Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 08 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dortmund-Scharnhorst-Zeche_Gneisenau-Roter_Mond_DSC7673.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blue Moon over Zeche Gneisenau in Dortmund Scharnhorst --Rainer Halama 10:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support well exposed an abundance of detail , mood of the scenery is presented well --Virtual-Pano 23:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the lighting looks artificially modified. Please discuss. --Vincent60030 15:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • yes the lighting was adjusted. With the winding tower in the dark and the the lamp in the foreground very bright, I of course choose the initial exposure in such a way as to prevent white-out burning in the light-post and still have sufficient exposure in the dark part. And still keep the mood of the red moon. In lightroom I than lightened up the dark part to make the winding tower visible in the exposure and I darkened the light parts to reduce the glaring over and show the details. All the things your brain does automatically with the information it receives from your retina, but that we have to adjust with the information we put on a sensor. --Rainer Halama (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to oppose due to the very hard dynamic range compression which was necessary to combine the shiny lamp in front with the relatively dark moon in the back. It is a good composition. But the light in front is looking very unnatural to me.--Augustgeyler 09:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: I could have understood your argument, if you had critized the lightened-up dark part, but when the tripod is standing right in front of the lamp, how could the lamp not have been captured bright and sharp? --Rainer Halama 09:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course, but why didn't you show the lamp "bright"? --Augustgeyler 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
okay, got what you mean. Also thanks to the comments by Smial and Ikan Kekek. I won't rework the image for now, due to time-constraints. But I learned from your comments, and that is why I came here. Thanks! --Rainer Halama 12:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. A real challenge. But darkening the lamps to mid grey is overdone and looks awful. Nobody expects details in the lamps in such a situation. Let them shine! --Smial 10:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. Lamps should be blown in a night picture. -- Ikan Kekek 11:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 11:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Arcata_barocca_Duomo_di_Salò.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Santa Maria Annunziata church in Salò. --Moroder 10:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it looks like upper part is blurred and not sharp enough. I think that kind of problem can't be fixed. Hmm maybe a crop... --Halavar 13:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree The upper part is not of interest, consider it a blurred background which has always been accepted in photography. --Moroder 14:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me. Here is not FP. -- Spurzem 21:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me, too. It may be a matter of personal taste, but I have tried to crop out the glass on the upper part on a separate file (changing the ratio to 3:2 approx.). The angel moves almost to the centre of the picture and looks and looks good to me. You may want to try this change (and, if you have some room in the RAW file, you may want to widen a little the bottom crop so that the golden border is kept). --Lion-hearted85 22:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Double exposure in the upper part--Ermell 11:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Double exposure? I'm not aware that such a feature exists on my camera --Moroder 03:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Is a glass suspended ceiling installed there? --Smial 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment The arch is closed by a glass wall and you can see the reflections --Moroder 08:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support That was the right question! ;–) The glass wall explains it all for me. Good quality IMHO. --Aristeas 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aristeas. Very good regarding the circumstances. --Smial 19:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)