Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 21 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Cistanche_phelypaea_Habitus_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow Broomrapes, Cistanche phelypaea --Llez 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Too much noise imho --Berthold Werner 18:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    * I uploaded a completely new version --Llez 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --Berthold Werner 08:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK. --XRay 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jaisalmer_Jain_Temple_10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Jaisalmer Jain Temple --Imehling 12:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Weak  Support Good quality, but sharpness could be better. --XRay 13:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh flash and insufficient DoF resulting in lack of detail in big part of the picture, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 13:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Moving to  Neutral, the new version doesn't deserve an oppose Poco a poco 18:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a new version. I hope you like it more. --Imehling 14:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. Alvesgaspar 14:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support, much better now. –Be..anyone 17:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:14-05-05-placido-domingo-RalfR-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Placido Domingo bei der Preisverleihung Europa Nostra in Wien --Ralf Roletschek 19:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Ich finde die Vorschau super aber in groß... nö. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Unter Berücksichtigung der Bedingungen, unter denen das Bild gemacht werden musste, ist es ein hervorragend komponiertes Foto von guter Qualität. Zu beanstanden und leicht zu entfernen sind die CAs. Bitte weitere Meinungen hören. -- Spurzem 21:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Don’t need to zoom to 100% to see the lack of sharpness. Maybe this has been taken in adverse conditions but QIC is about the result IMHO, and this is below threshold. --Kreuzschnabel 05:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Framing too tight.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree, not sharp at all. I mean the photo, not the singing, which comes from the very best tenor of today and one the best of all times! -- Alvesgaspar 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Longitudal CA could be reduced manually, motion blur not. Why not ISO3200 or even ISO6400 to reduce effects of camera shake? The D800 works fine up to ISO3200 and still acceptable at ISO6400, if the image is somewhat downscaled. Better a sharp image at 6 to 12 MPix than a blurred one at 36. -- Smial 14:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --C messier 12:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Eingangtor_Trostburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg in South Tyrol - Detail of eastern portal --Moroder 13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I am not convinced about the top crop Poco a poco 20:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment I like it the way it is with the two embrasures --Moroder 09:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      Well, but they are cropped, so I'd say either more of them or less of them. More opinions? Poco a poco 15:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also not convinced by it, seems a bit blurry at the top.  Weak oppose Mattbuck 20:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Cropped the top --Moroder 13:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  weak from me --Hubertl 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now Poco2 13:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:OrangeBlossomSpecialFestival--0200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reverend Shine Snake Oil Co. at Orange Blossom Special Festival (black & white shot). By User:Chris W. Braunschweiger --Achim Raschka 22:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Would have been an instant support for me if it weren't for the microphone in the upper left corner – I find it very distracting. Any chance for this to be cloned out? (I'm usually NOT a fan of retouching pictures like that, but for reasons that are not entirely clear to me myself it seems necessary here) --El Grafo 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 22:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see a reason to retouche the microphone since it is part of the picture and situation, please discuss -- Achim Raschka 06:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    True, but reality has problems, and a microphone head on its own is disturbing. Mattbuck 20:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition, including the fact that verticals are off. What I don't like are the overexposed parts para those are not too distracting. Alvesgaspar 14:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support As for Alvesgaspar. I don't understand the criticism about microphones in stage photogrphy. They are present. Everywhere. Btw: I asked musicians and other artists about cropping or cloning out such details - all of them rejected such intentions. -- Smial 14:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial. --Palauenc05 07:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Smial, Achim Raschka, and Palauenc05: there is of course absolutely nothing wrong with microphones in stage photography in general, and usually I would oppose cropping or cloning them out quite strongly! It's very hard for me to explain what's different about this image (especially in English), but I'll try nevertheless: In this picture, we have a very good separation of subject and background, which is achieved through the subject being in focus and the background being nicely blurred. However, the microphone is also in focus, so it is automatically perceived as "important". That alone wouldn't be a bad thing, but in combination with the placement of the microphone it becomes a bit of a problem. Being placed far away in the corner, the mike doesn't have a real connection to the person, making it a separate object perceived as "important". Through that, it takes away attention from the subject, making my eyes bounce to and fro between the two "points of interest" – it's acting a bit like a little gnome hovering in the corner, waving his arms and crying for attention ;-) I think it would actually be far less disturbing if the mike was placed nearer to the person's face – that would create a connection and merge the two "points of interest" into a single one. Instead of cloning it out, it might actually be sufficient to just slightly blur it. Please note, however, that do not oppose here because it is without doubt a great example of concert photography, but I can't really support either. --El Grafo (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I see your point and understand it. But this is a matter of taste. Of course it is ok to decline an image because of this minor problem, if we were at com:fpc, where matter of taste counts more ;-) -- Smial 13:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Klooster_Nijmegen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A church in Nijmegen, Holland --Abigor 19:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Nice picture, but it should be properly categorized --Shansov.net 23:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    I think there's some fisheye distortion too. Mattbuck 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've put it into the appropriate category. Not sure about lens distortion – if it's there I don't find it disturbing. Maybe the back wall could benefit from a little bit of brightening? --El Grafo 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Not done Mattbuck 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Let's get more opinions. I think that it's good image. Maybe needs a little bit of cropping to make it more symmetric. I don't see any disturbing lens distortion --Shansov.net 11:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Despite the overexposed parts. Alvesgaspar 14:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. --El Grafo 09:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Santiagobernabeupanoramav44.JPG[edit]

 Support It's good for me--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Significant motion blur. --C messier 12:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per C messier. Too much even if the subject is moving, never mind a empty stadium. -- KTC 23:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --C messier 12:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (2).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Royal Naval College, Greenwich.--لا روسا 09:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Decline  Comment It needs perspective and tilt correction, not very detailed for a 3 Mpix image, maybe due to low jpeg quality (or the small sensor). --C messier 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier: .--لا روسا 22:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
     weak oppose Sorry, IMHO it is too unsharp for its size. --C messier 14:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, could you let it to another one to review it as you mentioned that weak oppose.--لا روسا 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Rather purple, foreground inclusion is problematic. Mattbuck 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I tried to correct it, review it now @C messier and Mattbuck: .--لا روسا 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The upsizing has made the image completely unsharp and full of jpeg artifacts. --C messier 14:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Then, what should i do, if i resized it again to be the original one, would be fine.--لا روسا 07:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined KTC 23:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (1).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Royal Naval College, Greenwich.--لا روسا 09:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Decline  Comment It needs perspective and tilt correction, not very detailed for a 3 Mpix image, maybe due to low jpeg quality (or the small sensor). --C messier 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier: .--لا روسا 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
     weak oppose Sorry, IMHO it is too unsharp for its size. --C messier 14:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, could you let it to another one to review it as you mentioned that weak oppose.--لا روسا 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Cyanotic sky, not brilliant perspective, odd bright spot bottom left, generally purple and a bit unsharp. Mattbuck 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I tried to correct it, review it now @C messier and Mattbuck: .--لا روسا 14:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined KTC 23:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Malleus_(5_von_16).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Malleus beim Feel Festival 2014 in Berlin --Pistenwolf 08:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnecesary vignetting, unnatural colours, looks like ana "artistic" filter. Slight CA. --Kadellar 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The overexposure on the neck spoils it. Mattbuck 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support imho it's QI. Taken under live gig conditions, the 'strange' colours obviously result from the LED stage lighting, as the light spot in the neck too. --Rs-foto 22:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jpeg artifacts --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't spot them, can you add a note? --C messier 15:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
in fact, it is the blue highlight too pronounced, on top tents and some unnatural colours in the sky. No doubt that by removing the image would be better. - --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)