Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2009

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Entrance to Wellington Park, Somerset -resized.jpg[edit]

Entrance to Wellington Park, Somerset -resized.jpg

  • Nomination Garden entrance panorama Maedin 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Huge, really huge (~ 19Mb), but nice --High Contrast 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose some chromatic aberration, but mainly because of the heavy distortion (i.e. look at the garbage can) --Ianare 17:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Any idea how I can fix it, if it can be fixed? I have the original RAW files, but I did a manual exposure blend . . . without the blend, the whole thing would be useless, :-) Maedin 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Not very good with pano's, sorry. I usually just play around with the settings in Hugin ;-) --Ianare 22:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've replaced with a cropped version—the distorted bin is gone. Maedin 09:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 10:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still to much CA and distortion (particularly right hand side). Lycaon 15:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Lycaon, did you notice the distorted girl in the alley? Also, next time try not to center the composition -- Alvesgaspar 07:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I did notice the girl, but I didn't think she was distorted! She was a bit heavy, after all. The centreing was accidental. Thank you for the feedback, guys, hopefully I can improve on this in the future, :-) Maedin 11:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Re-stitched with a different projection; distortion gone, plus 3 stitching errors fixed. Maedin 12:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why don't we have a category for really distorted people? ;-} --Mbdortmund 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A beautiful picture! Once again someone gets punished for uploading a high res image. At full screen there is no CA visible and thus the technical quality good. I also disagree with Alvesgaspar: For panoramics is's normal to have a centered composition. But strongly dislike the HDR algorithm applied. The radius is too big so there are obvious halos in the sky around the trees. --Ikiwaner 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments; you don't see CA or distortion now because I've uploaded a new version with a better projection . . . I made a stitching error before. You're right about the halos, of course, which I don't know how to fix or to avoid, :-/ Maedin 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's much better now, it might be opportune to withdraw this whole box and to renominate. Lycaon 19:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be declined for halos? Maedin 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Dunno, guess you'd have to try ;-). Lycaon 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Maedin 12:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ingelborchtoren.jpg[edit]

Ingelborchtoren.jpg

  • Nomination Mediaeval bastion in Kortrijk, Belgium--Szilas 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition --Mbdortmund 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice but there is a .75° CW tilt. Lycaon 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Lycaon 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How did you mesure that? --Mbdortmund 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info You can get a vertical between a point and its reflection in still water. I find .78° CW. --Eusebius 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • thx --Mbdortmund 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -I adjusted the tilt by 0,76 ccw. Thank you for your remarks.--Szilas 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Cuscuta europaea (flowers).jpg[edit]

Cuscuta europaea (flowers).jpg

  • Nomination Cuscuta europaea. Lycaon 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor DOF --Ianare 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment DOF is indeed not too big but this is a flower of a just a few mm wide (comparable to the eye of a large bee). It is a chlorophyll-less parasite, here on stinging nettle (Urtica major) of which you can see the inflorescences. Lycaon 10:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that some areas are close to being overexposed, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a higher F-stop. Fascinating plant, BTW. --ianaré (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unreasonable: no, unfeasable: yes (it's only 877 km single leg from where I live ;-)). Lycaon 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Monument Valley 02.jpg[edit]

Monument Valley 02.jpg

  • Nomination Merrick Butte, Monument Valley --Bgag 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Significant tilt to the horizon and I think that the lighting-photo angle could be much more flattering to the subject - Peripitus 02:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't agree, I think the picture is not tilted. --Bgag 03:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some online research learns that the horizon is actually sloping, so no significant tilt. Lycaon 07:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me --Ltshears 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ianare 07:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Stereogram Tut Random Dot Shark.png[edit]

Stereogram Tut Random Dot Shark.png

  • Nomination Random dot autostereogram --Fredhsu 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose below size requirement --Ianare 00:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Ianare is right, of course, about the small size. But this autostereogram works perfectly at that size! Do we need other standards for autostereograms? -- MJJR 21:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment MJJR has a point: it simply doesn't work at huge sizes ... Lycaon 21:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fredhsu 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you all for reviewing. Apologies if I am breaking rules by commenting. I am OK if you reject this entry now. I can eventually create a new image at higher-resolution for printing purposes and re-submit (yes the current size works fine when shown on LCD).
  • I was going to mention that at current size it is not suitable for print. Would be happy to support at higher resolution. --Ianare 07:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Cow udders.jpg[edit]

Cow udders.jpg

  • Nomination Udders of a cow --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Comments please --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral difficult,technically good, but strange crop --Mbdortmund 01:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm going to be picky because cows are common subjects, and say that the foreground flowers are a bit of a distraction. Maedin 19:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That cow sure looks dirty. --Ltshears 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, but composition could be better (the flowers are distracting) --Ianare 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Caesarea maritima BW 1.JPG[edit]

Caesarea maritima BW 1.JPG

  • Nomination Caesarea Maritima --Berthold Werner 12:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very low contrast makes the image look rather dull. Perhaps with some post-processing work ? - Peripitus 02:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps better? --Berthold Werner 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Offterdinger Rotkappchen (1).jpg[edit]

Offterdinger Rotkappchen (1).jpg

  • Nomination fairy tale illustration --Harke 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • To be promoted to QI, the creator must be a Wikipedian. --Afrank99 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Not possible, artist died 1889! --Harke 10:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is this a photo or a scan ? --Ianare 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a photo (both files --Harke 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
Exif. :-)-- Pro2 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The yellow/orange cloud was certainly not in the original painting. Yann 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think so? --Mbdortmund 19:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't match the general tone of the image, and I have seen such spots often in old books. Yann 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I had a closer look at the original. I think Yann is right, it is probably a kind of a decolorisation or dirt.--Harke (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:St Thomas Marriott Iguana 6.jpg[edit]

St Thomas Marriott Iguana 6.jpg

  • Nomination Iguana by sea at St. Thomas. --Fredhsu 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment seems like the picture could use a little gamma. --Afrank99 06:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is ok like this --High Contrast 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it should be fully identified and I'm not too keen on the cropped tail and legs. Lycaon 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Lycaon. --Bgag 17:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Species identified. A different image shows more leg. Yet another has everything but head and dorsal spikes cropped. Fredhsu (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I nominated them. --Mbdortmund 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Serious white balance issues --Wilder Kaiser 05:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Maedin 12:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:SuperC - frontal.jpg[edit]

SuperC - frontal.jpg

  • Nomination SuperC in Aachen, Germany --Euku 20:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject is cut off. Maedin 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Otherwise this part will be coverted by the tree. --Euku 10:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tree or not, the frame still cuts off an edge of the roof. The frame should be big enough to accommodate the whole building, even if it is partially obscured by trees. Maedin 11:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Subject cut off, extreme distortion, poor composition -- Alvesgaspar 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DorotaRabczewska.jpg[edit]

DorotaRabczewska.jpg

  • Nomination Dorota Rabczewska (Doda). Kpalion 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the shot for the most part but can't support due to her finger being cut off --Ianare 08:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral i think i was overly harsh in my judgemnt --Ianare 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support you really care about the finger in a portrait? --Afrank99 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I find it distracting in this case. --Ianare 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. And I love how you can see the crowd in the reflection in her sunglasses. Maedin 19:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Did you try noise reduction? Yann 19:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't try that on this image, surprisingly low noise for ISO 800 IMHO, although details are already on the short side, so I think (very good balanced) noise reduction has already been applied. --Afrank99 06:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Adansonia grandidieri 02.jpg[edit]

Adansonia grandidieri 02.jpg

  • Nomination Adansonia grandidieri, Madagascar --Bgag 03:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs reprocessing: there is a weird line underneath the left main branch. Lycaon 17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You're right. I have imported a better version. --Bgag 00:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine now. Lycaon 06:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pro2 13:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Plantago media (inflorescense).jpg[edit]

Plantago media (inflorescense).jpg

  • Nomination Plantago media. Lycaon 10:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad focus --Romanceor 12:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Main parts of the flowers are in focus. Lycaon 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It was DOF I was talking about. My mistake. --Romanceor 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm inclined to agree with Romanceor, the DOF is way too shallow. Maedin 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Maedin 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Gaisbergrennen 2009 Bergfahrt 127.jpg[edit]

Gaisbergrennen 2009 Bergfahrt 127.jpg

  • Nomination Denzel 1500 (1955) at Gaisbergrennen Gaisbergrennen 2009. (by User:MatthiasKabel) --High Contrast 08:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Mbdortmund 11:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ...but it's tilted (see the guard rail) and composition is, well, special. --Afrank99 12:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't see a tilt (road may be sloping, but that can't be judged from this photo). Lycaon 06:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well I see the tilt. The vertical iron things aren't vertical enough. --Romanceor 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If they were vertical, the road would be sloping the wrong way and all the cars would miss there bend and go over the edge... So the image can't be tilted that way! Lycaon 21:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Didn't think about that. --Romanceor 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Lycaon. Yann 08:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Maedin 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Cobblestone reparing.jpg[edit]

Cobblestone reparing.jpg

  • Nomination Cobblestone repairing in Paris. --Romanceor 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Yann 20:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy (and it is not the dust). Lycaon 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionWhat about this new version ? --Romanceor 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose underexposed. --Afrank99 12:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionWhat about this new version ? --Romanceor 08:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Not yet the exposure level I would move it to, but better. --Afrank99 06:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, meets the criteria. --High Contrast 13:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think after those two corrections, it is fine now. Maedin 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Cycliste à place d'Italie-Paris.jpg[edit]

Cycliste à place d'Italie-Paris.jpg

  • Nomination Cyclist in Place d'Italie, Paris. --Romanceor 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy --Ianare 06:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionWhat about it now ? --Romanceor 12:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately denoising removed too much detail. --Ianare 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the colors. Yann 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Ianaré, the de-noising has removed detail and texture. I really like the picture, otherwise, is it possible to re-process from raw . . . maybe try a little less de-noising with some downsampling? Maedin 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Reprocessing, yep, but please do not advocate downsampling: that's akin to throwing away part of your image. Lycaon 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Maedin 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:PredniKopaninaRotunda.jpg[edit]

PredniKopaninaRotunda.jpg

  • Nomination Romanesque church/rotunda in Predni Kopanina, Prague, Czech republic --Vavrik 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Berthold Werner 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs a crop left bottom and some NR in the sky. Lycaon 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So I tried to crop and denoise it. Is it better? --Vavrik 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It is ;-). Lycaon 22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --Mbdortmund 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 13:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mystery Valley, Arizona.jpg[edit]

Mystery Valley, Arizona.jpg

  • Nomination Mystery Valley, Arizona --Bgag 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise reduction seems to have erased lots of detail. Lycaon 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it better now? --Bgag 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Belazao 01.jpg[edit]

Belazao 01.jpg
  • Nomination Village of Belazao, Madagascar --Bgag 16:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. --Romanceor 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to have other opinions. --Bgag 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 13:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Danube in Ritopek, Serbia.jpg[edit]

Danube in Ritopek, Serbia.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic image of Danube pictured in Ritopek, suburb of Belgrade. --Lošmi 03:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good details and correct exposure. Yann 10:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are some disturbing stitching errors to be fixed. Lycaon 21:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't see these errors, but Lycaon is right. Yann 22:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yeah, now I see one on the right side of the horizon. I'll try to fix it. Do you see some others? --Lošmi (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is another one right of the pylon at 37.2% from the left ;-). Lycaon 17:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Very precise description :) Thanks. --Lošmi 02:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
While you are tackling the stitches, could you have a look at the banding too? There is some slight banding giving the impression of local rain showers. Lycaon 07:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed those errors, and reduced some banding, I think. I replaced file with this newer version. --Lošmi 08:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine now. Lycaon 11:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry for coming in with oppose, but I still see vertical banding/posterisation about 10-15 percent from the right in the white cloud. Also I think some vignetting still shows through. It is a nice view, and I regret to see that panoramic software issues let you down. Personally I am using Hugin and at least since version 0.7.0 the quirks you got are non-issues for me. -- Klaus with K 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've tried the program you recommended, but the result I got is highly posterized image (with default settings applied). Maybe I should read some tutorials, but I don't have time for that now. I've fixed what I could with PS, and replaced image with a new version. Cheers. --Lošmi 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 13:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Offterdinger Rotkappchen (2).jpg[edit]

Offterdinger Rotkappchen (2).jpg

  • Nomination fairy tale illustration --Harke 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To be promoted to QI, the creator must be a Wikipedian. --Afrank99 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not possible, artist died 1889!--Harke 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is this a photo or a scan ? --Ianare 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What are the horizontal lines, mainly visible in the red? Yann 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I cannot see it --Harke 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • See File:Lines on red.jpg. Yann 13:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC) -- Thanks, I see it also in the original book. Intention or defect?-I do not know.--Harke 17:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks OK for me --Mbdortmund 13:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as Afrank99. --Romanceor 12:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice modern photo of ancient ;-) illustration. I believe, the rules do not work in this case --George Chernilevsky 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 13:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Sciurus vulgaris Suomi-e.jpg[edit]

Sciurus vulgaris Suomi-e.jpg

  • Nomination Red squirrel --Miraceti 18:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support I wouldn't crop so tight, but still lovely. Yann 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sweet for sure, but could use some more contrast/saturation. --Afrank99 19:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sure about crop, DOF and even white balance. Lycaon 09:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Lycaon and Afrank99. Maedin 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Maedin 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Church Mylau - side 2009 (aka).jpg[edit]

Church Mylau - side 2009 (aka).jpg

  • Nomination Church Mylau -- Pro2 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Hard to tell, but looks a little distorted --Ianare 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support In my view ok --High Contrast 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support good impression of the building --Mbdortmund 19:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support works very well for me --AngMoKio 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support good. In my view, promote --George Chernilevsky 13:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Maedin 18:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Parisian dog walker.jpg[edit]

Parisian dog walker.jpg

  • Nomination Parisian dog walker. --Romanceor 15:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI like colours and atmosphere but perspektive should be corrected --Mbdortmund 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I don't understand what I should do to correct the perspective ? Is it tilt you mean ? --Romanceor 17:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      the vertical lines on the walls are tilt to the left, and this tilt seems to be stronger on the left part of the picture, that's why I think the perspective should be corrected --Mbdortmund 23:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI think this is optical illusion due to angle of shot because photoshop's 'repères' doesn't indicate any tilt on any vertical line. --Romanceor 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment just to show what I mean, I'll delete the copy tomorrow, red lines are vertical File:Parisian dog walker copy.jpg --Mbdortmund 15:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Oooops. I was looking my file and not the one online... it's obiously tilted, I corrected.--Romanceor 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Mbdortmund 17:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is still a significant noise issue. Lycaon 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Yann 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not sure what to call it technically, but some of the edges have been degraded. Look, for example, at where the lady's scarf meets her coat. Was this caused by excessive noise reduction? Maedin 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very good view, like impressionistic painting... by technically is not perfect. --George Chernilevsky 07:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Maedin 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Laughing Kookaburra 2.JPG[edit]

Laughing Kookaburra 2.JPG

  • Nomination Un martin-chasseur géant, by Ymaup 9:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo of bird in wild --George Chernilevsky 18:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown higlights on main subject. Lycaon 20:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An area of the breast is definitely blown. Shame, otherwise very nice. Maedin 18:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it so bad ?
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, yes, actually. Small areas of blown highlights can be excused in, say, clouds, but usually unacceptable on the subject itself, especially if the subject is animalia, on which you would require no loss of detail. There isn't a lot of room to compromise in this situation. All aspects of colour and feather detail have been lost in the blown areas, and that's not ok, :-) Maedin 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 11:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Jackson Creek3.JPG[edit]

Jackson Creek3.JPG

  • Nomination Jackson Creek, a tributary of Sprout Creek, in Dutchess County, New York. Juliancolton 05:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --Ianare 12:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 3.4° CCW tilt. Looks also slightly overexposed. Lycaon 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    I attempted to fix the tilt, not sure if it's good enough though. Thanks. Juliancolton 20:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It does seem far too bright. The ground is almost bleached. Can you tone down the exposure from RAW? I don't see a problem now with tilt, btw. Maedin 18:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good water, but overexposed. In my view, decline. --George Chernilevsky 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Dragonfly June 2009-2.jpg[edit]

Dragonfly June 2009-2.jpg

  • Nomination A male dragonfly (Onychogomphus sp.) -- Alvesgaspar 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What with an insect? The eye is damaged and a green drop on the wing. It still live? --George Chernilevsky 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was alive. I have no idea what the green drop is or why the eye is damaged Alvesgaspar 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A studio shot? I don't understand the lighting and shadows. But a most remarkable find, this insect appears to be a hybrid with pairs of wings on each side from different, but related insects ? It is possibly my ignorance, but I expect insect wing vein patterns to be the same on each side.
    Difference left & right wings
    Apart from the differences in size of the two pairs of wings and other details which might somehow be put down to angles, twisting etc, I have highlighted two examples of details that I think ought to be the same, but have the sort of differences that distinguish different sub-species. So I don't know what is going on, its not April 1st, is this a test? Is there a local lad who pulls wings off dragonflies then glues them back together and sets them free? I oppose on the grounds of undisclosed manipulation of this reviewers mind ;-) --Tony Wills 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- This is not a studio shot, the dragonfly was alive when the shot was taken and the output was not manipulated in any way. Also, I'm not a pupil of Dr. Frankensein and genetic manipulation to produce freak creatures is not my speciality. I'm confident it is a male Onychogomphus sp. but can't go further with the id. Yes, the lighting could be better and the background is horrible, but that doesn't affect the clear depiction of the body and wings. -- Alvesgaspar 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, there is no sign of stitches holding it together :-). My incorrect assumption was fueled by my trying to identify wasp species where such differences were very significant. I do wonder whether they have green blood because that large area of green gunk coincides with a badly deformed part of the wing where the vein edges are crinkled and curved - perhaps George is right, he has been in a war. --Tony Wills 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    Difference left & right wings
    See this dragonfly diffirent shape wings.
    Wing vein patterns is small difference like fingerprints. If this photo really in the wild, maybe, is a rare? --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Detail
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I presumed you're not talking about the damaged and malformed edges, so I again looked at the fine detail of the cells. And you are absolutely right, in fact there are many, many small differences - the total number of cells seems to be the same, but their shape and how they connect varies a lot. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fine structures --Mbdortmund 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment :) The green drop is a mark for the destroyed enemy plane fighter (other dragonfly), like to a star or cross on a fuselage. --George Chernilevsky 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?
--George Chernilevsky 06:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Libellula quadrimaculata-1 (by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Libellula quadrimaculata-1 (by).jpg

  • Nomination Libellula quadrimaculata eyes --ComputerHotline 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Very small DOF, only one eye in focus. --George Chernilevsky 05:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ---- I have focused only the head of the insect. --ComputerHotline 06:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The first promotion was without a word of an eye. If You want to offer only photo of the eye, You should cut off some of this photo. In my view, decline :-(. Sorry, I know, that is it heavy job and rarity photo --George Chernilevsky 06:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sharp area approximate 230 000 pixels (0.2 Mp), but total photo 12 Mega pixels. Overall sharp size is less, than 2 percents. I still, it not quality photo :-(. With best regards to Author, but I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --George Chernilevsky 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A similar problem to others in CR. I think if there is only a small area in focus, then there is a composition problem. In this case I would crop to highlight the area of the head and wing in focus (approx 2000x1500px area), then it may possibly be ok for QI, although DOF still marginal. --Tony Wills 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Cetonia aurata on Crataegus monogyna (head).jpg[edit]

Cetonia aurata on Crataegus monogyna (head).jpg

  • Nomination Cetonia aurata. Lycaon 22:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion The sun reflection(?) spoils the image for me.--Mbz1 18:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah right, try to picture a metallic coloured insect without any reflections :-(. Lycaon 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Well, there at least three options a) take a picture on a cloudy day, b) close the sun with something c) correct the problem in PS.--Mbz1 19:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportDOF a bit shallow but otherwise OK. The reflection are caused by the nature of the object and look like this in reality, too. --Mbdortmund 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good! --kallerna 13:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low DOF, distracting reflection, harsh lighting.--Mbz1 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Highlights are normal for reflective surfaces. In fact this is a way to characterize such surfaces. --LC-de 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't have a problem with the reflection, and exposure is ok, although the white flowers are a bit bright. I do have a problem with the subject (perhaps call it a composition problem), it doesn't actually show the head very well. The head is partially obscured and lighting/focus not the best. The image shows the thorax detail very well. So an attractive photo, and a quality image of the insects thorax? --Tony Wills 23:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support LC-de has said it. --Estrilda 09:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For better quality must be corrected in PhotoShop: colour balance (reduce yellow) and clear shadow of movement (see back of insect). Reflections are normal --George Chernilevsky 18:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 13:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Portofino Panorama.jpg[edit]

Portofino Panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view over Portofino, Italy. --Blackfalcon 20:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition. -- Simisa
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown sky. Lycaon 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture! Ibanez92 22:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy, small vertical size --Ianare 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not good enough -- Pro2 05:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed sky, reflection on water in middle plus white cloud above create the feeling of a stitching error, large powerboats on the left block too much of the panorama -- Justsail 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think it is a stitching error, so much as different exposure settings between images. Does the camera have a panorama setting, or can you hold the exposure contant between shots? --Tony Wills 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown sky, overexposed. --George Chernilevsky 12:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 12:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

File:GIPE25 - etamines (by-sa).jpg[edit]

GIPE25 - etamines (by-sa).jpg

  • Nomination Lilium flower --ComputerHotline 14:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1)Doesn't seem that this image was created by a Wikipedian (or Commonadian). 2)No description --D-Kuru 01:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ---- This user has already some Quality images. --ComputerHotline 14:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm usually no guideline guy, but Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Creator says "Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status." --D-Kuru 23:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If the photographer already has QI images here, but is not registered here, then the cleanest thing to do is get them to create an account (an opportunity to get a good photographer onboard :-). Otherwise previous QI promotions are a mistake and should be corrected. --Tony Wills 12:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I support Tony Wills and D-Kuru. No Wikimedian and no description. --George Chernilevsky 13:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Maedin 13:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

File:Lupine_R01.jpg[edit]

Lupine R01.jpg

  • Nomination Lupinus -- MJJR 20:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Very nice but needs a full species name. Lycaon 21:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Unfortunately, I'm not a botanist; who can help with the species name? -- MJJR 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info My guess is Lupinus perennis --Tony Wills 04:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support No one seems to object to my tentative id, so I take it that it is not a gross error :-) --Tony Wills 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 12:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

File:2008-05-24 34 Skógafoss.jpg[edit]

2008-05-24 34 Skógafoss.jpg

  • Nomination Landscape of Iceland. (by User:Simisa) --High Contrast 07:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine! --LC-de 16:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of CA, especially in the waterfall. Lycaon 06:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unhappy composition: is broken off half-and-half with sun and shadow. With it colour balance error and other problems exist --George Chernilevsky 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Maedin 12:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Killdeer on nest (Charadrius vociferus).jpg[edit]

Killdeer on nest (Charadrius vociferus).jpg

  • Nomination Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) on nest containing four eggs.--JMSchneid 18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Did you try to turn it a bit darker? --Mbdortmund 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did a slight levels adjustment. Do you think it needs to be darker?--JMSchneid 19:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)<
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I can't promote (stimulate) nest photography. Lycaon 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry I didn't know that photographing the nest was inappropriate--JMSchneid 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a biological thing. Sometimes birds do not return to their nests when it was disturbed. So even when you took great care to make a picture of this nesting, others may take this as an example and be careless. Nothing personal meant. Lycaon 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I accept Lycaons point of view but think that he is not judging the special case; JMSchneid used a 200 mm and if hi has quit the place carefully the picture is IMHO acceptable. --Mbdortmund 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand Lycaon's concern about the nest, and for the same reason I would probably not support it for FP. But as a QI it is acceptable. Maedin 07:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This story has a happy ending, but as Lycaon pointed out that is not always the case. All eggs hatched and the young are now running around with their parents. This nest was located in a community vegetable garden. After the birds left the nest the gardner reclaimed the spot by planting a tomato plant. I knew of two nests in the garden and in both cases the birds had become accustom to the gardeners. They would sit on the nest with the gardener working close to the nest.--JMSchneid 02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good shot --George Chernilevsky 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Maedin 12:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Ophrys tenthredinifera (inflorescense).jpg[edit]

Ophrys tenthredinifera (inflorescense).jpg

  • Nomination Ophrys tenthredinifera. Lycaon 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline An easy not moving subject with more than a half of it out of focus.--Mbz1 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    That's what macrophotography does with a tiny but relatively thick object. Did you notice there are even single cells visible on this image? Moreover, windy conditions often preclude slower shutter speeds.
    something wrong with the signature here. Back to the subject. If at least the whole Labellum were in focus, but it is not.--Mbz1 19:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, the difficulty of macro photography in the field! The detail is good, but the low depth of field really means it can not be described as a good photo of the flower as a whole, you could crop the image to just highlight the in focus detail, but those parts are really in isolated regions around the edges so you still end up with most of the image out of focus --Tony Wills 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the photo is QI. --Estrilda 09:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality: the part that is more or less in focus is only a fraction of size requirement.--Mbz1 15:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not what Mbz1 said, the quality is fine. But the dof is too shallow. The parts that are in focus are lovely though, :-) Maedin 16:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Maedin 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Dennheritz - panoramic view (aka).jpg[edit]

Dennheritz - panoramic view (aka).jpg

  • Nomination Dennheritz in Saxony, Germany. (created by aka) --D-Kuru 02:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you please do some noise-removal on the sky and also remove the two dust spots? Otherwise ok. Maedin 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The guys from the "Fotowerkstatt" say that this image does not need to be corrected. The translated quote would be: You would offend the author (if you would try to fix whatever) --D-Kuru 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, it must have needed a bit of correction, because Smial very kindly removed the two dust spots that I had noticed. I don't mind if the noise removal isn't done, it's acceptable as it is. My main concern was with the dust spots. Maedin 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for me -- Pro2 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Two almost not visible dust spots removed. Noise is ok, there are featured pictures with MUCH more noise. -- Smial 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC) You are now co-author, so you can't support any more, sorry. Lycaon 04:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --High Contrast 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 04:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Westhafen Frankfurt O DSCF3927.jpg[edit]

Westhafen Frankfurt O DSCF3927.jpg

  • Nomination The Westhafen Frankfurt, view from East. --EvaK 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Due to foreground better composition than other candidate. Good ultra-wide angle cityscape. --Iotatau 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can't change the enviroment there to have a better foreground, it would cost me a fortune. ;) --EvaK 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Unsharp, lacking details. --Afrank99 20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for the ultra wide angle --Mbdortmund 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Regarding sharpness see my comment to File:Westhafen_Frankfurt_W_DSCF3943.jpg. --Iotatau 12:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 16:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Belgian Westland Sea King Radom 2007 photo 3.jpg[edit]

Belgian Westland Sea King Radom 2007 photo 3.jpg

  • Nomination A Belgian Sea King hovering in the air. --Airwolf 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Was this photograph taken by a user with a Wikimedia account? It doesn't look like it. Maedin 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I don't really understand. Am I not a user with a Wikimedia account? Airwolf 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, but it looks like you uploaded, and didn't actually take the picture. Why are two authors listed, one of whom is not a Wikimedian? Uploading is not enough for QI, you need to be the author. Maedin 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But the template says it quite clearly: Author=[[User:Airwolf|Łukasz Golowanow]] & Maciek Hypś. See? Airwolf. That's me. Airwolf 12:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lol, yes, I can see that, of course, I'm not so stupid ;-). Were you both holding the camera? Why is there an OTRS permission? If it's solely yours, why would that be needed? It would be your own work and your own upload? I'm not suggesting that you aren't the author, I'm trying to understand why, if you are, there are two authors listed? Isn't that a simple question? Maybe someone else would like to put me right. Maedin 16:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I didn't mean it too sound like that. :) The OTRS template is there because we put the photos on our website too and due to this discussion we've done the OTRS procedure so that nobody has doubts whether I am authorised to upload the photos or not. And there are two authors because we share our work and take photos alternetely (not one by one, of course) so after an hour of intensive taking photos there's no way of telling who took this photo and who took that, so we share our rights. Airwolf (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Gotcha! Then it sounds cool to me. I apologise if I asked for more information than you wished to give, but I at least hope you appreciate that it did look a little odd. On the other hand, maybe I really am just thick, ;-) Anyway, I think it's a good photo. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Maedin 17:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --George Chernilevsky 05:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 08:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File:L'Oceanografic, Valencia, Spain 1 - Jan 07.jpg[edit]

L'Oceanografic, Valencia, Spain 1 - Jan 07.jpg

  • Nomination L'Oceanografic, Valencia, by User:Diliff. —Maedin 12:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Mbdortmund 14:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted to the right. --Afrank99 16:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have uploaded a corrected edit. Maedin 17:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good after correction --George Chernilevsky 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not yet, the tilt is not completely gone. Apart from that it's a very, very good picture, and should go for FP. --Afrank99 16:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My eye for lines and distortions is not very good . . . I think it has something to do with being a girl! I tilted 0.2 more degrees CCW. I think any more than that just looks wrong to me, and I would ask Diliff to do it instead, :-) Maedin 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not perfect, but much better and good enough now IMHO. --Afrank99 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Lemur Catta01.jpg[edit]

Lemur Catta01.jpg

  • Nomination Lemur Catta, Madagascar --Bgag 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Mbdortmund 01:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The white of the head is overexposed. --Estrilda 09:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very nice, but overexposed. No QI, sorry --George Chernilevsky 17:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 07:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File:DO-Eving-Nollendorfplatz-DSC 7274.jpg[edit]

DO-Eving-Nollendorfplatz-DSC 7274.jpg

  • Nomination Dortmund, Germany, houses for coal miners --Mbdortmund 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mich stören die Äste, die rechts oben etwas unmotiviert ins Bild ragen. --Berthold Werner 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Meinst Du, ich sollte sie wegstempeln? Das Haus steht de facto komplett unter alten Platanen und ist deshalb ohne deren Äste nicht zu kriegen. --Mbdortmund 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ja, ichwürde sie wegstempeln. --Berthold Werner 08:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment weg sind se --Mbdortmund 13:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. --Berthold Werner 14:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wegstempeln not really well performed. There are to many remnants. Could you give it another try? Lycaon 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't understand German and Google Translate couldn't make much sense of all of that, but the cloning out of the branches have left purple traces in the sky. I actually think the leaves and branches in the sky are fine. I'd change back to the original version, if I were you, :-) Maedin 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this version, with the branches in the upper right. Maedin 13:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, nee, so geht das gar nicht. Das Haus steht de facto komplett unter alten Platanen und ist deshalb ohne deren Äste nicht zu kriegen. sagts doch schon, bitte gar nix Stempeln! --Dschwen 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support with branches. --Dschwen 19:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment trees returned from nowhere.... composition looks even more harmonic, isn't it? --Mbdortmund 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Für die Version mit Blättern. Been there some time before mbdortmund (see cat). The object is quite difficult to photograph. I used a extreme wide angle lens to avoid the problems with the trees, but this photo by mbdortmund is clearly the best solution. -- Smial 08:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok. Quality is good --George Chernilevsky 18:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This is quite confusing for assessors. Please if you make these kind of changes and reverts, use two separate nominations. Thanks.Lycaon 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 07:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Toruń - Poczta Główna 01.jpg[edit]

Toruń - Poczta Główna 01.jpg

  • Nomination Post Office in Toruń. --Lestath 08:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good architectural image. Minor weakness: some barrel distortion left. I suggest PTLens or some other app which automatically corrects lens distortion. --Iotatau 09:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Human's back on foreground must be corrected --George Chernilevsky 18:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, file corrected, generally OK. Yarl 07:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment thanks --Lestath 07:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I now Symbol support vote.svg Support after correction --George Chernilevsky 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 07:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Westhafen Frankfurt W DSCF3943.jpg[edit]

Westhafen Frankfurt W DSCF3943.jpg

  • Nomination The Westhafen Frankfurt, view from West. --EvaK 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Aesthetically good view. Overcontrasted and blurred for me --George Chernilevsky 10:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 10 mm APS-C and f=10 is blurred? Overcontrasted with a camera that is constructed to have a wider dynamic range than most dSLR cameras? I see! ;) BTW: I used a polarizer. --EvaK 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I considered a white boat, detail near it, and face-to-face planes of buildings. Bit overexplosed. It is tiny defect. Overall very good. I
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky 09:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good colors+exposure, but quite unsharp (yes, it's possible to make unsharp pictures with any aperture), lacking details. --Afrank99 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no "blur". The photographer has used a DSLR which has a strong anti-alias filter to prevent moiré and which works by softening the input. "It's not a bug, it's a feature." Fuji expects the user to sharpen the image in post-processing. Too strong sharpening introduces artifacts, though, so many pros have a conservative approach to sharpening, like EvaK. In this case she has submitted an updated version with stronger "unsharp masking" (USM) parameters. I have tried Adobe Photoshop CS3 "Sharpen" with the original on my PC and it looked even better and comparatively sharp to many Quality Images. As I like the scene generally (content, colors, exposure) this nomination gets my
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Iotatau 12:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't care why it is unsharp, but it is unsharp. And there's noise in the shadows on the right. It's a very good photograph as such, but technically it's inferior (and that's a pity). I cannot agree that unsharp masking improves it (I tried it myself), there is simply details missing. Maybe somebody should get Eva a better cam or lens? ;-) --Afrank99 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Softer images have been promoted recently, quality guidelines are applied rather arbitrarily. Why are you picking on this one? If the MediaWiki software was better I'd continue our little discussion with 100% crops to prove that sharpness is sufficient here. --Iotatau 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You are right, I'm too picky on this one (and the other). (change to neutral), but it is unsharp and noisy. --Afrank99 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 05:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I've had pictures declined for less noise. The sky doe not look good. --Dschwen 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support good now. --Dschwen 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you have a look at the first image version? The "noise" in the sky is a sharpening artefact, I suppose. I would love to play with a RAW version of this image, if there was any. --Iotatau 19:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • There is one. --EvaK 08:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen. Quality is really not sufficient. Lycaon 08:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, noise, but I like the composition. --High Contrast 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's a new version with no sharpenig artefacts. --EvaK 16:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support New version is good. -- Smial 11:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 07:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Blauschimmelkäse IMGP5469 wp.jpg[edit]

Blauschimmelkäse IMGP5469 wp.jpg

  • Nomination Blue cheese --Smial 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh yummy, that makes me hungry, :-) Well done. Maedin 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What kind of cheese is it? --Estrilda 09:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why do we have to dicuss this one? --Afrank99 16:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Iotatau 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The description says "Blauschimmelkäse", in English IMMHO something like blue mold cheese. --Mbdortmund 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • it's just 'blue cheese' in English ... all cheese is mold after all ;-)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect shot --George Chernilevsky 05:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is this even in the discuss section? --Dschwen 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe Estrilda wanted to find out the name of the cheese. 'Blue cheese' is very non-specific. We also demand id's for organisms... Lycaon 22:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Added description -- Smial 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That adds quite a bit of extra value to an already technical very well performed image. Lycaon 05:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 05:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)