Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 24 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Υάμεια 1892.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Yamia, Greece. --C messier 13:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough and too noisy for me --Michielverbeek 22:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I guess it may be heat haze, but IMHO the sharpness is acceptable. More opinions please. --C messier 13:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Michiel. The foreground is focused and the village is not. -- Ikan Kekek 03:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per C messier. It´s ok for QI --Milseburg (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Fetzima 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Levomilnacipran Bottle --Sixflashphoto 01:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dull/insufficient light, not sharp enough, the grains are blurred together and the crop could be more centered. At least some focus stacking could be done for such a studio photo. --W.carter 16:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
     Comment Let's agree to disagree on the crop and the light. My goal was to have no shadows ending up with Dull light. I don't know what you mean by insufficient light since any more (adding a third flash even diffused) I found washed it out. I also preferred the crop this way. The grains are just hard to shoot here, white on white background. With the photo of just the capsules I agree focus stacking could help but I'm not getting good results here in tests. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
     Comment It is actually dark. Highlights on the bottle are just ~180/256 or 70% white - far from being washed out. This is easy to fix in any RAW developer, but sadly this image is also not very sharp. You can make it brighter and it will be a great illustration for Wikipedia articles or something else, just not a QI yet. --Shansov.net 03:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per W.carter --Cvmontuy 08:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Like above, I think the main problem here is that it's very dark over-all, given that this is supposed to be a white bottle & background. Easy to fix in post, though. --El Grafo 15:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:INS_Tabar_(F44).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination INS Tabar in action. By User:Aswin Krishna Poyil --Suyash.dwivedi 18:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good Quality. PumpkinSky 00:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Horizon tilted, dust spots seen even in the preview. Also it is a bit noisy and unsharp. --C messier 12:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with C Messier. Given the conditions, this is an either/or shot; if this had been of good technical quality, it would without doubt have been an FP, possibly even a POTY candidate.--Peulle 21:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • FYI, all FPs are POTY candidates. Some of these later becomes POTY finalists. --W.carter 08:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's what I meant. :) Seriously, look at the subject and the movement; if this had been of good quality, I think we'd be talking about one of the very best images on Commons.--Peulle 13:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per C messier plus there is chromatic noise all over the photo. --W.carter 08:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would support this if the horizon and dust spots are fixed. Yann 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Silverline 8975.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cigaritis vulcanus --Vengolis 00:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 07:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Little definition in this small file. Charlesjsharp 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Seems adequate to me; it's clear though not super-detailed, as it's not a super-closeup. Also not a small file (~6 MP), though the butterfly is kind of small in the file. -- Ikan Kekek 08:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Charles Deepugn (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - good enough for QI. PumpkinSky 22:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann 08:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough detail of the butterfly. Good quality overall. Guanaco 00:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)