Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 06 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Andarríos_Patiamarillo_(Tringa_flavipes),_Potter_marsh,_Alaska,_Estados_Unidos,_2017-08-22,_DD_137.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), Potter marsh, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 09:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice picture, but too noisy. --Rbrechko 02:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
600 mm, living animal, yes, there is some noise but if not in this kind of shot where? --Poco a poco 18:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Considering the distance and the conditions, I'd say this one is OK. The composition is good, the loss of detail not significant and the sharpness is fair.--Peulle 07:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - The quality is arguable but I'm on the "support" side, especially with the nice reflection and good composition. -- Ikan Kekek 08:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Fine composition. --Palauenc05 22:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and not too noisy for me -- Spurzem 17:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find it too noisy either --Trougnouf 23:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise is on the high side (this camera is not really the best choice for high-ISO-shots), but regarding the rather high resolution absolutely tolerable. Nice lighting, good composition, good sharpness, reasonable colours. --Smial 07:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ISO500 is not high Smial and I can't see any problem in using this body. Charlesjsharp 17:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Compare shots from the 5D R above ISO400 with other modern cameras with less resolution and you may see, what I mean. The "R" model has rapidly increasing noise especially in dark areas and rapidly looses dynamic, if used above native sensitivity. Nice body, though, but somewhat special, not an allrounder. Btw: If downscaled to (for wildlife photos) still acceptable 4 to 6 MPixels, the noise could be reduced. I myself prefer images without blurring noise reduction and you have seen, I voted "support" despite some noise? --Smial 09:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for QI though perhaps White Balance needs adjustment. Charlesjsharp 17:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)