has a perspective that I don't like, but technically it is QI, but because of the 'not like' part I'll refrain from voting. I'm sure someone will support... Lycaon 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While it could be argued that none of the dust spots are worth repairing, I found several (and marked) that I would not have downloaded and marked without the more obvious ones. Not found in this image was UFO landing sign in the clouds (I looked carefully). Are all little blurry dark spots in images going to be birds now? The stitching is nice, however, I also suggested a cropline. -- carol (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded an edit. Sensor dust removed, perspective corrected using hugin, cropped the beautiful clouds (sigh ;-) ). --Dschwen 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It was a nice sky, maybe put the statue of liberty behind it? -- carol (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Eh, I forgot to vote. Technically the original has fallen into "decline", I am not certain what to do with the number of days and the new upload. And, additionally, I slept through when the nit-picky closure occurred. Now that we are all seemingly non-productive nit-pickers what to do about this? -- carol 04:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    withdraw this one, and nominate the edit for a fresh start? --Dschwen 12:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have had every single thing I have done which was not to an image or a category questioned and the absolute worst assumed and without asking the people it was done to first for so long now -- It seems really stupid to do that with this image, it is ready to leave the page now. I am going to vote favorably for it, with the great wish that others who only have rules, assumptions of badness and little else to communicate will also drop in, vote favorably for it so it can get the hell off the QI page and make room for more -- carol 13:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Certainly meets QI requirements. Chmehl 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please renominate a version to end this confusion. Lycaon 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This did little to help with the problem. -- carol (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I'm going to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as well, just because I'm confused :-P --Dschwen 23:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 11:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:250cc GP Catalunya 2008.jpg[edit]

250cc GP Catalunya 2008.jpg

  • Nomination 250 cc motorcycle Grand Prix at Circuit de Catalunya --Pedroserafin 09:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to me its out of focus, the composition of the bikes could to be closer together. Also is it possible for the riders be identified. Gnangarra 12:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (Unless you really wanted to discuss this) -- carol 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? carol 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rothenburg BW 4.JPG[edit]

Rothenburg BW 4.JPG

  • Nomination Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Germany --Berthold Werner 15:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good exposure. --Dschwen 15:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad HDR stitching --Lestath 13:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you circle the problems you see? They did this for seam errors in panos for a while a few months ago, it was very educational to me. -- carol (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support can't see something "bad" --Simonizer 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather severe CA problems (e.g. tower has a magenta lining on the right side and a green one on the left side). Lycaon 07:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That I saw. I am still curious about the "HDR" and the "stitching" and the "bad HDR stitching". -- carol (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That I didn't see neither. Lycaon 08:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose considerable color issues on building edges I can see green, magenta or blue edging look at guttering and roof lines of all buildings. Gnangarra 13:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic aberration --Massimo Catarinella 14:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Severe is a severe word for the problems, but they are enough. -- carol (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Turun tuomiokirkko edit.jpg[edit]

Turun tuomiokirkko edit.jpg

  • Nomination Cathedral of Turku. --Dilaudid 12:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A huge spot in this image. -- carol 12:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I dont see a spot, Gnangarra 13:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • On the right side, about one third the distance between the cloud and the upper edge of the photograph. It is easier to see these things in a darkened room. -- carol (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've uploaded a new version hopefully fixing the problem with the spot. Thanks Carol for your close scrutiny! –Dilaudid 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not that close but more than I look at my own photographs perhaps. -- carol 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? carol 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets QI requirements --Mbdortmund 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Two days.... -- carol 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Baumweissling Aporia crataegi 2.jpg[edit]

Baumweissling Aporia crataegi 2.jpg

  • Nomination Baumweissling (Aporia crataegi) --Richard Bartz 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't put a QI stamp on this one, Richard. At low res it looks perfect, but on close inspection it to clearly reveals the partial noise reduction that you applied. Lycaon 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fixed --Richard Bartz 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really, maybe you should do a noise reduction from scratch. Lycaon (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Abenberg SK 0001.jpg[edit]

Abenberg SK 0001.jpg

  • Nomination Abenberg an its rural enviroment, Germany --Simonizer 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically good to great and kind of beautiful. -- carol 22:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It shows rather the road than Abenberg. --Daniel Baránek 12:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So you think the name should be changed? -- carol 13:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I changed the description for the fussy ones among us --Simonizer 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? carol 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Caligo memnon (Wroclaw zoo)-1.JPG[edit]

Caligo memnon (Wroclaw zoo)-1.JPG

  • Nomination Caligo memnon (C. & R. Felder, 1866) in the zoo of Wrocław (Poland) --Guérin Nicolas 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Le sujet principal est clair et n'est pas surexposé. --S23678 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much overexposed highlights. Lycaon 11:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. _Fukutaro 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? carol 13:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hydrosaurus amboinensis (Wroclaw zoo).JPG[edit]

Hydrosaurus amboinensis (Wroclaw zoo).JPG

  • Nomination Hydrosaurus amboinensis (Schlosser, 1768) in the zoo of Wrocław (Poland) --Guérin Nicolas 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bon focus, aucune sur/sous-exposition --S23678 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I discern a greenish cast. Lycaon 11:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The rocks aren't all green. -- carol 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Lyacon. It's a pity the animals are lying on a plaster rock. --Ikiwaner 08:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? carol 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NYC_TotR_wide_ND.jpg[edit]

NYC TotR wide ND.jpg|

  • Nomination Wideangle view from TotR, including lower observation decks. --Dschwen 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Why is there so much noise in the shadows, especially towards the bottom of the picture? Thegreenj 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC),
    • because I lifted the shadows down there. Feel free to downsample from the original 24 Megapixels to 2 or 4 Megapixels for your review. --Dschwen 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI just thought it was curious that the mid-tones were so clean and the shadows so noisy. FWIW, I still see an unacceptable amounts of noise in the bottom at 2 and 4 MP (for those resolutions, of course), but the detail and composition make up for that. Thegreenj 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry Daniel, but the sky overexposure primarily and the noise secondarily combine for too much for me (despite the great composition). Dori 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great and detailed panoramic! An overexposed sky is allowed here because we look into the sun. I prefer this over some HDR processing. We use controlled overexposure and shallow DOF too rarely on Commons. --Ikiwaner 08:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Ikiwaner. The overexposure gives a sense of the real thing. Muhammad 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 00:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Trier Kurfuerstliches Palais BW 4.JPG[edit]

Trier Kurfuerstliches Palais BW 4.JPG200px

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Kurfürstliches Palais and Konstantinbasilika --Berthold Werner 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad HDR stitching, CA, unsharp. --Lestath 14:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentWhat should that mean "Bad HDR stitching". This is no HDR Picture! EXIF Data is correct for this. --Berthold Werner 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See on my example - I rounded that what I named "bad HDR stitching", additionally on the left side photo is unstarp and have CA. --Lestath 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Now i see it. You are right, looks like bad stiching, but the image isn't stichted in any way (Panorama or HDR or other). Very strange. --Berthold Werner 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the building is cropped at the left of this image. HDR tends to mean High Dynamic Range imaging when used to discuss and describe photographs here. What I "saw" in the photograph was too shallow of a focus range -- that the corner made by the buildings was sharp and nothing else was. I am wondering if the photograph was stitched at all and there is a chance that these are warps in the roof. -- carol 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I am wondering if there is a problem with the lens. If one of the elements were misaligned, it might produce an effect like this (unsharp corners, warped focal plane, chromatic abberation). Thegreenj 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? carol 13:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Huy_HdV_R02.jpg[edit]

Huy HdV R02.jpg

  • Nomination Huy (Belgium), town hall -- MJJR 20:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo tight crop on the sides, sorry. –Dilaudid 17:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC) --
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The main subject is completely visible and not too tight cropped IMO; the surrounding (and cropped out) buildings don't add a surplus value. -- MJJR 20:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good details, Building completely taken --Mbdortmund 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think the tight crop is a problem here as we don't necessarily want the other buildings intruding in the shot too much. Dori 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 13:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:NYC_Trinity_Church.jpg[edit]

NYC Trinity Church.jpg

  • Nomination Trinity Church, New York City. --Dschwen 01:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why not correcting perspective distortion here? --Sfu 08:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To much to correct and make it look natural, plus it has this looking up (to god) look. --Dschwen 12:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Two point perspective works well here. Thegreenj 13:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral There is a slight (0.3°) CW tilt. Not enough to oppose, but still. I agree with Thegreenj on the perspective here, though. Lycaon 07:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Not enough to oppose" but you still switch to discuss? --Dschwen 03:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yep, so that I can fully support when fixed. ;-). Lycaon 06:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd be fine with the perspective if it were symmetric, but it's too jarring to my eye. I don't think it's the leaning that's a problem. Dori 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Handheld lowlight exposure. It could be worse. -- carol 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Farmer City, IL.jpg[edit]

Farmer City, IL.jpg

  • Nomination Nothing glamorous, just filling blank spots on the map.. --Dschwen 00:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. Barabas 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A couple of dust spots in near to that ominous looking tower thing at the right. -- carol 05:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Removed some more dustbunnies. I'm not sure all shadowy parts on the wall are dust (comparing with dust locations in other images) so I'd rather not remove any more. --Dschwen 12:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • "dustbunnies" eh? -- carol (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't want to be there... --Mbdortmund 00:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Gnangarra 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ship in Oslo harbour.JPG[edit]

Ship in Oslo harbour.JPG

  • Nomination Ship in Oslo harbour --Pudelek 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support meets QI requirements --Mbdortmund 00:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Halos around trees on the left -- carol 05:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The halos a nearly not visible. I think picture is ok --Simonizer 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Triticum aestivum (ripe) 3.jpg[edit]

Triticum aestivum (ripe) 3.jpg

  • Nomination Triticum aestivum - Wheat field in Holland. -- Lycaon 12:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good resolution, maybe a tad overexposed. But still acceptable. --Dschwen 00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Foreground is too much overexposed. Guérin Nicolas 10:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe it is a little too bright in the foreground but i cant see any lost details caused by overexposure --Simonizer 01:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposure. Crapload 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Beyond silence 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Dschwen 03:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Schloss Weissenstein[edit]

Schloss Weissenstein weitwinkel

  • Nomination Schloß Weißenstein in Pommersfelden, Germany from Reinhard Kirchner. --Berthold Werner 11:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeBad stitching, moire visible. --Lestath 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why is the stitching bad? Just the statue on the right looks strange, the rest seems perfect to me. And moiré is more a sign of image quality than a reason to Decline. What disturbs me is dust on the sensor all over the image. --Ikiwaner 08:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment and there is a kind of wide - angle- distortion, in German we say "tonnenförmige Verzerrung", I cannot translate that --Mbdortmund 14:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info First I thought it is down to the use of cylindrical projection in the stitching process, but I do see barrel distortion "tonnenförmige Verzeichnung" as well. And alignment of verticals is dodgy, not only the virtual lense pointing slightly upwards. -- Klaus with K 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have seen better stitches than this. Looks to me as improper lense parameter handling. -- Klaus with K (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 03:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bishop's Peak3.jpg[edit]

Bishop's Peak3.jpg

  • Nomination Bishop Peak in San Luis Obispo, California. Basar 22:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment (At least) Two dust spots and the edges need cropping. -- carol 11:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think those little black things are Turkey Vultures which is why I didn't patch them over; we have a lot of them there; I could remove them anyway. Which edges do you think need cropping? Basar 16:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Both of the vertical edges had extra stuff on them. The little black spots are not what I was talking about. I originally thought that the spots I was seeing mostly in sky photographs was clone tool mark. I have seen evidence that it is probably dust spots on the lens. I saw a few areas in the sky of this image which have that quality to it. A dust spot on the lens would diffuse the light it was collecting from a distance. A clone tool could also make the same effect. -- carol (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand now. I fixed them, although I could only find one dust spot. Basar 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good photograph of one of California's two seasons. -- carol (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To unsharp, lacking detail. Lycaon 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • By 'too unsharp' do you mean I applied the unsharp filter too much? That may be as I did put it on the strong side of what I thought looked good. Also, did you mean to imply a causal relationship with lacking detail? Basar 21:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I can tell you this, from my point of view, I do not know if I have ever seen this particular pile of dirt or not -- but when looking at these things here, the amount of sharpness in this photograph is what I have seen. These crazy piles of dirt; they are green in the winter months and brown during all of the other months. Close up, the plants and tree that grow on these piles of dirt are also unsharp -- hard to the touch but unsharp in appearance. -- carol (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a little white line at the upper portion on the right side of this image -- clone tool can fix it but it is a sloppy crop problem. -- carol (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well I have uploaded a new version with unsharp applied differently - it shouldn't be as 'hard' now. Basar 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition and the colours. But there is a lack of detail (Lyacons sharpness issue). I don't think it's postprocessing it's the lens. --Ikiwaner 07:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Great, I think I understand now. Do you think this is something that can be ameliorated by lens settings (aperture, VR) or do you think it's just not a very good lens (it isn't). Unfortunately, I'm no longer near this subject, so I can't take it again, but I can try on other subjects. Basar 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Are your images consistantly this blurry? Given the distance of the subject and the aperture, you should be getting more sharpness. For stuff like this, where your subject is basically at infinity, I'd just set the lens to somewhere past hyperfocal distance (there may be markings on the lens to help estimate this), which I generally find more reliable than autofocus. Thegreenj 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe. I'm going to play around with the manual focus some to try to figure out the cause. Thanks. Basar 03:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharpness is not very good, but colours and composition are very nice -Pudelek 13:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is QI. The picture has to fulfil certain technical qualities and sharpness is one of them --Simonizer 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Basar 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tour NE de la bibliothèque François Mitterand[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of the French national library. --Romanceor 03:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Low noise, good sharpness, exposure, not tilted... Looks fine to me Benh 08:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeStill no Freedom of Panorama in France - Building is under the copyright of the architect. esby
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You shouldn't correct distortion in Photoshop because it just corrects the angles but not the shortening. Use Hugin instead. --Ikiwaner 15:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sesc Arsenal[edit]

Sesc Arsenal2.jpg

  • Nomination SESC Arsenal, a cultural center in Cuiabá, Brazil--Mateus Hidalgo 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Deep blue sky, sharp and clean, nice composition, good lighting... Benh 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral But deep blue is oversaturatied, I guess. I'd like more opinions. _Fukutaro 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sesc Arsenal3.jpg[edit]

Sesc Arsenal3.jpg

  • Nomination SESC Arsenal, a cultural center in Cuiabá, Brazil--Mateus Hidalgo 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline perspective should be corrected --Mbdortmund 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    If you notice on the door and inside the building you will see that the picture was not taken entirely in front. Still it would be necessary to correct the perspective? Mateus Hidalgo 01:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    shure, or is the roof of the building really falling down to the right? --Mbdortmund 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   -- carol 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sesc Arsenal8.jpg[edit]

Edited image

Symbol support vote.svg Support for the edit --Mbdortmund 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still seems barrel distorted to me. –Dilaudid 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yeah, you are probably correct about that; the opinion was needed before 21:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) though. Welcome to the world of the promotion of images that doesn't feel right to promote.... -- carol (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:BramaCP cropped.jpg[edit]

BramaCP cropped.jpg

  • Nomination Brandenburger Tor by night. Berlin, Germany by User:Cezary p --Sfu 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Well done! --Ukuthenga 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentMedium rare! The sky is quite noisey also.... -- carol 21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This issue is not so difficult to repair. -- carol 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it (exposure, composition) but it's very noisy, and a little on the soft side. Benh 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:La Coumasse-Pyrénées Orientales-Frankreich.jpg[edit]

La Coumasse-Pyrénées Orientales-Frankreich.jpg

  • Nomination Nice mountain lake --Tobi 87 09:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline seems to be a little bit tilt to the left --Mbdortmund 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Info I rotated the image 0.4 degrees clockwise. I think it is better. What do you think? --Tobi 87 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    I think, it's OK, good details, nice place --Mbdortmund 11:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This one has the blown out clouds; the one being discussed doesn't. Cute? carol 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    It's probably difficult to solve this problem better concerning this landscape --Mbdortmund 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have repaired Tobi 87 skies before (if I remember correctly). The inconsistency in the support is interesting this time. -- carol 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's very nice !!! but I think it's overexposed. Benh 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh. Especially clouds. _Fukutaro 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lake Michigan sand.jpg[edit]

Lake Michigan sand.jpg

  • Nomination Sand at a beach on Lake Michigan. --Dschwen 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose So pretty, but blurry at full resolution. --Specious 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC), ** Excuse me?! This is a 12MP image, given the resolution it is pretty sharp. Feel free to downsample to 2MP for your review. --Dschwen 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Downsampled to 2MP, still not too sharp, especially in the depressions. As the sand isn't going anywhere, I believe a higher quality image should be possible. --Specious 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't believe that. Check the new version. --Dschwen 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- carol 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me. Bidgee 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Love-Parade-08 406.JPG[edit]

Love-Parade-08 406.JPG

  • Nomination Dortmund, Love Parade 2008, dancers --Mbdortmund 12:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Not sure about this picture cause you can clearly see the logo, the name and the webadress of a firm. And it is part of the subject and not just accidentally on the picture --Simonizer 15:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • it was diffucult to take only one picture without marketing, the love parade is very commercial, I'm not shure, if this should be presented, what do you think? --Mbdortmund 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • My conclusion: If you look at our pictures of car racing there are many categories, where we accet names of commercial compagnies on the pictures, why not here? --Mbdortmund 22:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cause it is not a racecar with lots of advertisment on it. You see some Cartel employees (ok that's a guess) with Cartel T-Shirts and a Cartel podium with Cartel advertisment and nothing more. Dont know. Iam not an expert in this issues. Maybe we wait for some other opinions --Simonizer 01:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If the subject is to be the commercialness of this parade, more "brands" should be included. -- carol 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hans Majestet Kongens Garde - soldier.JPG[edit]

version 2

  • Nomination Royal Guardsman (Hans Majestet Kongens Garde) in Oslo --Pudelek 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline

Original

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like that the hands are cropped, what do the others think? --Mbdortmund 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment yes, hands are cropped, but I like this photo -Pudelek 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop. –Dilaudid 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I like the composition. --Kjetil r 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose could be trimmed on the sides and top for a tighter composition then the hands wouldnt be an issue. Gnangarra 07:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hans Majestet Kongens Garde - soldier-edited.JPG[edit]

version 2

  • Nomination Royal Guardsman (Hans Majestet Kongens Garde) in Oslo --Pudelek 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • maybe second version? --Pudelek 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the cropped version, its a tighter composition. Gnangarra 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition greatly improved. -- carol 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Panorama Bryce Canyon-Utah-USA.jpg[edit]

Panorama Bryce Canyon-Utah-USA.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Bryce Canyon from Bryce Point --Tobi 87 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is overexposed (red channel). Barabas 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - in my opinion it's OK --Pudelek
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have the same opinion --Simonizer 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looking at other pictures in the category, the color does not seem unnatural. Ianare 05:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cap Béar-Pyrénées Orientales-Frankreich.jpg[edit]

Cap Béar-Pyrénées Orientales-Frankreich.jpg

  • Nomination rough Mediterranean coast at Cap Béar --Tobi 87 09:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support meets QI requirements --Mbdortmund 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clouds are overexposed. -- Barabas 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good--Beyond silence 16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photograph would be greatly improved with the boat at the bottom cropped out. -- carol 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good Ianare 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:MachuPicchu Residential (pixinn.net).jpg[edit]

MachuPicchu Residential (pixinn.net).jpg

  • Nomination Machu Picchu, Peru. Residential section. Blur on the foreground was on purpose ;) --XtoF 22:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • You said foreground stones were blured on your purpose, then, in that case stones shading main subject on beyond that, so bad composition?? _Fukutaro 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the composition, because the building in the foreground can be seen as an example for the buildings in the background; blur is not so strong --Mbdortmund 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 00:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp! --Beyond silence 16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not crazy about the composition, but not opposed either. Quality is good. Ianare 05:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is a good portion of the quality status of an image. -- carol 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cinderella Castle and Wishes 2.jpg[edit]

Cinderella Castle and Wishes 2.jpg

  • Nomination The Wishes fireworks at Walt Disney World. --Bdesham 20:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted. _Fukutaro 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC) problem was fixed. _Fukutaro 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it is OK --Mbdortmund 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The perspective on the castle probably made it look tilted. I've rotated it 2.1° clockwise; how does it look now? --Bdesham 21:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to be OK know --Mbdortmund 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting photo! Bidgee 17:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Reflections of Earth 7.jpg[edit]

Reflections of Earth 7.jpg

  • Nomination The Reflections of Earth fireworks at Walt Disney World. --Bdesham 16:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted. _Fukutaro 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC) problem was fixed. _Fukutaro 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I can't see it… which way is it tilted? --Bdesham 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
      • As for as see the behind castle in this and above images, I can see that both of images a bit leaning to the left. _Fukutaro (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I've rotated it clockwise by 0.3°. What do you think now? --Bdesham 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 23:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bamberg Obere Pfarre BW[edit]

Bamberg Obere Pfarre BW 1.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Bamberg, Obere Pfarre --Berthold Werner 13:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image. Mateus Hidalgo 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't agree, it's not bad, but is it worth QI ? lighting could be better, and it's very soft on the borders. Is it perspective corrected ? Tight crop as well. Benh 21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- carol 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The lens distortion and colour aberrations were quite strong and not corrected. I fixed this. The perspective was/is corrected about 30°. Personnally I try to avoid such high perspective corrections because the church towers start looking unnatural then (see my ugly example). Better use either a more distant viewpoint or a high tripod or be bold and crop the tower (see my better example). --Ikiwaner 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Renominate new version. -- carol 21:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)