Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 27 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2018-08-09-Leopold-Figl-Gasse-Wien-RalfR.jpg[edit]

Please discuss, its not unsharp, the resolution of the film is no better. --Ralf Roletschek 17:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This brings up an interesting  Question. The Guidelines say that: The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that 'at the moment of creation', a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality, a recognition that is not erased by later advances. Does this mean we should take the equipment used into consideration when judging an image? For instance, when looking at an image from 1970, should we apply 1970s standards? If so, what about an image that was shot in 2018, but using equipment from 1970? Which standards should apply?--Peulle 06:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I understand that. But I wanted to say good words to the author. --Khanaon 14:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There's something going fundamentally wrong with the scan. The image has a slight blueish cast at the top and somewhat brownish in the lower half. A scan of a b&w image should not vary in color cast. The sharpness is really low, but this is probably not the fault of camera and used film, because there is also no film grain visible. At more than 20 Mpixels even a rather low iso film like the PAN F should show some grain. But the image is totally blurred. I once scanned an Agfaortho25 with an old scanner with only 1350dpi native resolution and even this lowres scan shows some grain. --Smial 12:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 04:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:18-08-08-Fotoflug-Ostalpen-Frauenmauer_RRK5997.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 04:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]