# Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2008

Jump to: navigation, search

## Consensual review

### Bower in park in Tarnowskie Góry.

• Nomination Bower in park in Tarnowskie Góry. --Lestath 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment Hm, quite a bit of CA in the upper part. --Dschwen 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support - enough for QI -Pudelek 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• Nomination Discovery World museum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dori 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose IMHO this needs a perspectivic adjustment --Berthold Werner 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Oppose Needs perspective correction, the buildings look like they weren't built straight. --Dilaudid 09:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
•  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:Tawny frogmouth wholebody444.jpg

• Nomination Tawny Frogmouth at night Benjamint444 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Below 2MP, looks like unnecessary downsampling. --Dschwen 13:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Oppose Overprocessed. Lycaon 10:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• Nomination Statues of Reims Cathedral. Vassil 08:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn
•  Support Meets Quality Image Guidelines--Mifter 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  I withdraw my nomination Vassil 09:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

### Baumweissling

• Nomination Baumweissling (Aporia crataegi) --Richard Bartz 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion
•  Oppose Insects ruin this perfectly good photograph of a flower. -- carol 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Beautiful image, I also support promoting as QI. Chmehl 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Flower ruins this perfectly good photograph of a flower :-) Thegreenj 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• 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)  Comment Fixed --Richard Bartz 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

### Image: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)  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

• 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)
•  Oppose The bird is flattened and its colours distorted by flash. –Dilaudid 04:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

### Image:Dicentra-spectabilis.jpg

• Nomination bloom of Dicentra spectabilis --Wuzur 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion
•  Support Good quality --Simonizer 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, don't agree. There are some disturbing haloes. Lycaon 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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

• Nomination Mumford Hall, University of Illinois. --Dschwen 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion
•  Oppose I very much dislike the composition and the building appears to be tilted, sorry.--Massimo Catarinella 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

•  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)
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)
•  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

• Nomination Budapest from the Gellért Hill Chmehl 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion
•  Support Nice panorama of a beautiful city! --Massimo Catarinella 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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

• 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)
• I wonder why I didn't see this. I reworked the image and uploaded a new version. --א 09:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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

|

• Nomination PJ Harvey in concert --Adamantios 20:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  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)
•  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

• Nomination Main Street Rail Station, Disneyland, France - Alvesgaspar 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Building cut of f--Massimo Catarinella 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• So what? -- Alvesgaspar 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I can see that slightly tilt...? _Fukutaro 14:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• Nomination Helberds --Lestath 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion
•  Oppose Not sharp --Massimo Catarinella 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
•  InfoFocus is on the helberds and photo is sharp. --Lestath 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• Nomination Tenement house on the Powstańców Warszawskich Street in Bytom. --Lestath 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion
•  Comment Needs perspective correction. --Dilaudid 10:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Perspective corrected and geocoded. --Lestath 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support promoted Gnangarra 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)<
•  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

• Nomination: Zbigniew Oleśnicki Bishop of Krakow as founder of bursary in the Jagiellonian University. --Lestath 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Review
•  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)
•  Support Is ok for QI --Berthold Werner 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• 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)
•  Oppose Nice picture but underexposed IMO --Pom² 10:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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

• 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)

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

• 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)
•  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:Bytom - Ul. Powstańców Warszawskich 01.jpg

• Nomination: Tenement house on the Powstańców Warszawskich Street in Bytom. --Lestath 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Review
•  Comment Needs perspective correction. --Dilaudid 10:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Perspective corrected and geocoded. --Lestath 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support promoted Gnangarra 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)<
•  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:Apricots real.jpg

• Nomination Apricots, beautiful in their non-uniform real appearance. -- carol 05:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Unsharp, too shallow DOF. –Dilaudid 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment If they were "sharp" they would be "nectarines". -- carol 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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

• Nomination Helberds --Lestath 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Not sharp --Massimo Catarinella 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
•  InfoFocus is on the helberds and photo is sharp. --Lestath 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Seems OK --Nevit 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• Nomination Mumford Hall, University of Illinois. --Dschwen 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose I very much dislike the composition and the building appears to be tilted, sorry.--Massimo Catarinella 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

•  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)
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)
•  Support Certainly meets QI requirements. Chmehl 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Please renominate a version to end this confusion. Lycaon 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose This did little to help with the problem. -- carol (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sigh, I'm going to  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

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

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

• Nomination Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Germany --Berthold Werner 15:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good exposure. --Dschwen 15:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support can't see something "bad" --Simonizer 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 20:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  Oppose Chromatic aberration --Massimo Catarinella 14:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Beyond silence 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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: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
•  Support Le sujet principal est clair et n'est pas surexposé. --S23678 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much overexposed highlights. Lycaon 11:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• Nomination Hydrosaurus amboinensis (Schlosser, 1768) in the zoo of Wrocław (Poland) --Guérin Nicolas 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Bon focus, aucune sur/sous-exposition --S23678 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I discern a greenish cast. Lycaon 11:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The rocks aren't all green. -- carol 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)

|

### Image:Trier Kurfuerstliches Palais BW 4.JPG

• Nomination Germany, Trier, Kurfürstliches Palais and Konstantinbasilika --Berthold Werner 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Bad HDR stitching, CA, unsharp. --Lestath 14:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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)

### Schloss Weissenstein

• Nomination Schloß Weißenstein in Pommersfelden, Germany from Reinhard Kirchner. --Berthold Werner 11:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  OpposeBad stitching, moire visible. --Lestath 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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

• Nomination Bishop Peak in San Luis Obispo, California. Basar 22:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment (At least) Two dust spots and the edges need cropping. -- carol 11:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  Support Good photograph of one of California's two seasons. -- carol (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  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)
•  Support sharpness is not very good, but colours and composition are very nice -Pudelek 13:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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

• Nomination Tower of the French national library. --Romanceor 03:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Low noise, good sharpness, exposure, not tilted... Looks fine to me Benh 08:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
•  OpposeStill no Freedom of Panorama in France - Building is under the copyright of the architect. esby
•  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)

### Image: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: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)
•  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)
•  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

• 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)  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)
•  Oppose It's very nice !!! but I think it's overexposed. Benh 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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: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)
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

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

Original

•  Oppose I don't like that the hands are cropped, what do the others think? --Mbdortmund 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment yes, hands are cropped, but I like this photo -Pudelek 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Crop. –Dilaudid 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, I like the composition. --Kjetil r 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)

### Bamberg Obere Pfarre BW

• Nomination Germany, Bamberg, Obere Pfarre --Berthold Werner 13:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good image. Mateus Hidalgo 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)