Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 2007

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Brown Hare[edit]

Brown Hare444.jpg

  • Nomination Brown Hare --Benjamint 12:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Sharp. (BTW, scary huge eye on that thing.) Doodledoo 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate tight crop. Lycaon 13:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree - Alvesgaspar 19:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yep, the crop isn't good. -- Slaunger 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the unfortunate crop - even some hairs of its right ear are cut off. Otherwise a very good picture. --Florian Prischl 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light and sharpness, not a bad composition! --Beyond silence 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop --Leafnode 06:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 07:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Adidas Absolado shoe[edit]

Adidas Absolado TRX TF-2.jpg

  • Nomination Adidas Absolado shoe--Beyond silence 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline copyrighted. Lycaon 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    The deletion request is not understandable. --Kolossos 09:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    The request is understandable, but disputable. After all we can discuss the quality of the image, after we came to a descission about the request for deletion, because it is useless to promote a deleted picture... --LC-de 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Deletion request is gone.--Beyond silence 14:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 'Oppose'Decline due to the bad crop (not even one shoe is wholly visible) and lighting (I realize the shoe is very reflective, but a better setting should have been used). --Florian Prischl 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose borderline copyright case and bad cropping. Lycaon 07:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad lighting. Doodledoo 12:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate crop and other problems. -- Slaunger 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 07:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cathedrale de Metz[edit]

Cathedrale Metz Nef pano.jpg

  • Nomination An HDR+pano picture of the Cathedral of Metz. -- Benh 12:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect composition, good detail. Looks a bit narrow at center. --Beyond silence 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Narrow at the centre ?? maybe because of the perspective ?? Benh 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry Benh, but the image is clearly tilted clockwise, probably as a result of the stitching projection. I don't like the extreme geometric distortion either and think it would look much better with vertical lines vertical. But maybe that is no valid reason to oppose - Alvesgaspar 18:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see any tilt. Can you spot me the litigious area please ? I could make the vertical lines appearing as vertical but this would amplify the geometric distortion you find already extreme. Also, I think this is a more natural view (similar to what you would get in a single shot with a very wide angle and distortion free lens) and I think it emphasizes well the height of the Cathedral (third highest in France), or how small we are by comparison... I'll upload a picture to let you check soon. But I hope this one gets QIfied, I really think it deserves it (although it's always hard to judge a self work :) ). Benh 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You are right, the tilt feeling is due to the assymemtry mentioned by Slaunger - Alvesgaspar 22:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any noticeable tilt either. The vertical centerline is not 100% vertical (off by a pixel or so). I do not hink the other verticals have to be vertical in this projection. However, the crop on the left and right hand sides are slightly asymmetric. I think it would look slightly better if the lamps on the left and right image borders were cut at the same heigth (or ideally not cut at all, but i doubt that is possible?) and I think this is what can give a sense that there is tilt. However, these are IMO pedantic details and I find the quality fully acceptable for QI. -- Slaunger 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to asymetry which leads to a seemingly counter-clockwise tilt. The height of the cathedral unfortunately emphasises this very strongly. It would be great if you could produce a rotated or otherwise corrected version, because this picture should be a clear QI. --Florian Prischl 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is definitely good enough for a QI, if the distortion problems weren't there I'd call this an FP. Calibas 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I couldn't avoid distortion, this pano is taken from two wide angle shots, which makes it a very wide angle image, hence the distortions (and it was even worse on the top part I cropped out !) Benh 09:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I cropped out the right part of the picture to give it symetry. Benh 09:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It is much better now. I have accordingly changed my vote (see above) to neutral and will think about support (it seems to lean a little to the left now). --Florian Prischl 10:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that helped. Now my support is whole-hearted. -- Slaunger 20:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Calliphora vicina[edit]

Calliphora vicina.jpg

  • Nomination Calliphora vicina, a blowflie species. -- Aleph 16:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is too noisy. Also, the use of extension tubes to get closer to the subject probably made the DOF too shallow. Notice that only the eye is focused. It is possible to get a much better DOF with this subject. Finally, I don't like the extreme crop. Alvesgaspar 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF is fine with me - it's a macro picture, and the subject is in focus. If I understand this correctly, much better DOF is pretty much impossible. Extension tubes do not have any direct effect on DOf; they do the exact same thing normal focussing does - vary the distance from lens to body. Therefore, any macro picture results in this, whether by macro lens or extension tube. I agree with Alvesgaspar that the crop is too tight, but I think that the noise is quite reasonable. Remeber that the guidelines are only 2MP - punishing people for uploading slightly noisy 3.6MP images makes little sense. Thegreenj 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's good enough (for QI) too. The OOF parts don't bother me on this pic and neither does the noise. Benh 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the DOF could be a little better at least. Not even the mouth part is sharp. The crop does not bother me too much, but it is very tight. --Florian Prischl 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Umm... It's at f/16 already. And again, as I understand this, closer focussing through tubes (ie not internal focussing) actually increases focal length, so that f/16 could actually be even smaller. Unless you want to defy the laws of physics, I cannot see how more DOF can be obtained. That's not to say, however, that more of the subject could be made in focus by, say, a different angle. Thegreenj 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It would be kind to recognise the effort, which was neccessary to take this photograph. This fly is really small, so the depth of field is rather small, too. It would not have been adequate to stop more down than to f/16 (which it is already!), because the sharpness of the eyes would be worse then due to diffraction. Please don't forget that we are talking about Quality Images, not Featured Pictures here! You might want to compare to these images: Image:XN Sympetrum sanguineum w prey 658.jpg (featured picture), Image:Episyrphus balteatus - head close-up (aka).jpg (featured, too), Image:CH_Rooster_1.jpg (quality image). -- Aleph 14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - To Thegreenj: the extension tube does not affect the optical properties of the objective, including the focal length. It only allows the subject to be focused at a closer distance (with the drawback of making impossible to focus to infinity). But at a closer distance the DOF is even smaller. For that reason, it is not always the best solution, as it happens in the present case. There are two ways to increase DOF: increase the distance between the subject and the focal plane (using or not a larger focal length) or put more light into the system (one or more flash units), so that a larger f number can be used.
    To Aleph: this kind of fly is not "that small", I have shot similar ones about 10mm long. It is not difficult to obtain better results, with patience, care and a bit of knowledge. Please check this one and this one, which are not even Quality Images. - Alvesgaspar 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, soI'm wrong (though I believe that focussing closer changes apparent focal length, or something like that). However, the picture remains at f/16 - no matter what f number, significant change in DOF will not be obtained. Moving farther away decreases resolution because of cropping, so neither is really all that much better. The images you linked mostly have more in focus because of a flatter angle, which is unrelated to DOF. Thegreenj 20:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its a very nice and interesting picture. If it was just the DOF issue I would support but the unfortunate noise amount and the crop is a bit too much for my personal taste. It is not high quality but i know how much work it is to do such shots, therefore its allways a odd feeling for me to oppose on such subjects. --Richard Bartz 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the sharp areas. --Beyond silence 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind the DOF issue and for me the crop is OK and the noise is acceptable considering how small and fast the subejct is. -- Slaunger 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 23:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pythagorian theorem[edit]

Pythagoras-1.gif

  • Nomination There are several geometrical proofs of the Pythagorian theorem. This animation depicts one of the simplest and more elegant - Alvesgaspar 09:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good animation, but poor at showing proof. Runs a bit fast and edges are not labeled throughout sequence, hard to follow, therefore does not live up to description. --Tony Wills 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Moving to CR to get other opinions -Alvesgaspar 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As its about the sum of the squares of the sides of the triangles, at the very least one of the triangles needs to have its sides labeled 'a' and 'b' from the start --Tony Wills 06:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
And in my opinion it would be a good idea to start out with a single triangle, then duplicate it to assemble the square. - Till 07:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Thanks for the suggestions. I'm working on a new version - Alvesgaspar 10:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue-tailed Damselfly[edit]

Ischnura elegans maennchen.jpeg

  • Nomination photo with great composition of the Blue-tailed Damselfly. Fabelfroh 08:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong posterization and artifacts, especially in the wings. --Florian Prischl 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support May it is acceptable at QI standads. --Beyond silence 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please do not object a first assessment by just changing the template to {{Discuss}} but leaving the image in the regular gallery. Move it to CR instead. Thank you. --Florian Prischl 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This particular subject is very difficult to shoot, I know that from self experience. An though this is indeed a good composition and a nice picture (a lot better than mine), the "insect bar" has been put quite high, even in QIC. I believe it is possible to get a sharper and cleaner picture - Alvesgaspar 09:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for QI to get more picky, this is about promoting good quality images, not just selecting the cream off the top. --Tony Wills 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A good quality image of the species --Tony Wills 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No need to be too picky unless the image is at the lower range of size limits. Lycaon 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reservoir Šance in Beskydy[edit]

Šance 2.JPG

  • Nomination Reservoir Šance in Beskydy / Czech Republic --Pudelek 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate composition, the building is obscured by the strong blue hue and the positioning in the center. --Florian Prischl 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The tech quality isn't the best, but the composition not a bad, not an acceptable decline reason - I think. --Beyond silence 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please do not object a first assessment by just changing the template to {{Discuss}} but leaving the image in the regular gallery. Move it to CR instead. Thank you. --Florian Prischl 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not very sharp, especially at the lower limit of acceptable size. Lycaon 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hikers, in French Alps[edit]

Randonneurs Glacier Tour.jpg

  • Nomination Hikers, in French Alps -- Benh 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is tilted. That is obvious from the position of three of the hikers, specially the one who is far off - Alvesgaspar 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think it's really tilt, but the mountain really has... :) --Beyond silence 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Alvesgaspar is right: the picture is tilted (to the left, I would say). Apart from that, it's technically OK, but I'm missing a geotag, and the image should be categorized better. - Till 08:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It will be hard to geotag it, but I'll try to correct the tilt quickly enough. Benh 21:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue Line Ferry Ancona[edit]

BlueLineAncona gobeirne.jpg

  • Nomination Blue Line Ferry Ancona, Ancona, Italy --gobeirne 10:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeObtrusive stitching errors, CA fringing. Lycaon 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see errors, may near QI. --Beyond silence 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am notoriously bad a spotting stitching errors because I have very limited experience with stitching - could you please point them out for me so I can learn? And what does the acronym "CA" mean? Thank you, Florian Prischl 23:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I recently started stitching myself, so I've recently started noticing them. There is a big one at the start of the thick blue line underneath the B of Blue, it runs down to the railing of the ship of the observer. There is also a ghost of the water tower, just right of the aftmost radar, that one is minor. CA is chromatic aberration especially towards the stern of the ship. Lycaon 23:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, I found them now. Thank you for pointing them out to me. --Florian Prischl 10:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pavo cristatus feather[edit]

Pavo cristatus feather-scan.jpg

  • Nomination Newer version-Scan of an Pavo cristatus feather--Beyond silence 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still dull colours and uneven background. Is this really a scan? Lycaon 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Really scan. I think the colours are not bad now, and I like the soft background. May others don't. --Beyond silence 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is distracting from the subject - too much2. Also, the very unsharp lower part of the feather seems even stranger when considering this is a scan. --Florian Prischl 23:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cathedral St. Lawrence-Trogir[edit]

Cathedral St. Lawrence-Trogir-10.jpg

  • Nomination Cathedral of St. Lawrence in Trogir --Beyond silence 07:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSuch a detail should contain, in its description, where exactly it is from. I also think the angle does not illustrate the subject at hand well. It might be artistically interesting, but not architecturally or encyclopedically. --Florian Prischl 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Value isn't the main promotion view. 2. I think it's well showing the small piece of cathedral and architecture. --Beyond silence 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • While value may not be the single most important aspect when assessing an image, it should be considered. I think this photo lacks some value because the angle does, in my opinion, not illustrate the subject very well - to illustrate the capital, it is cropped to tightly and the right side is hardly visible. To illustrate the arch, the angle creates a distortion in the bow of the arch that I think makes it not very usable for that objective. I may summarize this as being too little of two things - thus the decline/oppose. --Florian Prischl 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tight crop at confusing angle. Lycaon 00:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Elephants in water[edit]

180px

  • Nomination Panorama of an elephant swimming hole at an elephant orphanage in Sri Lanka. Photo by Wouter Hagens, not me. --Doodledoo 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIs this a stitched pano ? If so, How did he managed to do that with so many (probably moving) people on the fov without stitching errors ? wow ! too bad it's a bit soft. I'd like to nominate for FP. (unsigned) Please sign with name and date (four tildes) Benh 19:12, 21 September 2007
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpening artefacts and poor cropping. Lycaon 07:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitch error in the middle just above the guy with the striped shirt (detached arm), and a little soft on the elephant above that. With those fixed, this is a QI. -- (Relic38 12:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those vertical bars near the right border are an eyesore and could be cropped without making the image too small. - Till 18:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the poles on the right side, posterization of the sky and general unsharpnes (nothing in the photo is really sharp). --Florian Prischl 20:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
RResult: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lycoperdon perlatum[edit]

Lycoperdon perlatum LC0112.jpg

  • Nomination Gem-studded puffball (Lycoperdon perlatum) --LC-de 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could be sharper, but nevertheless QI. -- MJJR 19:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp enough. Lycaon 08:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question A little too unsharp at 3M res IMO. The photo is taken with an 8Mpixel camera AFAIK. Why is the uploaded photo only 3M. Cropped or downsampled? Is the fungus very small?
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, especially in the top part of the fungus. --Florian Prischl 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FS E656 and E646 series locomotives[edit]

FS E656 and E646 series locomotives.JPG

  • Nomination FS E656 and E646 series locomotives - Italian electric locos - Trieste - clouded day --Orlovic (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAcceptable composition and tech detail.--Beyond silence 13:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and moved to CR. Bad crop (too much space on the right), angle (the closer engine is not visible well enough) and lighting (a station with roofing like here simply casts too much shadow - photos of engines are better shot in the open). --Florian Prischl 10:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting - too much in shadow. -- Slaunger 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Castillo de San Marcos[edit]

Castillo de San Marcos Fort Panorama 2 .jpg

  • Nomination Castillo de San Marcos Fort --Digon3 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality of the image is poor specially in the shadowed areas. There is an obvious stitching error near the stairs. Finally, the composition seems unbalanced. Alvesgaspar 10:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the stitching error, perhaps it was the ghosting? --Please sign with name and date (four tildes) Digon3
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - There is a vertical lighter band coming from the ground, where a person is standing, up to the sky above - Alvesgaspar 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That is glare from the sun, I'll see if I can get rid of that. --Please sign with name and date (four tildes) Digon3
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alvesgaspar is probably talking about the stitching error on the right part of the green area, next to the stairs, not about the glare from the sun (this was another topic). And to me, this picture is worth QI status, so I change its template to "Discuss" :). Benh 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Moved to CR. Are you sure that is a glare from the Sun? As for the stitching error in the grass, it is quite obvious and not acceptable in a QI imo. - Alvesgaspar 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I looked at the source pictures and the glare is definitly from the sun. Also the stitching error in the grass isn't actually a stitching error, that is just the way it looked. But there was a stitching error in the pavement beside the grass, and I tried to fix that, the grass, and the ghosting in the new upload. --Digon3 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the cramped perspective (the tight crop adds to this) and the high noise levels. --Florian Prischl 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much of the subject is in shadow making it hard to discern details. -- Slaunger 20:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Chapelle de Languidou[edit]

Chapelle de Languidou 2667 1.jpg

  • Nomination Ruins of Languidou Chapel, Brittany. Vassil 11:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Has encyclopedic value, but is a little bit unsharp on the edges.--Siipikarja 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm finding it not so soft. My biggest concern here is what seems to me to be overexposure, but I like the pic enough to want it promoted QI. Please sign with name and date (four tildes) Benh 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose purple fringes in the trees, overexposed. Lycaon 18:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable sharpness. --Beyond silence 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong fringing (also on the borders of light and shadowy areas, overexposed. --Florian Prischl 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fringing. -- Slaunger 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Upper Silesian Ethnographic Park.[edit]

WPKiW - Skansen - 02.JPG

  • Nomination Upper Silesian Ethnographic Park. --Lestat 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful composition, Lestath! Unfortunately the exposure choice is wrong (high shutter speed, low F number) making the picture unsharp. Should have been the other way around. - Alvesgaspar 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it really unsharp?? --Lestat 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I get decline for simillar sharpness... --Beyond silence 14:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Really a very nice picture: subject, light, colors, composition! But unfortunately the grasses are too unsharp... I know by experience that it's not easy to get them sharp! -- MJJR 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The phot lacks the DOF that should be achieved with such a shot. --Florian Prischl 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Panorama Unterscheibe[edit]

Gasometer Oberhausen - Panorama Unterscheibe.jpg

  • Nomination Gasometer Oberhausen, Germany, exhibition area at the first floor. Great lights... ← Körnerbrötchen - @ 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting motive with concise image page but has quite some technical problems: unsharp (sign at stairs), stitching error (a person has a ghost), noise (especially the darker parts of the image), sorry. -- Slaunger 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a wonderfully stitched pano, and I like the composition, lighting, mood... The unsharpness is only at the extreme right. Ghost isn't an error to me (this happens in long exposure shots). The only flaw of this picture is a fairly high level of noise, but I like it so much I think it's OK for QI (Noise appart, I would have nominated for FP). Two things though : you could scale it down, this won't remove details and get rid of some noise if well done (also could use NR software). Also, I your sensor seems to have a dead pixel (there's a repetitive blue dot on the bottom part of the pano). Benh 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose technical issues (mainly noise). Lycaon 08:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise, apparently a dead pixel in the bottom part of the sensor. --Florian Prischl 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcophagidae fly[edit]

Flesh fly2.jpg

  • Nomination A Flesh Fly. --Calibas 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light and detail. --Beyond silence 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't agree with the promotion, the DOF is too shallow due to a less than optimal exposure solution. Please check this picture of an identical fly (not a QI), where a much larger F number was used. The fly is probably of the Sarcophaga genus, it is not possible to identify these species from photos alone.Alvesgaspar 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is too harsh and DOF too shallow. --Florian Prischl 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cicindela hybrida sideview[edit]

Cicindela hybrida sideview Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination The tiger beetles are a large group of beetles known for their predatory habits. As shown a Sandlaufkäfer 'Cicindela hybrida' from the side --Richard Bartz 18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNot quite so amazing as some of the others of this species but still a QI. Calibas 01:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have a bio-ethical problem with the pictures of this series. Richard states that he chills his beetles before photographing1. Also the background is artificial (the grains are not from a natural local sand IMO, and too course for the species' habitat). There is also (al least one) not divulged manipulation in one of the pictures in the series. The retouched template is nowhere seen. Lycaon 10:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there is too long a history of humans collecting specimens without regard for the plants/animals, and now we are continuing the process by collecting photographs without regard to our subjects. What is the long term effects of being blasted with a freezing solution?, insects for instance don't have eye-lids. Admittedly this is at the bottom of the scale when we consider what is done to produce food, what is done in the name of hunting 'sports' and the all out destruction wrought by war ... but things start small :-) --Tony Wills 11:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
To me, the most impressive component of getting great shots of elusive creatures is to do it without interfering too much (ex. removing from their environment, altering it's normal bio-functions, etc.). Otherwise, the image is less impressive to me. I also think that post alterations are acceptable as long as they are disclosed so the viewer can take it into account. --(Relic38 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC))
I agree fully with Lycaon, harming the animals so you can show people how beautiful they are seems hypocritical to me. There is a human-induced mass extinction going on right now and unfortunately most people would rather ignore it. If someone wants to put up ethical requirements for QI/FP pictures I'd support it. Calibas 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First of all i want to thank lycaon for his concerns. Iam not sure if bio-ethic is the right term. The question is in what amount you harm the insects for making pictures. If you kill or hardly damage them I fully agree with you, this is against ethic. What is with this picture by lycaon ? This animal was caught and brought to the deck of a ship. This animal cant move or breath on the surface, even if you release it after a while, was it harmed?. I have no problem with this. What we have here ? A caught spider on a artificial backgound by Fir. I have no problem with this. A ant chilled with food by myself? I have no problem with. Or here, a tick which i erased from my dog with a tweezer. When i took the shot the tick was caught in the tweezer. I have no problem with this although iam buddhist. If there is a mosquito on my skin i give him a slap, thats my instinct. Its a good suggestion but this picture is a wrong example for bio-ethic. --Richard Bartz 00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this picture is in a different category, as I presume the animal was not dredged up just for him to take a photo (the ethics of dredging it up for study, or food is a different matter :-). Taking animals out of their natural habitat just for a photo is very questionable, but I expect taking a tick off your dog does not quite qualify as you were liable to remove his ticks anyway (I hope :-). I am not sure how you 'chilled' an ant with food (very cold food?). Anyway do you have evidence (from a third party) that ice-spray will not hurt insects? Whether or not people decide this treatment of insects is acceptable, the discussion serves as a reminder to consider the side-effects our photography has. --Tony Wills 09:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If you use ice spray on yourself it doesnt hurt if used properly. Its not that i use this anytime, and it would make me disapointing if you think that. Its a technique of a few dozens which you can learn in forums if you are interested in macro photography. --Richard Bartz 10:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The animal was hurt all right: it lost part of its right tarsus (which was later photoshopped as a rotated copy of the left middle tarsus, BTW - here).
Concerning the dredged animals: this is done in the framework of a watchdog monitoring programme, where we do ecological studies on the possible harmful effects of dredging and dredge depositing (maintenance dredging for ports). If effects become noticeably detrimental, we can (and do) stop those activities2. Lycaon 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I cant remember that I broke the right tarsus in a intended manner althought i garantee that i wasnt touching this animal because of his jaws :). Here is a example that it is not unusual that insects loosing parts of their extremities. It would be the same absurd allegation to make me responsible for this. Finally i will keep this concern in mind, its a realistic topic to think about. --Richard Bartz 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Freezing the insects takes all the sport out of it. Calibas 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
For me, photographing insects or contributing to wikipedia is not a sport but now i recognize that some users see this in that manner. A good example was when i said to alvesgaspar that i took a picture in the early morning when it was cold and the insect was clumsy. Giving him a productive idea was later turned against me, where he said that i had an advantage when making this photo and he compared it with his situation. This is a contraproductive behaviour, causing me to remain silent in the future, doing my thing for me alone. And here we have the same, this time in a chorus: But, where did i said that i freeze insects ? I said that (under certain circumstances) sometimes i chill them, this is a big difference. This must be done very careful and i will continuing this whenever i think its necessary. Enough said. --Richard Bartz 11:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable technical condition. --Beyond silence 12:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Did do you actually read the above statements? Lycaon 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you overstate the thing. I don't want to think on the insects and other animals I hurted when I was lying on the ground photographing a fungi or a plant. In fact I have to confess that I did cut off leaves in full intention if they disturb the subject. I don't think that an insect is badly hurt by the icespray. Ok, I didn't try it yet because most insects I photographed were chilled by a natural icespray called dew. --LC-de 06:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not the point, isn't it? Everybody kills invertebrates inadvertently every single day. But not on purpose. The ethical issue here is about hurting animals just for the sake of taking a better picture for FP. These pictures are not going to be used for any scientific research, just to embellish a web page. The picture of the mite, e.g., gets on these page after having published in a scientific paper that happens to be GFDL. It is like you pull the wing of a butterfly, just to have an up close look at it. It is not about the killing it is about the reason for hurting animals. Lycaon 08:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination This goes way too far. What this has to do with the quality of this image. smells like misusage for me :( --Richard Bartz 11:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and not accuse us of misusage. I still support this as a QI, if you hadn't withdrawn your nomination it most likely would have gone though. I just feel you should question the ethics of what you are doing, does it bother you at all? Calibas 17:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think i stated my point of view very exactly. --Richard Bartz 19:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Richard. IMO Richard has given quite some balanced feedback to all the criticism raised, stated "If you kill or hardly damage them I fully agree with you, this is against ethic.", that he will "keep the concern in mind", and that "its a realistic topic to think about". And that the damage done to the particular insect was unintentional. How much more can anyone demand? Still everyone continues. With the critical remarks reaching a more and more high-pitched tone, I do understand if Richard's replies get a harder tone and that finally he decides to withdraw the nomination. In my opinion a detail has been blown completely out of proportions - at least considering how many insects I kill with my car every morning, how much I enjoy being carnivorous, how many spiders i kill everyday because my wife is scared to death of them. An insect can handle to have it's temperature dropped - it does so every night if not near a heat source. And if this should be a problem, then why has nobody complained about the bioethics in this mite electron microscopy image, which is currently a featured picture candidate. To prepare the specimen it has to be put under vacuum and a thin metal layer is evaporated on its surface to make it electrical conducting. Then it is again placed under vacuum and a high flux beam of charged electrons are scanned in a narrow beam over the mite. Well, it is for sure dead and will not recover. But is that really a problem? The only scenario I can think about where these moderate insect manipulations cause an ethical problem is when you manipulate endangered species og species, which are rare on the location under study. If there are 1000 ants of the same species in a given location I do not see a problem in manipulating one or a few of them. -- Slaunger 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  nomination withdrawn -- Tony Wills 10:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1 The comment was made here.
2 Reference on a stopped dredging activity.

Paper wasp[edit]

Wasp September 2007-5.jpg

  • Nomination A little Paper Wasp resting on a leaf (Polistes sp.). I'm nominating this picture mainly because of the composition - Alvesgaspar 16:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I want it to be promoted mainly because of it's composition :) (but it also has nice colours, and subject is impressive to me). Benh 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry can't really promote it until exact ID is established (should be doable). The quality is top notch. Lycaon 18:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - There are more than 300 species in the Polistes genus, some of them are being merged. I did some further research and Polistes gallicus is indeed my best guess. It is quite common in Europe and several visual characteristics match perfectly including the all yellow face, which occurs in many individuals (please see here). - Alvesgaspar 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is unreasonable to expect an exact ID, placing it in "Polistes" should be sufficient for QI purposes, we can then add our educated guesses. If we are not experts in this field, with the specimen in-hand to examine, it really can only be an educated guess. Do you have other pictures of this beast? The face looks a little over-exposed so it is difficult to see fine details, but "Polistes gallicus" seems to have a dark spot (frown :-) between the eyes. Have you checked out 'Polistes nimpha'? It is a male of whatever species we decide. :-) --Tony Wills 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've replaced Polistes gallicus with Polistes sp. again. Though there is a strong match with the sources I've consulted one can't be sure, there are too many similar species in this genus. As for the colouring and marks of the face I'm afraid it is not possible to use it as a identification element because there is a large variation. I start to have doubts about the other wasps Lycaon and me have classified as Polistes gallicus :-( - Alvesgaspar 10:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose >> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Walking cat[edit]

Шагающая кошка.jpg

  • Nomination Walking (stray) cat. #!George Shuklin 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportEverybody who likes cats will appreciate this picture. Sharpness, composition, lighting and colors are O.K. -- MJJR 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness issues and please upload with a descriptive name if you want to nominate for QI or FP. BTW, what happened to the EXIF? -- Lycaon 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Though I love cats I have to agree with Lycaon, some aditional information is needed (species, race, gender,...). Also, I would prefer the head to be clearly visible - Alvesgaspar 10:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you can clearly see on the image this is a male street cat (Felis catus). Feel free to complete the information. But I don't like the somewhat miscarried composition. --LC-de 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose >> Not promoted -Alvesgaspar 10:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Baska Voda-beach[edit]

Baska Voda-beach2.jpg

  • Nomination Beach in Baška Voda--Beyond silence 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too big contrast difference between the trees and the water. --Siipikarja 16:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a typical contre-jour photo. --Beyond silence 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This isn't the most appropriate scene for contre-jour, without any real subject or emphasis added by the effect, and the tilt just kills it for me. Thegreenj 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose >> Not promoted -Alvesgaspar 10:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Cathedral[edit]

Berlin - Katedra.jpg

  • Nomination Berlin Cathedral. --Lestat 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was going to promote this picture, I promise! But then I opened it in full resolution and saw the heavy noise in the sky and the overall unsharpness. A shame. - Alvesgaspar 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Was it really noisy? It was made on ISO 100. --Lestat 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree with Alvesgaspar, clouds really are not a mixture of purple, black and white dots :-) --Tony Wills 00:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and agree with Alvesgaspar. Especially the cathedral itself looks very unsharp. --Florian Prischl 20:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Cathedral[edit]

Lwów - Katedra Ormiańska - Wnętrze.jpg

  • Nomination Armenian Cathedral in Lviv. --Lestat 13:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several problems: geometric distortion, noise and overall unsharpness - Alvesgaspar 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do You see all this problems on this photo? I'm not sure. Please for another opinion. --Lestat 08:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The geometric distortion (perspective) is obvious on the left and it could be sharper, but I don't see much noise. commons:Image guidelines mentions a way to fix distortion. --Relic38 11:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
You may rotate. --Beyond silence 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Geometric distortion, some rotation might help. It seems to be somewhat noisy and unsharp, especially in the upper left corner. --Florian Prischl 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose >> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oriental poppy[edit]

Poppy - Ontario Canada - Relic38.JPG

  • Nomination An Oriential Poppy (Papaver orientale) --Relic38 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Info Modified image to correct colour saturation (red) -- (Relic38 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good comosition, tech. acceptable.--Beyond silence 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The image is overcontrasted by the use of the flash at close distance, to the point of not being obvious it is a flower (the petiole is not clearly visible). I don't like the composition and framing either - Alvesgaspar 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The light is not good. I didn't see it was a flower until I read the description.S Sepp 17:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily oversaturated. --Florian Prischl 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Erigeron compositus ilulissat[edit]

original edit
  • Nomination A bunch of Dwarf Mountain Fleabane (Erigeron compositus), Ilulissat, Greenland - new species in Commons. -- Slaunger 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Once again I was going to promote this picture for its beatiful composition. But when opened in full siz the quality flaws are obvious: noise, artifacts and lack of detail. Alvesgaspar 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably reflects flaws in my editing capabilities of the original, which was taken on a rainy day. I am, however, encouraged by your remarks about the composition. Thank you! -- Slaunger 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have re-edited the original to give a similar level of brightness to Slaunger's edit, any better? --Tony Wills 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for helping me out! IMO your edit does not look as overprocessed as my edit, but let's see what the reviewers think... -- Slaunger 07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I specially miss detail in what I think is the Androecium. There are artifacts and bad noise. --Florian Prischl 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Thank you all for commenting and taking your time to review it. -- Slaunger 07:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Result:  Withdrawn nomination -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Erigeron compositus ilulissat - Edit[edit]

new edit
  • Nomination A bunch of Dwarf Mountain Fleabane (Erigeron compositus), Ilulissat, Greenland - new species in Commons. -- Slaunger 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Near acceptable. Some brightness can makes better.--Beyond silence 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose now here and there overexposed and still not crisp enough. Lycaon 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes not as sharp as it ought to be, I brightened it, then sharpened it which pushed some pixels into over-exposure, I should have done it the other way around (but still wouldn't be any sharper). Maybe 'down-sampling' would help --Tony Wills 03:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have similar concerns with this edit, although it got better. Now it seems oversharpened, though. --Florian Prischl 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ASUS P4P800 SE[edit]

ASUS P4P800 SE-6.JPG

  • Nomination ASUS P4P800 SE motherboard--Beyond silence 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a bad idea, but DOF is really too small here. Lycaon 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any supporting opinion?--Beyond silence 06:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info If you are taking photos of static objects but have a too limited DOF, why not try the technique of taking a number of photos with the focus moved slightly between each one and then using some application to combine them into one image. Eg CombineZM (I have not tried this technique myself, but other here do such things) --Tony Wills 09:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Such an angle does not illustrate the subject well. Maybe it could look nice, but the tilt and limited DOF prohibit that. --Florian Prischl 22:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Silesia City Center 2[edit]

Katowice - Silesia City Center (2).jpg

  • Nomination Silesia City Center--Lestat 12:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Straighten and corrected version. --Lestat 12:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better (though the halos are still there!!). Lycaon 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support it too. --Beyond silence 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The tilt is much better now. I do not notice any bad halos - Lycaon, would you point them out for me, please? --Florian Prischl 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There are still whitish halos around about every dark surface bordering the blue sky. Probably caused by sharpening and easily (if painstakingly) remediated with a 'replace colour' tool. Lycaon 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice Calibas 01:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI - Alvesgaspar 10:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Silesia City Center[edit]

  • Nomination Silesia City Center --Lestat 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Distortion from wide angle lens very apparent on the right side. A 1° or so clock-wise rotation would make it less noticeable Calibas 00:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good light, acceptable quality--Beyond silence 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Calibas. Tilting pavement and (sharpening?) halos. Lycaon 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because the edited version is better. --Florian Prischl 23:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nerium oleander[edit]

Nerium oleander September 2007-1.jpg

  • Nomination White flower of an oleander (Nerium oleander). I like the symmetry of the flower and its delicate colouring. Alvesgaspar 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are several problems with the image page. The species name is misspelled, it has not been added to the Nerium oleander species gallery, the oleander category is misleading and does btw not even exist. I also propose to add some geodata, or at least specify the location in words. -- Slaunger 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done - Fully agree with all recommendations. The location of the exact shrub is now given ;-) - Alvesgaspar 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Glad we agree, but are you sure all categories are meaningful? ;-) -- Slaunger 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, I think that all cathegories are meaningful and useful, including the "White flowers" one. - Alvesgaspar 12:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not think the Nerium oleander category is very meaningful. You will see why if you follow the cat link. I know there are different opinions on this, but I suggest you just add it to the Nerium oleander species gallery as you have already done and forget about a species cat - it is sort of redundant information. -- Slaunger 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like one of those galleries vs categories arguments. There are good reasons for ensuring every image is in a relevant category tree, please do not remove it from a category just because it is in a gallery :-) --Tony Wills 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 09:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
My real problem with the current image page is that if you follow the existing Nerium oleander cat link you are directed to a cat page telling you that the cat is being moved to the Nerium cat. I do not know the reasoning behind this, but that made me think that Nerium was a more adequate cat than Nerium oleander - or the existing species cat shall not be moved to the more general genera cat. I am aware that currently there is no consensus in the community about species galleries vs. species cat. I may have my own personal preferences for species galleries associated with genera cats, but I agree with you that this alone is not relevant for arguing pro or con. -- Slaunger 09:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent detail and exposure on the flower. Calibas 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The photo itself is good. On metadata: The description could probably be expanded, but it contains all vital information. Categorization looks OK, at least if the one mentioned issue is resolved soon. --Florian Prischl 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Tony Wills 09:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead Phalacrocorax carbo[edit]

Ab bird 022.jpg

  • Nomination Dead Phalacrocorax carbo in Belosarayskaya kosa reserve --Butko 09:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive picture. The harsh lighting contributes to the dramatism of the composition - Alvesgaspar 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unacceptable colour cast. Lycaon 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you mean that it is brown rather than black, I think it is an immature one, eg look at this illustration of the NZ subspecies. The white area hasn't developed around the base of the bill, and the plumage is brownish, with a light coloured breast (not visible here). There seems to be a mixture of ages in his other version Image:Ab_bird_021.jpg. --Tony Wills 10:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not really talking about the bird itself, but about the whole picture. There is a pinkish hue overlaying the photograph (IMO, I sincerely hope it's not my monitors). Lycaon 10:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You are right about the pinkish hue. That can be easily corrected, I believe - Alvesgaspar 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I am doubtful it is a simple colour cast. Examine 'white' areas, eg bits of shell in shadow like the bit of triangular shaped shell above the birds crown, with a pebble on it - they are bluish! Enlarge any area in the shadow of the bird, there is a bluish cast in these areas (including the shadowed part of the beak). Due to the severe over-exposure it is no use looking at white areas in full sunlight as they have been clipped and colour info has been lost. You can 'correct' the colour of the background, but this would incorrectly show the birds plumage and make shadow areas even bluer. If you are happy to accept the over-exposure of the background, then you will have to ignore the resulting colour cast :-) (I suppose a skilled person could correct the colour of the whole image based on the shadow area (making it redder), then use layer masks to select off the bright areas and 'correct' them in the other direction (back towards white) :-) --Tony Wills 10:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't have a big problem with the colour cast (which definitely exists), as the main subject is well lit and coloured. What I have a problem with is the JPEG quality, which does not seem so good. I'll think about it. --Florian Prischl 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI've decided to oppose this picture due to the already mentioned color cast and JPEG quality. --Florian Prischl 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hermh - Bart[edit]

Hermh - Bart 01.JPG

  • Nomination Bart from polish metal band Hermh --Lestat 21:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. Lycaon 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Disagree - black metal is dark ;) --WarX 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    This was Symbol support vote.svg Support vote! --WarX 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then the background is not dark enough to let the main topic figure. The contrast is lacking IMO. Lycaon 09:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Was that really a support? I thought WarX intended it as a joke, seeing as he neither used the support tag or changed to the discuss template, added later by Lestat. Thegreenj 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll give it the benefit of the doubt ;-) Lycaon 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)doubt no longer necessary. Lycaon 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, it is very dark, and, yes, the subject is not well separated from the BG as both are very black. However, for me that is overcompensated by the expression of the face - especially the hair and develish eyes - and the difficult conditions. -- Slaunger 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this captures the essence of black metal perfectly, dark and kind of disturbing. Calibas 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The merits are really merits for FP, not QI. It really doesn't show the subject well --Tony Wills 02:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't looks so good, not too detailed. --Beyond silence 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is not lighted well. It looks as if only the flash was used. Ideally the subject should be luminated by at least another light (spotlight in this case). This is what creates the bad contrast. I think the colours are off, too (because of this, most likely). To the left and the top of the subject is too much space - the way he is holding the trident, the picture and subject should have an angle "pointing to the top right", if you get what I mean. --Florian Prischl 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Some monument in St.Petersburg[edit]

Причал петропавловской крепости.jpg

  • Nomination Berth at St. Peter and Paul Fortress in Saint Petersburg #!George Shuklin 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt and missing English description. Lycaon 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I MUST put an english description for russian photo of russian museum? Some times I'm really think about language disrimination (Whould you like to put a RUSSIAN description for EVERY QI? Why not? If you say me to make description in foregn language, why you do not whant do learn other languages? After you words I'm really think, that english desription (even, if one was on museum notes) should not be added to image description (to avoid fanservice for english-speaking people). Or, just stop upload to commons and move back to russian wikipedia. P.S. Main question: is a language of description is a part of image quality? (i.e. english is a quality description, and all others are NOT quality description?) #!George Shuklin 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment All the information about this picture is in Cyrillic alphabet, and the image is not categorized at all. This greatly diminishes the usability of this image. With my limited knowledge of Russian, I can only guess that it is something in St.Peterburg. IMO description is an integral part of quality. How can you properly judge an image if you don't know what it is about? To put it extremely: if you see a picture of the tower of Pisa and the only caption is in cuneiform script, you may think: "what a bad photograph, that tower is horribly tilted". :-) Oh yes, and BTW, English is also a foreign language for me, and I do whish I knew Russian (or Chinese or any other language for that matter) well enough to understand it. -- Lycaon 08:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not think an English filename or English description should be a QI criteria (although I only speak English). Of course if people can not read the description then they may not be able to properly review the image and it will sit here for eight days and drop off the bottom unreviewed - so it is an advantage to have translations to maximise the chances of it being properly reviewed. --Tony Wills 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slightly tilted. The presence of a few people is distracting IMO. Somewhat dark. The flat-on view makes the composition somewhat trivial. Adding it all together I have to oppose. Concerning the image page description, I do not understand it either, but I agree with Tonys view on this - that an English description is not a requirement, but it makes life easier to the majority of reviewers, and improves chances of passing. One thing you could do, which has nothing to do with the language is to add some geodata. With this, everyone, independent of language skills would have a fast track into at least localizing the building, and that is quite valuable IMO. -- Slaunger 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About the use of the English language: I think for most of the people here on QI English is not their mother language. Personally I strongly oppose unreflected use of English words in everyday life, which unfortunately has become more and more popular in Germany. But for commons.wikipedia.org things are different IMO: We want to share resources among all the language-dependent wikipedias, and it's a fact that English is among the languages that are widely understood, as is the Latin alphabet. And yes, I also think that each resource uploaded should come with a brief description that can be read and understood by most Wikimedians. Otherwise chances are that the -let's say- French version of the article on a monument in Russia will not be accompanied by the best images available on Commons. So for me a legible description belongs to a QI. - Till 05:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you say me what exaclty is tilt? I try to read en:tilt, but not found any useful. In guideline for QI no anything too. #!George Shuklin 11:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is when the image is rotated relative to the real subject of the image. For instance in your photo, there are horizontal lines in the building which ought to be horizontal in the image as well. It can often be seen immediately on a thumb-mail image and checked by e.g. scrolling a full size photo over the screen and notice if horizontal lines are parallel to the edge of the screen. In your case the tilt is quite small. -- Slaunger 11:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted to the left, not symetric (which this subject would need, the tilt only amplifies this issue), lacking any categorization. Geotag would be good, too. --Florian Prischl 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think an image does not always need an English (or latin script) description, but lack thereof can decide an image that is on the edge. What definitely every image should have is proper categorization. Not wanting to write an English description (for whatever reason) is no excuse for the lack of categorization. On a personal note to #!George Shuklin: It would be sad to lose your talent as evidences by photos such as [[9]]. However, only because someone thought your image lacked something, you should not try to threaten the community with your leaving. We can work it out, OK? --Florian Prischl 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RAM memory 2[edit]

DDR RAM-2.jpg

  • Nomination An RAM memory--Beyond silence 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why the crop?? It should be complete and in focus all over. -- Lycaon 16:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a really bad crop. Why can only good a full view?--Beyond silence 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a studio photo of a basically flat object, is there a reason for it not to all be in focus? --Tony Wills 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an amateor camera, that's the reason... :( --Beyond silence 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
??? Your camera, with a smaller sensor and shorter focal length/longer distance will capture more of the picture in focus for a given aperture. What you need is an to have the subject perpendicular to the camera to make it as flat as possible. Although, you may be right about camera issues on the first image - it looks like it may partially be from bad corners in the lens, similar to the strange corners in peafowl pic. Thegreenj 01:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate crop, not sharp, careless composition. -- Slaunger 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture is restless. --Siipikarja 13:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad focus, crop, tilt...it has been said before. --Florian Prischl 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  5 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Danburite[edit]

Danburite 2581.jpg
  • Nomination Danburite cristal, Mexico. Vassil 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This looks OK for me for QI, but I would like a second opinion from a mineral-proficient person. -- Slaunger 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As per vote on the discuss page, to avoid so many entries in CR, please no longer send things to CR until there is a dispute over the review. You can put a comment on the nomination without promotion/decline and let others review it. Or in this case you could decline the nomination if you dispute the identification and let the nominator bring it to CR if they know otherwise. --Tony Wills 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK. I'll put a comment in the next time without moving it to CR. I took it to CR because I found it sufficient for QI but wanted a professional second opinion concerning the mineralogy - as I found it a pity that noone reviewed the photo. I certainly agree with the new fast track procedure. -- Slaunger 10:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We do not seem to have any experts coming forward but to me it looks like other pictures of Danburite crystals on the web --Tony Wills 02:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 08:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support, 0 oppose >> Promoted to QI - Alvesgaspar 10:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Mormon Temple[edit]

original

  • Nomination Mormon temple in Oakland, California --Calibas 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy posterization artifacts --LC-de 05:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see any overly disturbing artifacts. Where ? --Agrajag 11:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think he's talking about the trees at the bottom, I uploaded a new version. Calibas 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please vote on revised version below --Tony Wills 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  withdrawn --Tony Wills 02:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Mormon Temple.jpg

  • Nomination Mormon temple in Oakland, California --Calibas 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think he's talking about the trees at the bottom, I uploaded a new version. Calibas 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I note from the smear of the lights in the background that there has been some camera movement (horizontally) --Tony Wills 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If the faults in the image (posterisation) is such that I don't see them at all, despite looking, and others have to resort to "I think he's talking about...", then it's not much of a fault. This is IMHO a quality image. It's not a *perfect* image, but it doesn't have to be to qualify as quality. --Agrajag 08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry... but I think it's too soft for a night shot. Benh 16:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can definitely see posterization in the picture (in the sky) and do not like the shake even the main subject is suffering from. --Florian Prischl 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Representation of Honorius III[edit]

original

  • Nomination Portrait of Honorius III - Detail of the apse mosaic of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls (1220) - Roma - Italy -- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Umm... are you being serious? This is a quite unusual composition, to say the least. - Till 14:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Few pictures of Pope Honorius III are left. I could have cropped the figure down Pope Honorius III. But I wanted to keep its strong symbolic message intact. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Religious art of the 13th Century often represents Popes, donators, ... next to Christ or Evangelists. At that time, it was mandatory to represent a living person (even the Pope) prostrated or in pray next to a "huge" Christ. You will see were this small detail is coming from on this picture [10]. It is very difficult to see this detail from the Church. It is very often the only way historians have to know who payed for it. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was referring to the composition of your image, not the composition of the original work of art. In my opinion it is not appropriate to crop the upper part of the body of Christ (and I'm not talking as a religious person) — you can't even identify the sitting figure as Christ, and that way the meaning of this part of the mosaic is lost. - Till 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)\
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it were framed so that you could just see Pope Honorius and a some or all of one foot, that would work. (Size allowing). Regards, Ben Aveling 11:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Confusing composition (rotation and crop). -- Slaunger 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited[edit]

Portrait of Honorius III - Apse Mosaic of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls - Roma - Italy.jpg

  • Nomination Portrait of Honorius III - Detail of the apse mosaic of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls (1220) - Roma - Italy -- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • ✓ Done I recentered the picture on its main topic. Please revote. Thanks Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Huh? I am confused here. You have the exact same image here as above. Is that intentional? -- Slaunger 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the nature of uploading new versions over top of the original, we can no longer see the original. I have changed the image above to a link to the original. --Tony Wills 23:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition, detail acceptable. --Beyond silence 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The pope has not enough room downwards. Parts of his clothes are very nearly cropped. Besides that I am still not convinced about the composition, sorry. -- Slaunger 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger. Lycaon 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop is too tight at the bottom. I also think that for this to be useful, a photo of the larger context is essential. If you have one, please link me to it - it should be linked on the image page as well. --Florian Prischl 21:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I linked to the general view of the apse mosaic I took for the wikipedia page [11]. Thanks for the hint. Doesn't solve the composition issue but the usability of the picture. Regarding cropping, I sacrificed composition to the quality of the detail. Cropping details out of a large hemispherical mosaic without a single straight line is very often a trade-off. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RAM memory 1[edit]

DDR RAM-1.jpg

  • Nomination An RAM memory--Beyond silence 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why the crop?? It should be complete and in focus all over. -- Lycaon 16:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a really bad crop. Why can only good a full view?--Beyond silence 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose regardless of the crop, it should all be in focus --Tony Wills 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough IMO, especially at the lower edge. Confusing crop, what's the subject? -- Slaunger 20:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg --Beyond silence 12:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

laserpitium_prutenicum_staengel[edit]

Laserpitium prutenicum staengel.jpeg

  • Nomination hairy sprout of a plant. Fabelfroh 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient DOF (your camera has a 3888 x 2592 resolution, why posting such a small image?). Lycaon 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a 90% crop. Why insufficient DOF? Every part of the sprout is very much clear and sharp. Fabelfroh 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not sure how to describe them, but the bits at the top foreground of the picture are indeed well out of focus. If the picture is meant to be just of the hairy 'stem' part, then its a composition question, the eye is led upwards and hits the out of focus bits. (and yes, the size is adequate) --Tony Wills 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting. I've never thought that way. Would it help if I'd upload a version with just the sprout? But wouldn't the photo then just be "boring"? Fabelfroh 07:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
QI accepts boring, but then some might see it as a composition question. I would expect a real detailed close-up of the hairy sprout would be accepted, but it might be hard to get a low detail version (like a cropped version of this) accepted --Tony Wills 02:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good sharpness, composition, light - acceptable dof. --Beyond silence 15:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't like the composition and the exposure choice is wrong, resulting in a poor DOF - Alvesgaspar 19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

juncus_ranarius_detail[edit]

Juncus ranarius detail.jpeg

  • Nomination detail of the 1mm small fruits which are important for determination. Fabelfroh 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient DOF (your camera has a 3888 x 2592 resolution, why posting such a small image?). Lycaon 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd upload larger images but this a 100% crop. Technically the image fits the requirements for QI. Fabelfroh 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am tempted to support it, the size is adequate and not surprising given the difficulty of getting close enough to a 1mm subject to get a larger image without a super-macro lens. I am surprised at the small file-size of your images, far too compressed in my opinion, even allowing for the fact that a lot of the image is black, a higher 'quality' mode is needed. The lack of depth of field means the ripe fruit in the foreground is out of focus, I don't think the focus on the rest of the image matters much, but as the subject is the fruits it would be good to see them completely :-) --Tony Wills 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF, composition - sorry --Beyond silence 15:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentha aquatica[edit]

Mentha aquatica LC0099.jpg
  • Nomination Water-mint (Mentha aquatica) --LC-de 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality and encyclopedic value are O.K. -- MJJR 21:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It appears to me that the flowers are overexposed and not sufficiently sharp. In addition, I find the background quite messy and distracting. -- Slaunger 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose distracting background resulting from a low focal length of the lens. try to "zoom in" next time. Fabelfroh 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    Never guessed that 150mm is a low focal length... --LC-de 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Signac - La Calanque[edit]

Signac - La Calanque.jpg

  • Nomination Painting of Paul Signac in the Brussels Museum of Fine Arts--Szilas 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion Excellent quality but it seems a bit dark to me. Maybe some brightness and a dash of contrast? Calibas 03:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)----- Thank you for your proposals, Calibas; here is the new version, I hope it is better--Szilas 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely picture, good scan. Calibas 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose edit blew the whites in a good part of the picture. I have an edit from the original here that I much prefer. Thegreenj 01:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown whites. Lycaon 05:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I withdraw this nomination, you find below the better variant.--Szilas 06:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  Withdrawn --Tony Wills 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Signac - La Calanque edit.jpg

  • Nomination
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Edited from the original. Thegreenj 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is the right balance.--Szilas 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Only one of the above 2 votes will be counted depending on who we count the nominator as :-) --Tony Wills 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Calibas 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs colour calibration. Lycaon 15:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose --> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jugendstil painted decor[edit]

Jugendstil painted decor - Friedhofskirche zum Heiligen Karl Borromäus - Max Hegele - Vienna.JPG

  • Nomination Jugendstil painted decor - Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharp, good colors. But the image is vertically compressed (a result of perspective?). Could you correct this? - Till 14:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The motif (angel+wings) is periodically repeated over the whole length of the column. I corrected for perspective by forcing vertical parallelism. Two angels are fully while the third one is not complete. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 12:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The faces appear quite stout, I would expect them to be more delicate. Also the volutes probably have a circular shape in reality, which they don't have in your picture. These are the reasons for my impression that the image is distorted. You have done a good job in aligning the verticals, there is only one more step to do... - Till 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question It seems like the image has a saturation which increases as we go up - especially visible in the border. Does the decor really look like that in the church? Is it due to some non-uniform lightning on the decor? -- Slaunger 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable detail. --Beyond silence 08:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI as long as the picture is distorted like this. - Till 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There has been no reply to my question. I assume until the opposite is stated that the saturation gradient is an artifact. -- Slaunger 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I was a few days off. There is a slight non uniform lightning on the decor due to sun light. Although distortion could be corrected with post-processing, I will go back this week-end and give another try.;-) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  withdrawn --Tony Wills 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Göttweig Abbey[edit]

original

  • Nomination Church of the Göttweig Abbey - Austria. The two clocks on the right are fake. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a shame to decline such a beautiful picture, but it appears to have been over processed (and compressed?). Please notice the grass and ground, in the foreground, and the church's roofs. Is the original still available? - Alvesgaspar 16:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC) -- ✓ Done Thanks! I uploaded the new version without post-processing. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Better now, moved to CR to get other opinions. Sorry to keep you working but I think that the lens distortion should also be corrected - Alvesgaspar 11:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the vertical lines were fixed, I'd support. -- Slaunger 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Göttweig Abbey edit[edit]

Church - Göttweig Abbey - Austria.jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Göttweig Abbey - Austria. The two clocks on the right are fake. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • ✓ Done Here is the corrected image. What do you think? -- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Resolution, acceptable sharpness. --Beyond silence 15:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strange outlining (black lines!), not sharp enough and very tightly cropped at the top. Lycaon 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In my review of the first version I did not notice that the apex(?) on the tower to the right is missing. It should be possible to retake that image and get that apex included too. The colours are very nice and I think the sharpness and DOF are good enough. -- Slaunger 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination You're right. Picture should be retaken and my other pictures of the serie are crowded with people. A sufficient reason to go back to Krems. ;-)

Result: withdrawn --Tony Wills 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AverMedia RM-RH Remote control[edit]

AverMedia RM-RH Remote control (white background).jpg
  • Nomination AverMedia TV tuner remote control (again!) Barcex 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you adjust some contrast? --Beyond silence 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Has been developed with "high contrast film" in COne, and added 1 step of contrast. Perhaps you're talking about levels. Barcex 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the dull gray background creates the illusion of poor contrast. Maybe a white background? Calibas 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Certainly the background is now better than it was before (remember, it was orange). For me the image meets the QI requirements. - Till 11:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI detail.--Beyond silence 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I was just wondering? Are there any copyright infringement issues here with the Avermedia company (I admit it, I am an ignorant in these matters, I was just wondering). -- Slaunger 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is the colour correct? I note the red background version had a different colour to the keypad, did you edit the colour when changing the background? --Tony Wills 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just my guess - the camera, set to AWB, gave skewed WB on the red picture because of the prominent, shall I say, background. Both look acceptably accurate (having never seen the remote control) to me, though. Thegreenj 01:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably right, but this is an illustration of the remote, so should show its colour correctly. So what is its actual colour? --Tony Wills 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: BG. Lycaon 05:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI (alternate promoted) -- Lycaon 08:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

AverMedia RM-RH Remote control (white background) edit.jpg

  • Nomination AverMedia TV tuner remote control edit
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBg whitened. Thegreenj 03:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Now I can Symbol support vote.svg Support! -- Lycaon 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 08:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support So much better. --Doodledoo 20:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nacka Strand Fountain[edit]

Nacka Strand Fountain.jpg
  • Nomination The "God, our Father, on the Rainbow" fountain in Nacka Strand, Sweden --Inductiveload 12:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know about quality, but this is a really good photo. #!George Shuklin 13:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoI reduced the noise Inductiveload 14:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The idea is very good, but the burned out sky kills it imho, especially as the eye is directed there. I'd decline, sorry. --Nattfodd 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable technical condition, good atmosphere. --Beyond silence 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Nattfodd. quality is not up to QI standards. Lycaon 08:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In this particular case it does not bother me that the sky is blown because it gives a nice, sharp contrast to the almost black figure on the fountain. -- Slaunger 20:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The road M36, in the Namib desert near to the Tropic of Capricorn[edit]

M36(c14) tropic of capricorn.jpg

  • Nomination The road M36, near to the Tropic of Capricorn in Namibia. -- Lycaon 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are dark blotches in the sky on the right side of the pic. Can they be removed? - Till 08:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You were very much correct. I removed them. Thanks for noticing. Lycaon 09:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This was hard to decide. Technically OK, i.e. sharpness, light, the lot. But the composition doesn't appeal to me. I do see the landscape is not very interesting by itself, but with this point of view nearly half of the picture is road, which is even less interesting to me. Nevertheless: a well-done panorama. - Till 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The road is the whole point in this picture: from a wide front view to a dust spewing van arriving in the far distance. And, BTW, QI is primarily about technical value. Composition and wow are more an FP thing... Lycaon 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On the side: You don't ignore composition issues when supporting or declining QI candidates either, and rightly so. - Till 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't ignore composition, but in QI it is not my major judging instrument, and rightly so. Lycaon 06:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For FP i would say composition is a bit weak to "wow" me, but composition is good enough for QI --Simonizer 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition...sheer barren wasteland. For me I would knock it from FP because it's got slight color noise. But I think it's a pass for QI.--Trounce 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support awe-inspiring, beside the technical qualities.--Szilas 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but the amount of noise in the sky is reaching a level where it is distracting IMO. -- Slaunger 20:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Gears on a rear bicycle wheel[edit]

Rearbikegears.jpg

  • Nomination Rear gears on a bicycle wheel Thegreenj 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good sharpness and DoF, but I find the background distracting — wouldn't it be easy to choose a more uniform background? - Till 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that the backgroud adds a little more feel a uniform backgroud, as well as being far enough out of focus not to distract. Thegreenj 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support background does not really disturb. Lycaon 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately the background is distracting. Its fine apart from that.--Trounce 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI detail.--Beyond silence 11:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Background no problem for me. I find the composition a little trivial, but Ok for QI. --Slaunger 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works for me --Richard Bartz 18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Trondheim[edit]

Trondheim.jpg
  • Nomination A fine view from the old bridge in Trondheim --Tackbert 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Please try to fix the tilt! Thanks --Beyond silence 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Think I fixed the tilt -- TACKBERT 11:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think now it's ok! Thanks --Beyond silence 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of oversharpening fringing (white lines on top of the roofs, which can be fixed!!). Lycaon 08:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some oversharpening but still QI worthy. Fine view otherwise. --Nattfodd 11:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not-so-subtle sharpening, borderline detail. Thegreenj 21:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI IMO. --Slaunger 20:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It is a pretty picture, and free of large defects. It is only moderately sharp though. --Agrajag 11:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Salvia officinales[edit]

Salvia officinalis LC0057.jpg
  • Nomination Blossoms of Common sage (Salvia officinalis) --LC-de 18:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent sharpness. Good colours. --Doodledoo 19:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not agree. The top of the left flower is out of focus when viewed in full scale and the crop is unfortunate in the right and lower edges (leaves cut). Also I am in doubt what the subject is (plant or flowers)? -- Slaunger 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    Subject is the whole inflorescence. What makes you believe something else? --LC-de 05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    Well, if the subject is the whole inflorescence I would personally have moved a little closer to the subject to get more more visible details in the inflorescence anatomy - like cutting away 25% of the bottom part or so. However, this is just a subjective personal opinion and not really my main objection to the image. The sharpness and crop problems are the real killers in my opinion. -- Slaunger 10:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexpose flowers. Sorry --Beyond silence 08:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoverfly[edit]

Hoverfly August 2007-1.jpg
  • Nomination Wasp mimicking hoverfly (Ceriana vespiformis). This version has a little better quality though the POV is worse - Alvesgaspar 16:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps rotate 90 degress clockwise. I'm also concerned about the noise in the background.Inductiveload 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done - Rotation and noise - Alvesgaspar 19:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low sharpness. --Beyond silence 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the sharpness is acceptable and other technical aspects are OK too. -- Slaunger 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness isn't great, especially given that it is "only" 2MP, but it's not terrible either. A pretty good shot given the circumstances. Thegreenj 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I love the hoverfly and composition but lack of details disqualifies it for me for QI. Lycaon 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is great and the subject, too. The lack of detail is unacceptable for QI --Richard Bartz 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3.5 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhinanthus angustifolius[edit]

Rhinanthus angustifolius 1.jpg
  • Nomination Greater Yellow-rattle Rhinanthus angustifolius -- Lycaon 20:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop. --Beyond silence 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe yes, maybe no. Guess it depends on its use. It was taken for identification purposes so that the one flower was nicely in focus. Some reviewers may think that all other factors (size, focus, lighting, lack of noise) outweigh the crop. Or not... ;-) Lycaon 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tough decision. It certainly has its qualities and it is also the best photo in its species gallery, but the crop is too unfortunate for my taste. -- Slaunger 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Angela Merkel signing autographs[edit]

B Angela Merkel signing autographs 1.jpg
  • Nomination Angela Merkel, signing autographs. --Dschwen 09:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition --Lestat 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the composition is good, ok it shows more the situation than only the person. --Kolossos 16:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good use of DOF, main topic (A. Merkel) is nicely in focus. Lycaon 06:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Security guard, Nepal[edit]

Narayangarh-Security.JPG
  • Nomination Security guard, Nepal, by User:Seeteufel --Infrogmation 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lens distortion of the face, poor composition - Alvesgaspar 10:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Decent quality pic of an unusual subject. Composition is good enough for QI IMO and I don't see the lens distortion. --Dschwen 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 'unusual subject' sounds suspiciously like an FP argument :-) --Tony Wills 12:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is fine for me too. Lycaon 18:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Come on, and what about the lack of sharpness of the face and hair? Being an unusual subject shouldn't be a mitigating factor here. If it were an american male cop it wouldn't be promoted for sure. Alvesgaspar 22:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar. --Slaunger 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting subject. I can't see any lens distortion on the face --Trounce 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

USB Type A Plug[edit]

USB Type A Plug BW.svg
  • Nomination Type A USB Plug. Coloured version also. --Inductiveload 01:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clear to-the-point illustration. - Till 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Lycaon is right; I withdraw my support. At least the plug itself should be non-transparent (in the colored version of the image the body is too dark though) - Till 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is completely transparent, which means it won't show at all on a black background and very faint on any dark background!!. Lycaon 11:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support resolved Lycaon 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've made the fill white now. What colour should the coloured version be if it is currently too dark? In my experience most USB plugs are black, so dark grey made sense to me for a realistic drawing. Also, should I submit other drawings like this? Thanks Inductiveload 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I renew my support. Concerning the colour, a medium gray would do in my opinion. And yes, why not have some more technical drawings for a change? After all, it's about images for an encyclopaedia. - Till 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, what an attractive SVG. Never in my fiddlings have I ever made something that good. Looks great. --Doodledoo 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice SVG. I agree with Till above. The more high quality technical drawings, the better -- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 08:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  5 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra[edit]

Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra mg 6029.jpg
  • Nomination Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra --Rama 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • weak support there is noise in full view, yet i think this is normal becouse of the lighting. i do enjoy the composition and it has some interesting color effects. yet a second opinion on this one would be nice-LadyofHats 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise and not very sharp neither. Interesting colour pallet though. Lycaon 10:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The timing, composition and colours are lovely, but it is very noisy. I do not know if some of it can be removed in postprocessing without ruining the atmosphere? -- Slaunger 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think high ISO is the way to go for natural light night/indoor concerts. -- Lerdsuwa 10:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1.5 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Chiesa del Gesù (Roma, Italy)[edit]

Restitched version[edit]

Chiesa gesu facade.jpg
  • Nomination It's the 3rd time I nominate it, this time I have corrected stitching errors, perspective and white balance. Alessio Damato 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment nice stitch, but two things : it's too soft on the borders (because of projection used) and you should have corrected horizontal lines as well (done!). Do other people agree ?? Benh 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice job! Proportions and symetry of the Chiesa del Gesù very well repected. Where did you take it from? Next to the newspaper stand in front of the Church? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 21:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still excessive noise. Lycaon 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I took it from the bar in front of it. I was on the left side (I have corrected perspective) and the whole façade didn't fit in one view, that's why I had to stitch 4 different pics. Alessio Damato 09:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK it is noisy but this picture is difficult to obtain. It is the first time I see a picture with the church and the international college next to it with a good perspective. Taking a picture of this church with the right light without people sitting on stairs and cars, buses or Vespas rushing around it is not trivial. Thanks for your efforts. May be reducing the image size down to 2000 px and removing noise would help to gain support from more wikimedians... Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 15:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose still some minor stitching errors, and the borders are too soft to me. Benh 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question where are the minor stitching errors?? I can try to fix them Alessio Damato 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is significant noise, but other than that it is good. The noise is not disturbing unless very much magnified. --Agrajag 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It has a pretty bad stitching error on the left side of the facade around the large spiral structure half way down (appears as a diagonal dislocation). And the sky is too noisy IMO. --Slaunger 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> (more votes?) --Slaunger 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Chiesa gesu facade edit[edit]

Chiesa gesu facade edit.jpg
  • Nomination I made a reduced noise version. Any takers? Lycaon 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 17:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose still some minor stitching errors, and the borders are too soft to me. Benh 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light & sharpness, big resolutuon. --Beyond silence 01:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, hadn't seen the stitching errors. Lycaon 09:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question where are the minor stitching errors?? I can try to fix them Alessio Damato 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a bad stitch (a diagonal dislocation) around the big spiral structure on the left side of the building approx. half way up. In the opposite spiral on the right hand side of the building the structure seems blurred, which could be due to a bad stitch too. -- Slaunger 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Upper reaches of the Rhone river[edit]

CH Rhone upper reaches 1.jpg
  • Nomination Upper reaches of the Rhone river. --Dschwen 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI think after some postprocessing it can be a QI, but now it has too much problem. --Beyond silence 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you be more specific about problems? -Tony Wills 01:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course. Sky overexp., fog, sharpness.--Beyond silence 01:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree with Dschwen below. It is not difficult to imagine that this was the way it looked like when the shot was made. Alvesgaspar 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's unbelivable, when my photo have overexposed sky everybodies oppose because of it! --Beyond silence 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference is the clipping of the highlights. In the pic you refer to there is no recoverable detail in the sky, it's all #ffffff white pixels. This pic has shades of light gray. Anyway we shouldn't get all worked up over one or two pics, with a quick process like QI there will always be hits and misses. --Dschwen 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

*weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly, to break the deadlock, I will oppose due to the two large areas of over-exposed clouds (indeed #ffffff white) --Tony Wills 11:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC) see below --Tony Wills 11:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Severely over-exposed sky. -- Slaunger 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not hung on contesting the outcome of this whole vote, however, I must point out that the sky is not severely overexposed. You might want to double check your monitor settings as it seems to clip light shades of gray to white. --Dschwen 07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree with Alvesgaspar (can't white clouds be #ffffff white then?). Lycaon 07:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, yes some will be that bright white. But the shape of the histogram will tell you that some would have been brighter still but have been clipped. Looking at the separate histograms for red and green shows this clearly. Looking at the blue histogram make me think that some of those bright white areas should in fact be blue, but the over exposure has blown them out to being almost white. But I have been looking at it again, and again and have to ask what improvement would there be with a couple more shades of white or blue in those areas, and the answer is not much. Overall the image is outstanding, so should be promoted to QI. :-) --Tony Wills 11:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited[edit]

CH Rhone upper reaches 1-bs.jpg
  • Nomination Upper reaches of the Rhone river. Edited by --Beyond silence 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Posterization and artifacts in the sky (please see the top of the mountains) - Alvesgaspar 09:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this edit is over the top for my taste. It does not represent the scene as I have witnessed it. I still think that the original is more than sufficient for QI. Weather conditions should not affect eligibility if they are common in the depicted area and as long as the exposure is right. The sky looks bright in the original, but if this edit shows anything, it's that the original still has lots of detail and is not overexposed. --Dschwen 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the natural view is as bright as the original capture. --Beyond silence 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done The artifacts are fixed. Thanks. Please revote! --Beyond silence 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Nope, they are still there, like small drops of milk. Also, notice the bands of gray in the cloud at left - we call that "posterization". In the present case it should be the result of a wild contrast enhancement - Alvesgaspar 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose over-contrasted. Lycaon 10:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The contrast didn't touched, only change on bright parts. --Beyond silence 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Duolbagorni in Kebnekaise valley.jpg[edit]

Duolbagorni.jpg
  • Nomination Mt Duolbagorni in the Kebnekaise valley, Lappland, Sweden. --Nattfodd 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. Lycaon 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it stands the QI standard. --Beyond silence 09:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. --Digon3 talk 14:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reindeer in the Kebnekaise valley[edit]

Reindeer in Kebnekaise.jpg

  • Nomination Reindeer in the Kebnekaise valley, Sweden. --Nattfodd 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Photo very noisy - foreground, subject. --Doodledoo 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Noisy? I can't see any noise, here. Subject is reasonably sharp and clean and background is blurry without any noise. --Nattfodd 23:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise isn't that much of a problem in my opinion — but sharpness and composition are. The head is not reasonably sharp, and the hind is cropped. - Till 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dullahan[edit]

4.FMC - Dullahan 01.JPG

  • Nomination Celtic band Dullahan. --Lestat 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good picture composition and exposure wise but a dull subject and angle --Calibas 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't agree with decline, please for another opinion. --Lestat 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition fails for me with this big almost empty stage. Lycaon 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Lycaon and too many distracting elements in the background for my taste. -- Slaunger 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nescio bridge, Amsterdam[edit]

original version with stitching error:

Nesciobrug.jpg

new version:[edit]

Nesciobrug2.jpg
  • Nomination A panorama (stitched) of the Nescio bridge in Amsterdam. --S Sepp 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great view! Good sharpness & resolutuon. --Beyond silence 14:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is at least one very bad stitch in the bridge 4 sections left of the red bicyclist in the middle. -- Slaunger 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Stitches seem to be OK now. -- Slaunger 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll try to fix it. S Sepp 11:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol support vote.svg Support Bad seam looks to me like enblend3.0 (nothing wrong with that), it only makes it harder to find the seam continuation underneath. The problem I see is that on the cable and bridge underneath in the background I cannot find a similar offset. That suggests a parallax error with the photos been taken at different heights. One could try to fudge it with photoediting, but do not blame the stitching program here. Good luck with your photoediting attempts, S Sepp.-- Klaus with K 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)It was a stitching error, found the offset in the far bridge as well. When optimising in hugin there are good and bad choices of parameter sets in the pull-down menu. New stitch now looks ok to me. -- Klaus with K 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I took the photos with a tripod so they were not taken at different heights. I used hugin with emblend 3. S Sepp 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I created a new version, now using PTgui. The stitch is better now. Please reconsider your votes :) S Sepp 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find all the objects (boats etc.) to the right under the brigde somewhat distracting, and the sky is a little too noisy IMO. -- Slaunger 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose, 1 neutral -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New Town Hall, Munich[edit]

Neues Rathaus Munich-full.jpg
  • Nomination New Town Hall, Munich. --Lerdsuwa 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It has a strange distortion, how did you make it? --Beyond silence 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's from ultrawide angle lens (16mm equiv.). I fixed some perspective but leave some distortion in the photo. Complete fix makes it unrealistic. --Lerdsuwa 07:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distortion. --Lestat 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel that an architectural view (vertical features fully aligned) would look unnatural. Seen that in similar cases -- Klaus with K 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The distortion isnt nice and less details like the Glockenspiel. Why you dont took it from the 4th floor of "Hochcafe" which is exactly on the opposite side of the townhall. Greets from Munich --Richard Bartz 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Concerning the perspective, I certainly like it better when verticals are corrected to be parallel, like in this one: [12]. - Till 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Main street of Dubrovnik[edit]

Main street-Dubrovnik-2.jpg
  • Nomination Main street of Dubrovnik--Beyond silence 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lightning and exposure problems. Also, I think the colors are too pale --Orlovic (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why is this on CR? Please when moving an image to CR state a reason. Thanks Lycaon 06:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Because I think need more opinion. Enough for reason? --Beyond silence 07:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition OK, but too harsh light and partially blown sky. Sorry. -- Slaunger 20:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortifications at Ston[edit]

Ston-Fort-03.jpg
  • Nomination Fortifications at Ston --Beyond silence 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI feel mitigated. I don't see any obvious flaw, but colors seem washed out, and contrast a bit low, resulting in not so many detailed despite the hi res. what should we do ? Benh 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please when moving an image to CR state a reason. Thanks Lycaon 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why I think need more opinion. Enough for reason? --Beyond silence 07:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's reason enough, but you should explicitly state it. Thanks Lycaon 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support narrowly passes for QI for me. Lycaon 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unattractive hard light and the presence of tourists disturbs the composition IMO. If possible, I would recommend taking the same shot in the morning or in the evening, with no tourists and softer ligthning. The EXIF tells that this photo is taken around lunch-time. -- Slaunger 20:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 05:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil[edit]

original

  • Nomination Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil by Andrea Pozzo - Jesuit Church (Vienna) --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeReally noisy, sorry. It has an impressive view, may after some noise reducation It can be a QI. --Beyond silence 00:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralA little noisy but well within my tolerable range, especially given the resolution. Fix the tilt, and you've got my vote. Thegreenj 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose indeed too noisy. Lycaon 07:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited 2[edit]

Fresco with Trompe l'oeuil - Andrea Pozzo -Jesuit Church Vienna.jpg

  • Nomination Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil by Andrea Pozzo - Jesuit Church (Vienna) --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    • ✓ Done Thanks for input. Tilt corrected (based on the main altar) and noise reduced. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks great! I forgot where was the noise and now I don't find realy problems. --Beyond silence 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thegreenj 14:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The noise reduction process has wiped out too many details (there were already some missing in the first place). Lycaon 09:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Enough detailed for me, but I find the overexposure in the lower left corner distracting, sorry. -- Slaunger 22:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC). New ed. reviewed below. -- Slaunger 22:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for suggestions. Here is a new version with new crop without noise reduction. Only applied fade correction to emphasize the trompe-l'-oeil. Please revote. Thanks -- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hmmm.... still some blown areas in the golden figures to the lower left and in the windows...borderline for me. -- Slaunger 22:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Male blackbird[edit]

Male blackbird.jpg
  • Nomination Male Blackbird --Tony Wills 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can your improve on bill's bright? Thanks --Beyond silence 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks as if the whole picture is suffering from a magenta cast. Lycaon 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Have adjusted the bills brightness slightly and fixed colour balance. --Tony Wills 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bill is distracting, now too. --Beyond silence 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes the bill is shiny and so was over-exposed, so I've taken the edge off its brightness. But the head is the focal point of the image, so is the beak really 'distracting'? Is one small deficiency sufficient to decline, are there other faults? --Tony Wills 07:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

edited version

Male blackbird-b.jpg
  • Nomination Male Blackbird with Beyond silence editted beak, better? --Tony Wills 11:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough detailed to QI. --Beyond silence 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the colours and composition. Cute bird too. --Doodledoo 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack Doodledoo. Head is sharp. DOF a little shallow and resolution is on the low side but enough for QI considering the subject. -- Slaunger 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 05:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice view on Schneeberg[edit]

Schneeberg 5429.jpg
  • Nomination Nice view on Schneeberg (Austria) --Beyond silence 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this images are rather hard to evaluate, on one side i really love the diferent light and shadows. on the other hand the image has overexposed areas, wich is to be suposed on such a landscape.. still would like a second opinion -LadyofHats 16:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you very much for your feedback! I improved on overexpose, and reduced the noisy. So the land is dark, but the main subject isn't that ;). --Beyond silence 17:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It is a shame that a beautiful composition is spoiled by extreme post-processing (and jpg compression?). There are numerous ugly artifacts in the image. Please try to be a little more subtle in manipulating the pictures. Alvesgaspar 15:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
See the original version! May be I am blind but I don't see any artifacts on the image, because I don't use extrem post-processing. Some minor problem is on the original too, that I can't fix. But I reduced the noise and overexpose. I don't think I can more subtle in manipulating. May you can more permissive on QI voting, sorry. --Beyond silence 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please look carefully at the base of the dark cloud. You see both posterization and artifacts, probably due to contrast manipulation. This is the kind of sin severely punished here in QIC... Alvesgaspar 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, PUNISH! --Beyond silence 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral IMO the technical problems with this image are not that severe. Concerning the image page I would suggest to add some geodata to the image (location and heading) or at least add some details to the written description (where on Schneeberg, looking in which direction?). -- Slaunger 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeIn my oppinion the technical problems are severe. After all the landscape's to dark while parts of the clouds are a little bit overexposed. In scenes like this HDR-imaging or similar techniques would make sense. --LC-de 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Grossular Garnet[edit]

Quartz crystals Macro 1.JPG

  • Nomination Grossular Garnet --Digon3 talk 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are you sure this is grossular garnet? I have never heard of a colourless variety. They tend to be brownish red in colour. Lycaon 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks to me like Calcite. --LC-de 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    You can test it with an UV-lamp: calcite shows fluorescence, garnet does not. --LC-de 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't have a UV lamp. Is there another way I can tell? --Digon3 talk 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Garnet has a hardness of 6½ to 7½. Some research taught me that colourless garnets do exist, and a second look at your sample, makes me balance towards garnet crystal forms. It is most likely not calcite (that one you can scratch with a copper coin (hardness 3½) and surely with a penknife (hardness 5½). Lycaon 16:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe this is no calcite, but the crystals doesn't look like a garnet to me. In most cases the habit is a rhombic dodecahedra wich I didn't see on the image. http://www.mindat.org/min-1651.html provides some good informations. --LC-de 17:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> (a vote needed) --Tony Wills 06:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Archived too soon. Need to wait 12 more days. --Tony Wills 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While colorless garnet does exsist is it very rare. The trigonal faces in the picture most closly resemble the terminations of quartz crystals and theat would fit the hardness range. --Kevmin 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, looks like quartz to me, doesn't look like the shape of garnet crystals. I'm no expert but oppose unless there is a positive id on this one --Tony Wills 10:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  0.5 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-4[edit]

NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-4.jpg
  • Nomination Vanessa gonerilla wing underside view --Tony Wills 12:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size on the limit, noisy and to few details. Lycaon 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It isn't too small!--Beyond silence 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well first there is no size limit and the difference between the 1600x1250 guideline and 1600x1200 is negligible, it is entirely 'adequate' for QI! The camouflage colours of the underside of the wings are clearly illustrated - which is the purpose of the picture. The noise is only in the out of focus background, and I don't have an expensive camera that processes such things into fashionably smooth colours - if that is a problem can someone help me edit it? --Tony Wills 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The butterfly is less sharp than the foreground plants, which reduces the visible details. The size, although within the limits, does not help in discerning those details. (BTW, I quote "2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more"). Lycaon 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I will revert that guideline ;-) --Tony Wills 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think tech. acceptable, because it isn't a 'easy to take'. --Beyond silence 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Size is close enough, noise is tolerable, enough detail for QI I think. Ben Aveling 07:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have uploaded a revised version with the background noise smoothed out. --Tony Wills 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The BG noise didn't bother me as much as the lack of detail on the butterfly itself. Promises together with the smallish size, no possibilities for improvement. Lycaon 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Will be happy to provide a higher resolution and more detail when someone sends me a better camera :-) --Tony Wills 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That argument I completely understand ;-). That's why I don't submit picture like this and this myself, though sometimes I got lucky with my then (2005) 199€ camera. I sincerely hope you can upgrade soon to showcase your talents with a whopping camera :-)) Lycaon 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

♀ Oedipoda caerulescens[edit]

Oedipoda caerulescens 1.jpg
  • Nomination ♀ Oedipoda caerulescens, Spain. Lycaon 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I'd like to promote, but I there is what I believe to be blur from shake - Benh 20:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the photo was taken on an angle to the insect, then rotated so DOF is inconsistent along the insects length. Whatever the cause it does not look sharp. --Tony Wills 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There was no rotation and negligible shake, but some movement of the critter. I could of course, like so many here, resort to 1600x1200 resampling (see bottom sample), but sorry, that I refuse as too much information would be lost. Post processors can still decide on doing that later if it fits there purposes, but once uploaded as a resampled version, there is no way back. Lycaon 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO Lycaon has a good point. Although not perfect, I find that the original photo has a sufficient sharpness for QI. -- Slaunger 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil (Upper Belvedere)[edit]

Carlo Innocenzo Carlone - Prince Eugene as a new Apollo and leader of the Muses - Schloss Belvedere, Ceiling of the Marble Hall.JPG
  • Nomination Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil: Prince Eugene as a new Apollo - Marble Hall (Belvedere, Vienna) --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and heavily noisy Alessio Damato 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK. You're right. Here is the non-cropped version. The only "real thing" are the two window frames on the left and the four lamps. Any thing else is illusion on an almost flat ceiling. Upper right "over-exposition" creates the illusion of light entering the top-right window. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment much better, but it's blurred. Alessio Damato 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like a second opinion on that. Blur is employed to recreate some DOF but I am not 100% sure. Camera was laying on the floor to take full benefit of perspective.
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited[edit]

Carlo Innocenzo Carlone - Prince Eugene as a new Apollo and leader of the Muses - Schloss Belvedere, Ceiling of the Marble Hall.JPG
  • Nomination Non-cropped version of the ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeil. The only "real thing" are the two window frames on the left and the four lamps. Anything else is illusion on an almost flat ceiling. Upper right "over-exposition" creates the illusion of light entering the top-right window Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment much better, but it's blurred. Alessio Damato 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I think a bit more sharpness need to QI. --Beyond silence 06:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg  You're right. I will go back to the Belvedere Museum for another run of pictures. I hope they will let me in with my tripod ;-) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  Nomination withdrawn -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Black Poplar[edit]

Populus nigra-bekes.jpg

  • Nomination Black Poplar (Populus nigra) (better composition) --Beyond silence 07:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better composition indeed, but your main topic (the tree) should be really crisp. It isn't. Lycaon 07:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like today you have decling tone. May it enough sharp, what do else think? --Beyond silence 08:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject not sufficiently sharp IMO. -- Slaunger 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Giulianova porto[edit]

Giulianova porto 02.jpg
  • Nomination Giulianova, Italy - View of port --Luigi Chiesa 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a very good composition. But the colours are a little washed out and it could be sharper. Can it be fixed? - Alvesgaspar 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Beyond silence 07:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> (probably doesn't matter as other version promoted) --Tony Wills 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Giulianova porto 02bis.jpg
  • Nomination Is the color of this new version better? --Luigi Chiesa 08:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the composition is a little odd, but if Alves thinks its good then it must be :-). I think the second version has been ttastefully improved. :-) --Tony Wills 09:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Garrett 7939[edit]

Peter Garrett 7939.JPG Garrett 7939.2.JPG

  • Nomination Peter Garrett. Ben Aveling 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark --Beyond silence 13:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've lightened it a little and uploaded another version. Ben Aveling 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose still very dark, but also not sharp enough. Lycaon 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Ben Aveling 10:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Talamone panorama bottom[edit]

Talamone panorama bottom.jpg Taloma stitching.jpg

  • Nomination Landscape of the town called Talamone, Italy; 2 stitched pics. Alessio Damato 20:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching errors. Lycaon 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question where?! I can't see any! Alessio Damato 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
on the two-coloured houses, left of the bell tower. Lycaon 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Infothere are no stitching errors, that's the way it is. Look at Image:Talamone sea and rocks.jpg, it's the same subject, but it's a single picture (i.e. no stitching) and the view is exactly the same.Alessio Damato 09:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes there are ;-)) Lycaon 10:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting delete.svg now I see the stitching errors... thanks for being clear Alessio Damato 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Result:  Nomination withdrawn -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)