Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

Purpose[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.


Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator[edit]

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.


Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Composition and lighting[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.


Value[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.


How to nominate[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


How to review[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.


How to execute decision[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 24 2018 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.


Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

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]] 22:06, 24 September 2018 (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.

September 24, 2018[edit]

September 23, 2018[edit]

September 22, 2018[edit]

September 21, 2018[edit]

September 20, 2018[edit]

September 19, 2018[edit]

September 18, 2018[edit]

September 17, 2018[edit]

September 16, 2018[edit]

September 15, 2018[edit]

September 14, 2018[edit]

September 13, 2018[edit]

September 12, 2018[edit]

September 11, 2018[edit]

September 10, 2018[edit]

September 9, 2018[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:Vihorlat_140.jpg[edit]

Vihorlat 140.jpg

  • Nomination Vihorlat --Milan Bališin 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --ArildV 18:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: the perspective must be corrected. --Basotxerri 18:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Help me with that? --Milan Bališin 19:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 17:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:The_island_of_Kassos_in_the_morning._View_from_the_Agios_Nikolaos_Beach._Karpathos,_Greece.jpg[edit]

The island of Kassos in the morning. View from the Agios Nikolaos Beach. Karpathos, Greece.jpg

  • Nomination The island of Kassos in the morning. View from the Agios Nikolaos Beach. Karpathos, Greece --Ввласенко 11:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but the photo lacks a focus of interest. Is it about the waves at the beach or - as the title indicates - about the island in the distance? The island itself is too hazy for a quality image. --Zinnmann 13:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Nice beach, I'd like to be there. --Yann 15:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - A landscape doesn't have to have only one interesting thing to see; the composition is the totality of what's in the picture frame, and this one is very good. The execution is by no means perfect, as the foreground has quite a noticeable grain. However, the overall quality is plenty good enough for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 21:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan but I can also understand Zinnmann's point of view. --Basotxerri 06:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Basotxerri -- DerFussi 08:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 08:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Muralla,_Montón,_Zaragoza,_España,_2018-01-07,_DD_04.jpg[edit]

Muralla, Montón, Zaragoza, España, 2018-01-07, DD 04.jpg

  • Nomination Wall, Montón, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA near edges (particularly the roofline at right) and the sky is noisy --Daniel Case 19:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version, is CA a reason for a straight decline? Poco a poco 08:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Straight declines avoid kilometers of discussions in the candidates gallery above. --Smial 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Yann 13:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me, too, but I personally would remove the motion-blurred bird on the right. --Basotxerri 06:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The bird is gone Poco a poco 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 06:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Peirón_de_San_Vicente,_Fuentes_de_Jiloca,_Zaragoza,_España,_2018-01-07,_DD_09.jpg[edit]

Peirón de San Vicente, Fuentes de Jiloca, Zaragoza, España, 2018-01-07, DD 09.jpg

  • Nomination Wayside cross of Saint Vicente, Fuentes de Jiloca, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy --Daniel Case 19:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Poco a poco 08:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Yann 13:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Massively downsized to hide motion blur, but still not really sharp. --Smial 12:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Smial is right with the motion blur, seems not correctable to me. --Carschten 17:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 06:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ferrari,_Techno-Classica_2018,_Essen_(IMG_9642).jpg[edit]

Ferrari, Techno-Classica 2018, Essen (IMG 9642).jpg

  • Nomination Ferrari 550 Maranello, Techno-Classica 2018, Essen --MB-one 17:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Peulle 19:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful car. But I do not think the picture is good. The background and the sheet in the windshield are disturbing and the license plate holder does not look good. -- Spurzem 11:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sheet and the license plate are not valid reasons for opposing IMO. I would support with a crop to minimize the disturbing background (see note). This would also avoid any privacy issues. Regards, Yann 12:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Yann: cropped. Thanks for the suggestion. --MB-one 14:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann 13:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Yann 13:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Christuskirche_(Mainz).jpg[edit]

Christuskirche (Mainz).jpg

  • Nomination Christuskirche, Mainz. It´s rather difficult to find a free prospect on this church in the narrow city. --Milseburg 20:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice. I find the pixellation of the license plates very distracting, though. If there's really an important reason to do that, please find a less distracting way to do it. -- Ikan Kekek 21:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Don’t think these distracting cars and the traffic sign make this a great photo. There surely are better ways to take a good picture of the church --Moroder 21:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think your specific points are clearly made, but on great photos: Photos don't have to be great to be QIs. That's for FPC. No offense to you, as you have shot many wonderful photos (some of which I've been delighted to nominate at FPC), but do you think all your QI photos are great? Ikan Kekek 00:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe Moroder got carried away by a [return coach]. I agree with Ikan. This conditions is unfavorable for FP but it´s enough for QI and authentic. I went around this church and didn´t found a better place.--Milseburg (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First of all, this is by no way a return coach. I'm too many years on QIC and FPC to do such things and I didn't pay attention to the author's name of this image. Now, please Ikan don't be personal, we are talking here about this picture not mine. "Great photo" was probably not the best answer to your comment "nice", but my point is that composition , albeit very subjective, is an essential prerequisite for a QI according to the guidelines "foreground and background objects should not be distracting". In conclusion I will not oppose QI but I'd like this candidate to be discussed on CR. Cheers and good light to everybody --Moroder 06:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info@Ikan Kekek: I´ve been looking for further information: It is legal to show the license plates in this way, as well as random passing people. So I uploaded a new version without the hidden license plates. --Milseburg 12:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good, especially under this difficult conditions. QI, but obviously not a FP because of the cars etc. I think it's important to have images from every side of a relevant building in Wikipedia(/Commons), and therefore it should be okay to have cars and people on your photo, but for a QI it's the challenge to include them as “harmonious” as possible in it. That's fulfilled to me. --Carschten 19:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Peirón_de_San_Vicente,_Fuentes_de_Jiloca,_Zaragoza,_España,_2018-01-07,_DD_08.jpg[edit]

Peirón de San Vicente, Fuentes de Jiloca, Zaragoza, España, 2018-01-07, DD 08.jpg

  • Nomination Wayside cross of Saint Vicente, Fuentes de Jiloca, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 20:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, especially at bottom --Daniel Case 16:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've performed some improvements, a QI to me. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Quality is good enough, but it seems to be leaning to the right going up. Is that accurate or perhaps an optical illusion? -- Ikan Kekek 17:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan: I applied a +0,2 degrees tilt Poco a poco 15:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now.--Ermell 07:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Yann 13:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed, downsized. --Smial 12:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Carschten 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Yann 13:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2018_-_Schweriner_Schloss_-_1.jpg[edit]

2018 - Schweriner Schloss - 1.jpg

  • Nomination The Schwerin Castle, the city of Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state, Germany. --Moahim 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, nice composition. --GT1976 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree Sorry, Size is to small. Resolution smaller then 2 MP. Anyway, a real nice composition, with PS Gimmick (shiny window) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 05:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It was 4.9 Mpx. I've uploaded larger version. --Moahim 06:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Again, please stop downsizing your photos. That's a violation of QI rules and an excellent reason to decline your nominations. Always submit your full-sized photo - the first time. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, it is full size. --Moahim 09:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Image is of acceptable size now. I see the glare from the window too and while it's a little disturbing, I don't think it spoils the image completely.--Peulle (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As for me this glare is important part of image --Moahim 09:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I definitely think you're wrong there. Such a strong light reflection in an image like this is a flaw, not a feature.--Peulle 13:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Peulle. That degree of glare is definitely a flaw, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case 04:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Loire_River_in_Blois_01.jpg[edit]

Loire River in Blois 01.jpg

  • Nomination Loire River in Blois, Loir-et-Cher, France. --Tournasol7 05:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I suppose someone would say this photo is "overprocessed", but to me it's painterly and beautiful. I would support this for FP, but I'd recommend for you to post to COM:Photography critiques and check what reactions you get before nominating it at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek 06:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not OK with the ghost buildings. See note. --Yann 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done, Tournasol7 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now. --Yann 13:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A really good work imho. Litte bit dusky, but "täts" your style. Much more then a snap. Greatǃ--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Significantly downsized; 7,6MP from a 24MP camera. Opposing per the Guidelines.--Peulle 10:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still artifacts in the sky. --Smial 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, new version uploaded. Tournasol7 18:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support o.k. for me now.--Ermell 07:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Carschten 12:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:KGS_3651_St._Ottilien_Buttisholz.jpg[edit]

KGS 3651 St. Ottilien Buttisholz.jpg

  • Nomination Kulturgut von nationaler Bedeutung in der Schweiz mit KGS-Nummer --Chme82 20:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Real good sidelight, good focus. But really strange clouds and noise in the sky.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree: Good quality. Weather conditions are unusual, but this should not be a reason for a decline. --Kritzolina 07:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very good composition, and lighting, but weird noise everywhere, not only in the sky. --Smial 08:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Ps: The image noise was developed into a pattern. I've seen this kind of pattern here before, mostly with Nikon camera photos, but occasionally with Canon cameras as well. This pattern reminds a little of Runzelkorn (wrinkled grain?), as one could observe it with wrongly treated film in former times. I could imagine that this is due to some setting in the raw developer or in further image processing. I have tried to improve the noise with NeatImage, but this program has problems with the pattern, although it usually gives excellent results with statistically distributed noise. --Smial 08:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC) (trnslatet with DeepL translator)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment"Runzelkorn" i now, from old b/w times ː-( should meaned as "pucker grain". It´s a shock in gelatine, with difference of more then 7-10 degrees (Liquids) in film development process.Pattern is a jpg-bug (not a feature), mostly here, not in print--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 09:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Kritz. I think the amount of noise in the sky is acceptable - the photo looks beautiful at 300% of my laptop screen. -- Ikan Kekek 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose beautiful, but too noisy. I don't understand the choice of ISO 800. --Carschten 11:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    much better. --Carschten 21:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A hard nut to crack. So, what should be done? Shall I upload another version with less noise or shall I leave it as it is? I'd have another version ready. Some of you definitely will still find some noise in it others will miss some of the details. --Chme82 18:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Try denoising it´s worth it.--Ermell 22:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Done. Thank you all. --Chme82 04:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo noisy. I would also like to see more foreground and less sky; less sky is possible, but more foreground?--Michielverbeek 04:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why? The building is now vertically arranged according to the rule of thirds, if you follow your suggestion, it gets centrally into the middle, which I would consider to be much less favourable. --Smial 11:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new version has been uploaded. Could you please reconsider your decisions. Thank you. --Chme82 06:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Full Symbol support vote.svg Support now, very good rework without losing detail. Remaining noise in the sky is no more disturbing, and not visible in print. Have you figured out how the pattern came about and how to avoid it? This could also help others. As I said, I've seen this pattern in other pictures before. --Smial 11:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not really an expert in RAW processing but I think this kind of weird noise was caused by sharpness settings in Adobe Lightroom. If you set the value of "Amount" to the maximum of 150, you'll get this reticulation (that's the English term for "Runzelkorn" I think) like effect. I've just tried this with several pictures of different cameras (Nikon and Sony) and always came to the same result. The higher ISO has been set, the earlier the effect seems to appear. If Lightroom-presets (there's a preset for sharpening of landscape pictures) have been used (as I did), the value (which would be 40 with in this case and which is said to be a standard value for sharpening) will already be to high. I definitely need to pay bit more attention to that. Others too probably. --Chme82 19:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Many thanks for the explanation! I do not use LR so I never got such results. --Smial 14:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me --Uoaei1 10:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 15:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Cine_Cervantes,_Borja,_Zaragoza,_España,_2018-03-30,_DD_03.jpg[edit]

Cine Cervantes, Borja, Zaragoza, España, 2018-03-30, DD 03.jpg

  • Nomination Cine Cervantes, Borja, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 20:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: loses too much sharpness and detail towards the edges. --Peulle 21:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Sharpness is adequate, but there seems to be some rainbowy (magenta/green) CA on the roof, especially on the right side. It's pretty, but it probably shouldn't be there. When that's addressed, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek 07:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Poco a poco 17:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Still a small amount of CA on the upper right part of the roof. Can you eliminate it completely? -- Ikan Kekek 22:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Sorry, I overlooked that Poco a poco 12:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks. Good enough now, I think. -- Ikan Kekek 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Really weak support per Peulle, but I feel this is still an acceptable borderline. GerifalteDelSabana 01:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 15:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Basotxerri 17:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-05-21_(219)_NÖVOG_V9_at_Bahnhof_Kirchberg_an_der_Pielach.jpg[edit]

2018-05-21 (219) NÖVOG V9 at Bahnhof Kirchberg an der Pielach.jpg

  • Nomination NÖVOG V9 at Bahnhof Kirchberg an der Pielach, Austria.--GT1976 03:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted ccw --Uoaei1 03:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)¨
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 03:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilt needs to be corrected --Uoaei1 05:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective not corrected, and overexposed. Yann 11:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann. --Smial 08:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see the tilt. Would you mind highlighting it to me? GerifalteDelSabana 01:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @GerifalteDelSabana: Just look at the verticals of the buildings in the background. Tilt is very easy to correct and thus not acceptable. --Uoaei1 10:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No good lighting. The front is too bright. -- Spurzem 12:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Uoaei1 and Spurzem -- DerFussi 08:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for the hints, now I see it also clearly. --GT1976 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? DerFussi 08:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sun 16 Sep → Mon 24 Sep
Mon 17 Sep → Tue 25 Sep
Tue 18 Sep → Wed 26 Sep
Wed 19 Sep → Thu 27 Sep
Thu 20 Sep → Fri 28 Sep
Fri 21 Sep → Sat 29 Sep
Sat 22 Sep → Sun 30 Sep
Sun 23 Sep → Mon 01 Oct
Mon 24 Sep → Tue 02 Oct