Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 09 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Pörtschach_Winklern_Hauptstraße_Edelweißbad_Badesteg_25122023_0347.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pier at the Edelweiß bath on Hauptstraße in Winklern, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Laitche 03:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

* Oppose I disagree. Clouds are looking overexposed to me. Fixable by reducing the higlights. --Milseburg 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done @Milseburg: Thanks for your review. I reduced the highlights of the clouds. —- Johann Jaritz 05:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something off at the edge between the left mountain and the clouds (CA gone wrong?). Colors are looking unnatural (such as using too much saturation/dynamics or increasing blue saturation). Lacking general sharpness (over-denoised?). --Plozessor 06:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks okay form me now. Criticism on the colors should concerning the whole series, I guess. --Milseburg (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can live with the colors, but IMO the grey mountaintops, probably result of too aggressive CA removal, seem unacceptable. There is a ca. 5 to 8 pixels wide grey band on top of the left mountain. --Plozessor 19:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The original version is unfortunately overexposed, with extensive clipping in the clouds and the reflections in the water. The colours otherwise look natural in this version. The second version has strange colours and the darkening of the clouds looks unnatural. The previously clipped areas now look muddy grey and too dark compared to the other parts of the image, without really revealing any more detail. --Smial 01:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately overprocessed --DXR 11:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Milseburg: Thanks for your review. I uploaded an improved version. —- Johann Jaritz 08:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 12:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 13:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too much sky. I don't think this composition is favorable here. --Milseburg 10:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It wouldn't hurt to crop a part of the sky, but I don't see this as a big issue. --Plozessor 05:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The horizon is arranged according to the rule of thirds, what's wrong with that? --Smial 15:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Certainly, but the ratio between land and sky should be reversed. The image takes too much attention on the rather irrelevant and empty sky instead of the landscape. --Milseburg (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment You are applying an FPC criterion here. A photo that has little or no technical flaws should not be rejected on QIC purely because of a matter of taste (except for distracting clutter in the surroundings or background...). This sky gives this photo a certain impression of the vastness of the landscape. If you simply cut it off, you get a squeezed-together "Schlauchbild". However, if you change the camera orientation when you take the picture, you might end up with 50% completely uninteresting meadows in the foreground that dominate the picture and would rightly be criticised. Sky as a background does not dominate a landscape photo, it's background. --Smial 20:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      •  Comment The composition is criterion for a quality image. A landscape shot that consists of 2/3 of insignificant sky does not fulfill this. We don't know why the camera wasn't held a little further down. Therefore, only a cut can improve the image effect. I don't see any disadvatages in aspect ratios of long images. And yes, I find the sky too dominating. --Milseburg 23:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
        • I agree with Smial and Plozessor, a matter of taste. Too bold moving it to CR due to something like that. Poco a poco 10:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Sirikanya_Tansakun-2023-12-10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sirikanya Tansakun attends constitution day event --KrebsLovesFiesh 19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion Photographed with too short focal length from too close distance, not a favorable image of the nice young woman and, in my opinion, not a quality image -- Spurzem 15:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
     Support Not perfect but good enough --MB-one 13:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. As I said above: No QI for me -- Spurzem 14:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough. This is an extracted image. So the distance might have been different from what might be thought from this image. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment If the squint is the issue, then please check other images of the same person. May be she just has a squint. This may look better from an angle rather than from the front or be less obvious if the photo is taken from a larger distance. Or not. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Only weak  Support because of cluttered background, but for an action shot good enough. --Smial 01:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 06:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)