Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 26 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Marcq_103_a_5_rue_de_la_prevoyance.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Row of houses "Loi Loucheur", Rue de la Prévoyance 5 to 103, Marcq-en-Barœul, France --Velvet 06:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The shadows are badly underexposed. Can you lift them? --Trougnouf 08:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • It is the point. The idea is to leave the cars in the shade to emphasize the facades --Velvet 12:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It has artistic value but doesn't capture real life (human visual system dynamic range) imo, hence no QI. Feel free to discuss. --Trougnouf 12:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The dark shadows don’t seem too artificial or errorneous to me; on the contrary, one could argue that the shadows are really that dark and that therefore this is just realistic, while lifting them is a manipulation, legitimate (because it corresponds to what our brain is doing when we view the reality) but definitely not required. IMHO this requires a broader discussion, therefore I send it to review. --Aristeas 13:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fitting the camera's dynamic range into the screen is always a manipulation, whether it's done automatically by a camera's firmware or manually in raw development, and there is a nearly infinite number of ways to do it (and for a visual system to see how dark something is), but as far as QI and RGB images on a human scale are concerned, I think the standard is to try and accurately match what the human visual system sees. --Trougnouf 14:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dear Trougnouf, please do not misunderstand my comment as offensive. I share more or less your view and I do always lift shadows etc. myself in images of that kind ;–). But I also think we need a broader discussion whether this can still be a QI or not. Velvet has a special reason to keep the shadows dark in this instance, the shadows do not obscure the main subject (the buildings), and therefore I just think that there should not be an “automatic” rejection of this image, but we need to discuss with more users if this is/can be OK or not. This is why I have changed the mode to “Discuss”. All the best, --Aristeas 15:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dear Aristeas, I did not find your comment offensive in any way and I agree that it is best to discuss this. All the best, --Trougnouf 15:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dear fellow photographers and lovers of good photographs, please tell us: What do you think about this image? In the past some of Velvet’s photos have been criticized for the cars in front of the houses, even when these cars were (because the photos were taken at a very populated place) almost unavoidable. Now in this photo Velvet has come up with a clever solution – the dark shadow “hides” the cars and it does not spoil the main subject, the façades. But is this a good solution for you? Is it good or OK for QI? Or do we require such dark shadows to be lifted in post-processing, similar to what the human brain does when our eyes see such scenes (please see Trougnouf’s excellent statements)? IMHO we need a broader discussion here because big dark shadows appear quite often in photos; I want to know in general if this OK for QI as long as it does not spoil the main subject. --Aristeas 08:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad light. --Kallerna 15:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I will make clear that I don't prefer this as a solution to people objecting to the presence of cars parked on the street in urban photos (an objection I often find ridiculous), but I'm willing to accept this as an artistic solution that works compositionally. And what I say to those of you who don't like the lack of realism of the dark shadows is, what do you all have to say for realism when it comes to including cars in photos? This is not the 19th century. Either you all should accept that photos of real life can be of good quality, or you should accept this solution. Expecting people to take photos of cities without any cars in them may sometimes be reasonable for FPC, but on QIC, I repeat that it is absurd. -- Ikan Kekek 23:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Personally, I would not bother too much about cars that cannot be moved just because the photographer wants to take a photo, but I do not like the "solution" to the composition problem with this extreme shadow that looks way too artificial. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting -- Alvesgaspar 00:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Faro_de_Punta_de_Capelinhos,_Isla_de_Fayal,_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-26,_DD_29.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Punta de Capelinhos Lighthouse, Faial Island, Azores, Portugal --Poco a poco 06:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the lighting is not good and the subject is too dark -- Alvesgaspar 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    That's fair, I lightened it a bit up. Poco a poco 17:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No miracles, with these conditions... Alvesgaspar 20:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know if the light is good or not, but I see details so for me IQ
  • Unsigned vote stricken.--Peulle 07:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! This is not a QI standard, the dark areas are very noisy and barely marked. --Steindy 11:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad light. --Kallerna 16:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna and Steinby. --GRDN711 14:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Commonists 09:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)