Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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


Contents

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 03:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

December 21, 2014[edit]

December 20, 2014[edit]

December 19, 2014[edit]

December 18, 2014[edit]

December 17, 2014[edit]

December 16, 2014[edit]

December 15, 2014[edit]

December 14, 2014[edit]

December 13, 2014[edit]

December 12, 2014[edit]

December 11, 2014[edit]

December 10, 2014[edit]

December 9, 2014[edit]

November 28, 2014[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Normalsegelapparat_Otto_Lilienthal_Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim_2014.jpg[edit]

Normalsegelapparat Otto Lilienthal Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim 2014.jpg

  • Nomination Normalsegelapparat by Otto Lilienthal at Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim. --Julian Herzog 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Yann 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, because its not permited to take pictures in this museum for publishing it under a free licence. --Hubertl 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not a valid reason to decline here. Yann 15:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:DLR_VFW-Fokker_614_ATTAS_project_Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim_2014_01_cockpit.jpg[edit]

DLR VFW-Fokker 614 ATTAS project Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim 2014 01 cockpit.jpg

  • Nomination DLR VFW-Fokker 614 (reg. D-ADAM) ATTAS cockpit. --Julian Herzog 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good image -- MJJR 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, because its not permited to take pictures in this museum for publishing it under a free licence. --Hubertl 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is nothing here which can get a copyright. Yann 10:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Köln,_Hohenzollernbrücke_und_Dom_--_2014_--_1866.jpg[edit]

Köln, Hohenzollernbrücke und Dom -- 2014 -- 1866.jpg

  • Nomination Hohenzollernbrücke, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion This image does not depict the subject well because the near end of the bridge is not visible. It isn't apparent how much of the bridge is depicted in the photograph. The left third of the image does not seem to contribute to the illustration of the bridge. Focus and exposure are good. The shadows are somewhat harsh, especially on the piers supporting the bridge, but would not prevent promotion, in my opinion. --Wsiegmund 18:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Personally, I see no problem with this. The technical quality is very good. Furthermore, it could be impossible to depict the underside of the bridge if one were standing at one end of the bridge. Jakec 20:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Too many free space on the left and on the bottom. The photo need a crop, I think. --Brateevsky 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Graffiti in Tartu 02.JPG[edit]

Graffiti in Tartu 02.JPG

  • Nomination Graffiti in Tartu. Kruusamägi 20:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI Poco a poco 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd apreciate a wise advice about the copyright, please.--Jebulon 20:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Mielec,_ul._Rochowska,_kaplica_Boguszów,_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Mielec, ul. Rochowska, kaplica Boguszów, 02.JPG

  • Nomination Boguszów Chapel in Mielec 1 --Jacek Halicki 10:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Bgag 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose should be discussed IMO. The facade is in shadow, and the crop is too tight, especially above.--Jebulon 20:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have no doubt that this is QI. Very good quality. --Code 09:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Code --Kreuzschnabel 21:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Tragopogon_pratensis_Mitterbach_01.JPG[edit]

Tragopogon pratensis Mitterbach 01.JPG

  • Nomination Meadow Salsify (Tragopogon pratensis), found near Mitterbach am Erlaufsee, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 07:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sharp in large view; yellow seems overexposed. Jkadavoor 07:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question DOF is small as in all macro shots, but to me sharpness is on the level that is usually accepted here. Do you see any area where yellow is burned out? --Uoaei1 13:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    DOF is not the issue here; nowhere I see satisfying details. I noticed ISO 800 which may be reason. Feel free to change to "discuss" for other opinions. Jkadavoor 05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    In the original file, about 1.5 million pixels, mostly in the lower petals, are saturated in the red channel (value equal to 255). That is more than 7% and is high for a successful QIC. File:Eristalis tenax auf Tragopogon pratensis 01.JPG, another current QIC by the same photographer, has a similar number of saturated pixels. I think f/11 to f/16 is a good range for macro images. Diffraction reduces resolution substantially for slower f-ratios. ISO800 should not degrade quality significantly for a D7100. The flower heads are 5 cm wide according to en:Tragopogon pratensis so the subject is not highly magnified.--Wsiegmund 01:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info How have you evaluated this? In the new version with reduced brightness which I uploaded yesterday, there is no saturation at all - at least according to the information shown in Lightroom. --Uoaei1 08:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I used Photoshop Elements 11. The numbers I quote are for the first version (original?). To evaluate whether information has been irretrievably lost, it is easiest to look at the original version. In both versions, if I use the levels tool to set the output levels of the green and blue channels to zero, then stretch the upper end of the red channel, I see no detail in most of several lower petals and in portions of other parts of the flower. Yellow and red flowers have such intense colors that it is difficult to avoid clipping in the red channel. --Wsiegmund 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it is an excellent picture and therefore QI. --Steindy 12:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. No doubt to me.--Hubertl 17:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Plate_of_Acqua_Claudia_in_Palatino.JPG[edit]

Plate of Acqua Claudia in Palatino.JPG

  • Nomination Plate of Acqua Claudia in Palatino --Livioandronico2013 22:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Background very bright, but IMO OK for QI. --XRay 17:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background overexposed.--Jebulon 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is overexposed and has several CAs. --Steindy 12:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Girl_of_Isla_Margarita.jpg[edit]

Girl of Isla Margarita.jpg

  • Nomination Girl of Isla Margarita --Wilfredor 12:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the image. The crop is small and there is a little bit noise (in the background) but OK for QI. --XRay 17:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think it may be a bit noisy, and the composition is iffy - it looks a bit too severed head for my taste. Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose. --Mattbuck 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong choice of focal length which distorts the face. Jkadavoor 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jkadavoor. Distance too short, distorting the face (giant nose vs. tiny ears). --Kreuzschnabel 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Historyczny_szlak_w_kanionie_rzeki_Psyrccha_(14).jpg[edit]

2014 Nowy Aton, Historyczny szlak w kanionie rzeki Psyrccha (14).jpg

  • Nomination History trail in the Psyrtskha river gorge. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 13:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and blurred --Christian Ferrer 16:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I do not agree. We need more opinions. --Halavar 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    GA candidate.svg Weak support There are a few overexposed spots, but I know from experience how difficult it is to take a picture of a creek on a sunny day without getting burned areas. Personally, I find the blur attractive. Jakec 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course when I talk about blur, I talk about the vegetation and about the river banks, not about the motion blur of the water that is nice. --Christian Ferrer 06:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian Ferrer. Ram-Man 13:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-N3S_1312-071.jpg[edit]

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-N3S 1312-071.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Tallink ferry --Ralf Roletschek 06:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --JLPC 15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree as long as there is not a correct categorization. "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 05:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed categories --Msaynevirta 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you, my objections are void now. --Cccefalon 10:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPG[edit]

Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPG

  • Nomination Paide courthouse. Kruusamägi 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I don't like the fringing in the trees, but it's away from the main subject and not distracting. So good enough for QI. --Ram-Man 03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Notable magenta fringing on the branches in the foreground left side as well as the magenta on the right side. This issue is easy to fix and there is no reason to lower the standards for a quality image. --Cccefalon 08:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong time of the day, the facade should not be in shadow.--Jebulon 21:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I worked on a image a bit. Better? Kruusamägi 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Ранкова палітра.jpg[edit]

Ранкова палітра.jpg

  • Nomination 8th price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Башкатов Віталій) –Be..anyone 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very pretty, but very overprocessed. Mattbuck 08:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me, regardless of processing. Is it quality? It is sharp, properly exposed (no overly dark or light areas, no clipping), no noise of note, no CAs of note, no obvious stitching errors, looks good at 100%, has great composition. It's got high value; I can see this being used by a lot of people. Is it saturated? Yes. For me this is the only potential defect. And I'd only oppose if the level of saturation bothered my overall impression (it obviously does for others) or I thought it would make it have low value. -- Ram-Man 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really don´t like these coloured, overprocessed things. --Hubertl 20:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's time for juries to follow the guidelines. Overprocessed.--Jebulon 21:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Yes, it looks overprocessed (that is over-denoised) at full view, partly like a waterpainting. But then, we are looking at a 34 mpix image. All in all it’s not that overprocessed, and thank God it’s not oversharpened. --Kreuzschnabel 08:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the only issues I see are a little lack of contrast and an oversaturation, both fixable IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpg[edit]

Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpg

  • Nomination Inflorescences of Jacobaea maritima. --Bff 14:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please remove the magenta shine (downsized CA) from the background leaves. --Cccefalon 16:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for a QI as is. Ram-Man 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jkadavoor 06:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Very nice photo but it should be possible to reduce the CA before support. -- Spurzem 22:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 12:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Laukkasarenkatu.jpg[edit]

Laukkasarenkatu.jpg

  • Nomination Laukkasarenkatu, Helsinki. --Óðinn 16:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO too much shadow at the bottom. Another crop would be fine.--XRay 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Another crop would be fine, but it's fine uncropped. Cropping lowers value slightly. Ram-Man 13:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with XRay.--Jebulon 21:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not so disturbing here --Christian Ferrer 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bastioni_Wrede.jpg[edit]

Bastioni Wrede.jpg

  • Nomination Bastion Wrede, Suomenlinna, Finland. --Óðinn 01:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 05:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Backlighting leads to overexposure (color shifts) in the sky. Ram-Man 14:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed on the left side. --Steindy 11:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-10.jpg[edit]

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-10.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, market hall --Ralf Roletschek 06:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. Would you PLEASE ;-) so kind and categorize it? --Hubertl 22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Please add a correct categorization. "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 20:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective at left to be corrected.--Jebulon 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs small perspective corrections. --Steindy 12:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cráter_Stóri_Grábrók,_Vesturland,_Islandia,_2014-08-15,_DD_089.JPG[edit]

Cráter Stóri Grábrók, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 089.JPG

  • Nomination Stóri Grábrók crater, Vesturland, Iceland --Poco a poco 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lens/perspective distortions. Especially the right side is leaning to the right. --Halavar 12:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    Better, but still distorsion exist. Right side of the horizon should be raised to the top. --Halavar 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version going further with the perspective correction Poco a poco 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I think others should decide. --Halavar 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    You lost me, why that? do you still see any issues? Poco a poco 10:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    There is still the same issue - right side looks unnatural according to use of fish eye lens. There is too much lens/perspective distortions. But that is only my personal opinion. Maybe the image is good. I think CR should be started. --Halavar 12:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is acceptable for me. The areas of primary importance are fine and the other defects are relatively minor. Ram-Man 17:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Detalle_en_Ventana_del_Teatro_Municipal_de_São_Paulo.jpg[edit]

Detalle en Ventana del Teatro Municipal de São Paulo.jpg

  • Nomination Detalle en Ventana del Teatro Municipal de São Paulo --Wilfredor 11:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overall good quality but please get the window bars rectilinear. --Cccefalon 11:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)::I cant see any problem. Please See notes --Wilfredor 11:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I helped you with an annotation to see the problem. --Cccefalon 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    I am sorry, i cant underestand how your notes could be a mistake --Wilfredor 18:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Wilfredor, I cannot believe that you deny that the yellow bar is inclined to the right side?! --Cccefalon 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    IMHO The joints of windows is indicating whether or not inclined, not the design. --Wilfredor 10:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    Since we do not know the window bars, we can not assess the linearity as well (I seem not to be all straight). For me it is an excellent photo and therefore QI. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sure, we do know the layout of the venetian windows. You can for example watch this image. Clearly inclinced. --Cccefalon 14:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As above, good quality. --Steindy 11:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bilder_im_Hofgarten,_München,_Deutschland4.jpg[edit]

Bilder im Hofgarten, München, Deutschland4.jpg

  • Nomination Paintings on bavarian history in Hofgarten, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. It looks like two images in one. Contrast is missing and IMO it is not sharp enough (for example top left). --XRay 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not really convinced about this one: ✓ new version Poco a poco 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 18:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a new version with much higher contrast. This would satisfy me. Ram-Man 13:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Derek, I've just uploaded a new version following yours as guide. I think it is better working always out of the RAW, I hope you don't mind. Thank you for your help! Poco a poco 20:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the painting was and still is better than other versions in this category, and folks can crop the ugly pillars if they want only the painting. –Be..anyone 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This could use an unsharp mask (10%, radius 35 pixels) for localized contrast enhancements beyond simple curves, but it's good enough for me now as is. Ram-Man 12:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:TempleTank.jpg[edit]

TempleTank.jpg

  • Nomination A water tank in a temple in Hyderabad, India -- Nikhil 03:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please remove the magenta CA (see note). --Cccefalon 06:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC) @Cccefalon Sorry for the late reply. I don't know how to correct the CAs. If you find time, can you please go ahead and do it. Thanks in advance. --Nikhil 03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see any CA, but it does look a bit posterised. Mattbuck 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support This is fine for me. Ram-Man 16:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is the "aberration" a building in the background mostly hidden by the tree? –Be..anyone 04:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Be..anyone, you are right. The light seemingly hidden in the trees (annotated part) is part of a temple in the background. Mattbuck, I only sharpened the image slightly and no manipulation was done. Thanks and cheers! Nikhil 07:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 11:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Shearer's_Covered_Bridge_Window_3008px.jpg[edit]

Shearer's Covered Bridge Window 3008px.jpg

  • Nomination Covered Bridge Window --Ram-Man 13:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed background. --Steindy 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Covered bridges are naturally lit and it's like taking a picture in a room of a house with only the light from windows. Some overexposure is expected (See a, b, c [QI], d, e). Another opinion please. Ram-Man 15:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The above examples are just bad examples of good photos and are at most as examples what to look for in order to avoid such kind of mistake. --Steindy 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject clearly clean and sharp, background indifferent.--Livioandronico2013 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background essential. Per Steindy.--Jebulon 21:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good technical quality but I don't understand the composition to be honest. --Code 09:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Зимовий Кукуль.JPG[edit]

Зимовий Кукуль.JPG

  • Nomination 11th place in Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Хіраш Володимир) –Be..anyone 02:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very good. --Óðinn 03:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC) It does indeed need perspective correction --Óðinn 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Inappropriate QIC description. WB not done / too much magenta in the trees, perspective not done. --Cccefalon 06:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I think that it is true light making the color of the trees. -- Spurzem 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Ram-Man 12:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Angel_on_Castel_Sant'Angelo.jpg[edit]

Angel on Castel Sant'Angelo.jpg

  • Nomination Angel on Castel Sant'Angelo --Livioandronico2013 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed angel, not sharp and lost details. --Steindy 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Other please --Livioandronico2013 15:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This looks sharp and good at very large magnifications. The angel looks slightly unsharp at 100%, but that's irrelevant. -- Ram-Man 13:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hm. But isn't the angel the main object (see filename) and therefore should be sharp? --Code 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (1) The angel is acceptably sharp at 2ft (0.6m) wide at a viewing distance of 18in (0.45 m) @ 100dpi. That's a very large magnification to look good at, way higher than the 2MP minimum. Any larger magnifications are irrelevant as they depend on very specific usage scenarios. Depth of field (which is just a perceptual measure) varies with magnification (that is, crop and view size), so it makes sense that it does not look that good at 100%. (2) The angel is the main subject, but not the only one. This is not a closeup detail view and should not be evaluated as such. Ram-Man 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment «The angel looks slightly unsharp at 100%, but that's irrelevant.» I am very surprised by this comment. I think photos should be assessed, not in sympathy and antipathies, but for facts... --Steindy 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAnd just you speak Steindy? Ridiculous. Instead of judging ,upload your pictures, possibly not as bad your usual and after we can see. It is easy to judge the work of others without knowing it do.At least Ram-Man is a photographer and has 40 Featured !!!. You? Ridiculous,real ridiculous. Clin.--Livioandronico2013 14:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1133-094.jpg[edit]

14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S 1133-094.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Ausflug mit Kanu zur Insel Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg SupportHyvä laatu! Vaikka minulla ei ole hajuakaan melonnan Suomessa, suomeksi, mutta minusta loistava. Ole hyvä seuraavan kerran Suomen kuvaus! --Hubertl 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI disagree: Inapproprate categorization. Backlighing not well handled / unbalanced exposure. --Cccefalon 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon.--Jebulon 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Gorgeous backlight with beautiful reflections, which is emphasized by the diagonal of the rocks in the foreground. --Steindy (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1146-102.jpg[edit]

14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S 1146-102.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Ausflug mit Kanu zur Insel Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hyvä laatu! Vaikka minulla ei ole hajuakaan melonnan Suomessa, suomeksi, mutta minusta loistava. Ole hyvä seuraavan kerran Suomen kuvaus! --Hubertl 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Inapproprate categorization. Backlighing not well handled / unbalanced exposure. --Cccefalon 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The overly dark foreground dominates the scene. It might be acceptable in other compositions, but not here. Ram-Man 13:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting effect, looking out of a dark tunnel into the light. The category should be updated. –Be..anyone 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Bad categorization.--Jebulon 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 10:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »1E3 Lightning.jpg[edit]

London MMB »1E3 Lightning.jpg

  • Nomination Lightning over London. Mattbuck 14:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Disturbing lens flare, disturbing roof and disturbing spots (see notes). --Steindy 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Hanoi_Vietnam_Waiting-at-the-red-lights-01.jpg[edit]

Hanoi Vietnam Waiting-at-the-red-lights-01.jpg

  • Nomination Hanoi, Vietnam: Motorbiker, waiting at an intersection for the green lights. --Cccefalon 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The helmet is cut above. Also left the trim is too low. The forehead and nose are blurred. --Steindy 20:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a "face shot"; not "head shot", so composition is OK. But what happened to his eyebrow? (I noticed he is less hairy.) Jkadavoor 07:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jkadavoor, it is as it is. Nothing retouched at his eyebrow. --Cccefalon 09:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So Symbol support vote.svg Support Jkadavoor 10:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 12:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Widok_ze_szczytu_Góry_Iwerskiej_(02).jpg[edit]

2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (02).jpg

  • Nomination View from the Iverian Mountain to the city and New Athos Monastery. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. I like the motif and the composition, but there is really too much noise and IMO too less contrast. --XRay 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 12:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, there is less noise. But: Sorry, IMO it looks posterized now.--XRay 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 13:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment because Poco a poco asked, I like (04), (05) and (07) better for the monastery, and (06) for the overview. –Be..anyone 22:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Widok_ze_szczytu_Góry_Iwerskiej_(01).jpg[edit]

2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (01).jpg

  • Nomination View from the peak of Iverian Mountain. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same here. Insufficient quality. Sorry. I like the motif and the composition, but there is really too much noise and IMO too less contrast. --XRay 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 11:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's better now but IMO details are missing now.--XRay 16:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes? XRay 11:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Interior_of_Municipal_Teatro_of_São_Paulo.jpg[edit]

Interior of Municipal Teatro of São Paulo.jpg

  • Nomination Interior of Municipal Teatro of São Paulo --Wilfredor 11:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Green and purple CAs at the windows to the left. --C messier 16:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC), thanks, could you add notes please? --Wilfredor 11:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose  Not done --C messier 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    I can not detect any CAs also at 150% magnification. Let us discuss. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, as critcised there are some small visible artifacts in the stained glass windows, but in 100% view they are not really disturbing. QI for me. Difficult lighting situation very well handled, colors look naturally. -- Smial 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is very good but as C messier already mentioned, there is a disturbing magenta CA at the left door opening rod. Can be easily fixed and I will happily provide my support then. --Cccefalon 14:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 23:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Baños_Romanos,_Bath,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_18.JPG[edit]

Baños Romanos, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 18.JPG

  • Nomination Roman Baths, Bath, England --Poco a poco 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO it's overprocessed/oversharpened. --XRay 17:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    I do not see any parts granular. I see only motion blur in people and that is normal in available light. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support despite the critical situation, were there are no lights at the visitors by design, its QI for me.--Hubertl 13:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 10:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Left_side_chapel_of_Santa_Maria_sopra_Minerva.jpg[edit]

Left side chapel of Santa Maria sopra Minerva.jpg

  • Nomination Left side chapel of Santa Maria sopra Minerva --Livioandronico2013 14:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO the center is too bright.--XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done thanks for review XRay--Livioandronico2013 15:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. It's much better. --XRay 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is unevenly illuminated by the flash or welding launcher, which is clearly seen in the paintings. Likewise, the cloth on the altar, where all the details were lost. --Steindy 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Steindy.--Jebulon 20:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 14:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Frescoes_of_the_roof_of_the_church_of_Santa_Maria_sopra_Minerva.jpg[edit]

Frescoes of the roof of the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva.jpg

  • Nomination Frescoes of the roof of the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva --Livioandronico2013 13:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. DoF could be better. Light at the right is a little bit disturbing. --XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy disturbing spotlight on the right side. --Steindy 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Steindy.--Jebulon 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Koi_Feeding_in_Mt_Qingxiu_Nanning_Close.JPG[edit]

Koi Feeding in Mt Qingxiu Nanning Close.JPG

  • Nomination Koi Feeding --Ram-Man 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. But creepy in a way. Aren´t there too many of them in this basin? --Hubertl 10:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    See here. Ram-Man 18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting shot, I like both the composition and the subject, but not sure whether it is a QI, I miss sharpness --Poco a poco 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do realize that it is difficult to set focus on water, but here is me too much blurring in the area. --Steindy 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's water. Water, especially disturbed water, is generally soft, not sharp, as it refracts light. Note that the FP of Koi has similar issues, albeit with better composition and lighting. Ram-Man 20:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 22:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 10:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Balaton Lake - small boat.JPG[edit]

Balaton Lake - small boat.JPG

  • Nomination Balaton, Hungary - boat --Pudelek 10:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WB-Problem. Everything is just blue... --Hubertl 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor color balance. To bluish. Have a look on the sail and the boat. There is no white to see. --Steindy 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 22:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    With all due respect, asking for clearing the white balance is not just a matter of taste, it´s something really basic and essential! --Hubertl 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its really easy to fix it. I tried it with LR and its getting really better! --Hubertl 23:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Hubertl.--Jebulon 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg[edit]

Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg

  • Nomination 2nd price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Carlos Perez Couto) –Be..anyone 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though it is a stunning motif, it does not comply with QI criterions: Notable magenta fringes (fixable) and blown out sky (not fixable). --Cccefalon 06:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support blown out sky dont disturb. --Ralf Roletschek 16:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The overexposure is marginal and therefore acceptable IMHO but the CA shall be fixed and there is lack of sharpness, Poco a poco 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Yes, there is a strong CA, but the photo still impressed me with his great composition and beautiful colors. --Steindy 20:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon --Livioandronico2013 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With all due respect, but sometimes we should give an extraordinary impression the primacy adverse to some (almost not avoidable) technical lapses.--Hubertl 00:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Hubertl. The sky is fine. This is an example of a blown sky that's correct exposure. Ram-Man 02:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really do not understand, why a stunning motif is justifying chromatic aberrations which are easy to fix. And I noticed that for some of the reviewers it is anyway, if the descriptions is bullshit. " 2nd price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014" is an effrontery which wants to insinuate, that this motif must be QI because it got awarded in WLE. More cheeky is, that Be..anyone did this despite the fact, that I already gave this hint before in previous reviews. --Cccefalon 06:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's not that complicated: I don't normally consider CAs to be important at all. Perhaps you could fix the CAs? The exposure is fine and the only issue is the blurry foreground element which isn't that distracting. -- Ram-Man 12:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's actually trivial, I just nominated all WLE 2014 winners that did not already have some QI or better tag with a hint what it's about. That was in the first batch of five, and reviewers such as Cccefalon are supposed to check the description on the page, the minimal note of the nominator is irrelevant. As it happens I actually like this one as is. Modifying winners after the fact is ingenious. –Be..anyone 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no way that we lower the bar of QI requirements because it is a stunning shot. That can be done in FP, but not here. CA and the sharpness problem issues make me regretly oppose Poco a poco 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA fixed --Wilfredor 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -Wilfredor, when you upload a new version, you cannot vote any more. --Cccefalon 09:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I considered that this was an automated fix minor (one click lightroom). However, you're right, my vote is invalid, thank you very much for the warning. --Wilfredor 11:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Penalizing someone for helping out? The vote should still be valid, especially in CR where everyone's opinions matter. If the person who modified it loses a vote, then the original nominator should gain the vote. Ram-Man 12:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Repairing some technical problems has nothing to do with the original, creative work. In my opinion. --Hubertl 03:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. --P e z i 12:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The author is not participating here;may not good enough in editing too. So someone should fix if issues are minor (as already done now). Jkadavoor 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2011_Dubrownik,_Widok_na_morze_z_tarasu_widokowego_(03).jpg[edit]

2011 Dubrownik, Widok na morze z tarasu widokowego (03).jpg

  • Nomination Sea view from the observation deck in the district of Boninovo. Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik-Neretva County, Croatia. --Halavar 09:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sure I can see anything in focus. Mattbuck 21:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing in focus? You can see detail in the tiny boats at 100%. This is f/9 @ 28mm. There is tons of depth of field here. --Ram-Man 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    And yet there is nothing which is sharp. Mattbuck 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Matt on this one. The camera settings look okay but probably the denoising was too strong and the detail is gone Poco a poco 09:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Matt, yet I think it’s not a focus problem but post-processing (for me it’s the typical denoising smear). Lack of detail anyway. Horizon is curved btw. --Kreuzschnabel 10:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Park_nadmorski_(02).jpg[edit]

2014 Nowy Aton, Park nadmorski (02).jpg

  • Nomination Seaside park. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. I'm really sorry. Nice image but nothing is sharp and too much noise. Please check your camera and your image processing. With ISO 200 it's nearly impossible to produce noisy pictures like this. And if the lens work's fine it should be sharp. --XRay 17:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 02:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, there is no noise. But IMO there is too much noise reduction so the details has gone. There is nothing sharp. Sorry.--XRay 16:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (03).jpg[edit]

2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (03).jpg

  • Nomination View from the Iverian Mountain to the New Athos Monastery. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 10:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. ISO 200 should be good enough, but it's soft and moisy and contrast is missing. --XRay 17:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's better, but it looks posterized. Looking for another opinion ...--XRay 16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view but oversharpened and posterized. The main subject looks unnatural, rather like a waterpainting. --Kreuzschnabel 10:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Plaża_i_Góra_Anakopia_(02).jpg[edit]

2014 Nowy Aton, Plaża i Góra Anakopia (02).jpg

  • Nomination The beach and Iverian Mountain. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO too unsharp. --XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I think that new version of the image is better. --Halavar 02:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's much better. I would choose another crop with less water and less sky.--XRay 17:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done OK. I uploaded new version with proposed crop. --Halavar 12:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Park_nadmorski_(06).jpg[edit]

2014 Nowy Aton, Park nadmorski (06).jpg

  • Nomination Café "Swan". Seaside park. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia, Georgia. --Halavar 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Soft. Pleclown 11:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done New version upoloaded with more contrast and sharpness mask. --Halavar 13:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Still soft IMO, albeity now a bit noisier. Mattbuck 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better. --Halavar 01:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-12-helsinki-RalfR-N3S_0825-405.jpg[edit]

14-08-12-helsinki-RalfR-N3S 0825-405.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Katajanokkanluoto --Ralf Roletschek 17:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 17:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong magenta CA on the building. Also, there is a problem with sharpness level. --Halavar 17:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some CA, and motion blur in vertical direction. Very nice composition, though. -- Smial 10:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Smial. Ram-Man 13:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Category "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Tunnel_View_Yosemite_August_2013_panorama.jpg[edit]

Tunnel View Yosemite August 2013 panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Tunnel View at sunrise. --King of Hearts 06:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment HAlf of the image looks only black on my monitor!?--Moroder 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    Brightened with curves. --King of Hearts 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd like someone else to review this image --Moroder 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Shadows are always strong before the first sun rays, it's widely ok here and the mood is well captured. However I will be tempted to decline for the burned out sky --Christian Ferrer 06:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    The sun was already in the sky, visible; I don't think it is possible or even natural for it to not be burned out. --King of Hearts 20:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Is there the sun on the image? if so I can not make the sun in the sky and if not the sky is overexposed. --Christian Ferrer 21:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support for me. Mattbuck 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not experienced enough to judge correctly, in any cases, a nice image. :) --Christian Ferrer 05:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its posterized, the foreground is unnecessarely dark. No QI for me, even when the mood is pleasent. I tried to fix it, with the original raw file it would be possible. --Hubertl 13:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Hubertl. This is just such an extreme dynamic range that nothing works. It might be better as a black and white as the color does nothing for the image. Ram-Man 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, Poco a poco 08:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 15:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:141115 Hyogo prefectural Ako Seaside Park Japan19n.jpg[edit]

141115 Hyogo prefectural Ako Seaside Park Japan19n.jpg

  • Nomination Ako Seaside Park --663highland 09:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Perspective needs to be corrected on the right side. --Cayambe 13:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)  Not done --Christian Ferrer 16:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    it dont need any distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 13:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the house and the pavillions on the right are leaning. --Óðinn 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works for me. Ram-Man 13:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perspective not done --Cccefalon 08:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Livioandronico2013 15:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Kapelle Mariaberg.jpg[edit]

Kapelle Mariaberg.jpg

  • Nomination Chapel on the hill Mariaberg in Kempten (Allgäu), Germany --CHK46 17:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noticable CA, perspective issues. Mattbuck 21:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Mattbuck ,  Not done within grace period. --Cccefalon 09:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it dont need distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 13:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With Mattbuck.--Jebulon 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 15:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Horse December 2014-3.jpg[edit]

Horse December 2014-3.jpg

  • Nomination A Lusitano horse. Porto Covo, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Eye fully lost in shadow. --Jkadavoor 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes that is true, but is that enough reason for declining? A second opinion, please. Alvesgaspar 10:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe not FP, but definitely QI IMO. --Code 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Il n'a pas l'air en bonne santé ton cheval...--Jebulon 21:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Je crois qu'il a trôp mangé!... Alvesgaspar 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its fixable with LR. I tried it. Would be a pity, if this picture will not QI, only because of this repairable shadow.--Hubertl 15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have no complaints with the horse but the red door is leaning out. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good as is. Ram-Man 13:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 15:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Hullern,_St.-Andreas-Kirche_--_2014_--_3237.jpg[edit]

Haltern am See, Hullern, St.-Andreas-Kirche -- 2014 -- 3237.jpg

  • Nomination Church of Saint Andreas in Hullern, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sorry ,the church is good but the sky is burn out --Livioandronico2013 09:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks. Lights in sky are fixed.--XRay 11:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Mmm...i'm not very sure,is better wait for other opinions --Livioandronico2013 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support The sky has color distortions that look worse in small thumbnails than at larger magnifications. I normally oppose this type of technical issue. Borderline case for me, but I think just good enough. -- Ram-Man 13:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The sky in the original is simply gray without details. There is very slight overexposure, but no disturbing colour change by clipping. Simply light gray, sky sometimes looks like this. Upper right corner has some artifacts by some unsufficiant overpainted disturbing leaves. These errors were massively reinforced by the processing. Also the contrast increase in the sky created completely wrong colours. It is total mystery to me why such a rape is required, performed and then be approved. Weia. -- Smial 01:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC) (i'd support the first version, it's not a great image, but completely acceptable.)
  • ✓ Fixed Sorry, I assumed it was a cloud top right ... I haven't seen my own correction. Now it's fixed.--XRay 06:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ich würde lieber auf das QI-Bapperl verzichten, statt wegen einiger kurioser Beurteilungen meine Bilder zu verhunzen. -- Smial 10:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Ps.: Das Rausstempeln ist jetzt durchaus gelungen.
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Das nehme ich mal mit einem wohlwollenden Lächeln auf. Die Kritik ist sehrwohl meistens - also auch meiner Meinung nach nicht immer - durchaus berechtigt. (Aber du hast recht, in der Vergangenheit gab es schon einmal Bilder, die mir hinterher nicht mehr gefallen haben, auch wenn es nur eine Handvoll war. Das ist aber schon ein paar Wochen her.)--XRay 17:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 15:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Shvetsova_Street_SPB_01.jpg[edit]

Shvetsova Street SPB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Shvetsova Street in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 09:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left crop should be improved IMHO (get rid of the piece of car and scaffolding) Poco a poco 14:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's a big problem (symmetry would be broken). --Florstein 17:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    What about cropping both sides? (see note with proposal) Poco a poco 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    А можно и просто с левой стороны фото обрезать - по мне симметрия не столь важна для QI (снимают же улицы несимметрично). en: I think we can crop the photo only on the left side; for me, symmetry is not the main factor for QI. --Brateevsky 11:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Brateevsky, мне бы хотелось сохранить и симметрию, и детали. У меня иногда при съёмке улиц (и станций метро) присутствует симметрия как фишка, так что в данном случае это важно. I'd wanted to keep the symmetry (as a shtick), saving maximum of details. May be let's ask the society (is scaffolding so dreadful)? --Florstein 20:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not very disturbing --Christian Ferrer 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support crop would be better, but it's not critical for a QI. Ram-Man 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 15:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)