Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 22 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Nach_oben_schauen_004_2022_09_18.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The mobile drop tower “Fortress Tower“ at the Wurstmarkt --F. Riedelio 06:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Neutral Nothing against the Wurstmarkt, but there's a lot of chromatic noise here. Of course the perspective doesn't support a sharper view on the object, and crop here is very tight, too. I'm afraid in this version there won't be much to improve. --Der Angemeldete 12:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Noise improved. --F. Riedelio 09:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • You definitly improved the noise part. I'll change to neutral.--Der Angemeldete 22:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Rjcastillo 03:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the filename should be improved. --XRay 08:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --F. Riedelio 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Forchheim_Piasten_Gleise_Luftbild-20230410-RM-155751.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bridge of the lower Kellerstraße over the tracks in Forchheim --Ermell 09:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I think there is too much lack of detail and posterization in the background. Sorry. --Imehling 12:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment The bridge as the main object is sharp enough I think.--Ermell 16:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo with normal DoF, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 23:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment As I admittedly don't have any experience with drone photography: This picture looks a little bit weird to me. The central part is perfectly sharp but the top with the more remote objects looks overprocessed and more like a smartphone picture. Is this a general feature of these cameras? (I think exposure time has to be short for pictures taken from a drone, so depth of field is low) --Imehling 09:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info From an objective point of view, you're quite right. The Mavic 3 is equipped with two cameras. The telephoto 162mm 35mm equivalent exposes to a 1/2″ CMOS sensor. The aperture is 2.8 fixed.The comparison with a smartphone is quite apt. I post-process the images with Topaz, which is a bit borderline now and then. Thanks to a well-functioning gimbal, the pictures are rarely blurred.--Ermell 21:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The main subject (bridge) is sharp. Overall quality okay IMO -- Basile Morin 12:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 00:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Rjcastillo 05:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I think the level of detail is borderline over all. But this is the effect of smaller drone cams and the huge distance to the photographed objects. If the same result had been nominated of a none drone image I would have opposed. --Augustgeyler 10:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

File:St_Bartholomew_church_in_Cesset_(11).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Bartholomew church in Cesset, Allier, France. --Tournasol7 04:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 05:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I like the image, but I think it is not QI. Due to the camera angle we have visible perspective distortion. --Augustgeyler 01:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 08:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The extreme wide-angle perspective does not suit the subject at all and creates an almost comical impression. --Smial 21:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial.--Der Angemeldete 09:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to know if it is possible to take this picture from a greater distance. --Imehling 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Completely acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 20:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)