Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 16 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2020-01-10_Women's_Super_G_(2020_Winter_Youth_Olympics)_by_Sandro_Halank–807.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Noa Szollos at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics --Sandro Halank 17:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --D-Kuru 19:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blown highlights --Charlesjsharp 13:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Human subject is intact. I would prefer increased contrast between clothing and blown background, but ok as-is. --Trougnouf 16:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Even large parts of the clothing are blown. --Smial 19:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Llez 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support This one is closer to blown, I guess, but only on part of her pants, which IMO are not blown but just come close to blending into the surrounding snow (yet the line on the side of the pants is still visible). -- Ikan Kekek 00:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment We usually decline images of architecture or landscapes, if clouds or some small parts of the sky between leaves of a tree are blown. I don't understand, why this criterion should not apply to a photo of a person, where two thirds of the pixels are blown. "Blown" does not only mean RGB FFFFFF, but also single clipping colour channels. Of course you can recognize some contrast between areas with RGB FFF0FF and RGB F0FFFF, but both is still blown. --Smial 08:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes, I struggle to see how this can be considered a quality image. Charlesjsharp 15:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Supporting vote removed, presuming that the issues are the same as in the other photo (details lost that could be recovered by dialing down the brightness of the whites). -- Ikan Kekek 20:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

File:War_cemetery_for_World_war_II_on_the_cemetery_Rodaun_in_Vienna,_Austria-full_lower_centered-wide_PNr°0622.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The cemetry for the fallen russian soldiers of the second world war on the cemetery Rodaun in Vienna, Austria --D-Kuru 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, lacks detail --MB-one 21:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @MB-one: What lack of detail? This image was takwn with an ultra wide angle lens at 10mm. The image width is 3805 pixel which is almost the maximum of the camera of 3888 (loss is centering and rotation crop) --D-Kuru 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, IMO not sharp enough. --XRay 05:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The sharpness is actually only mediocre, but if one considers the resolution, just acceptable. Apparently, the used lens does not perform any better, as the settings according to Exif do not show any mistakes that the photographer would have made. Question to the photographer: What software do you use for raw development? I see strange color patterns on small details in many places, which indicate problems with demosaicing (this observation is not included in my evaluation, because that would be pixelpeeping) --Smial 09:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm kinda busy at the moment so replys may take a day or two.
    @Smial: Add resolution: The images still "should have at least 2 real megapixels". Even "reviewers may choose to demand more", this image still has 5.5Mpx. Sure, maybe not the blasting 108Mpx of some phone camera, but enough nonetheless. Add used software: As indicated on the image description page the image was created using RawTherapee. The image crop was done in GIMP. --D-Kuru 19:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment Just as a hint, becase demosaicing issues were mentioned: RawTherapee is normally very good in demosaicing, for some images even better than Photoshop/Lightroom/ACR. (Of course the result depends on the selected demosaicing algorithm, because RawTherapee allows to chose the algorithm; my claim that RawTherapee is very good in demosaicing refers to the default AMaZE algorithm.) --Aristeas 08:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I finally got around to rework the image. @Aristeas: The selected demosaicing algorith is AMaZE. RCD also looks quite good, but you only really see a slight difference at 600%. I question if there is a use in zooming this much for this purpose.
@MB-one: & @XRay: You may want to take a second look at the image. In my opinion there is a clear improvement over the previous version. --D-Kuru 21:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • IMO still unsharp. There may be some other issues too, but the unsharpness is important. --XRay 09:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @D-Kuru: Thank you for the explanation! Of course my remark about the demosaicing in RawTherapee was rather a side-note to Smial’s question about the demosaicing you used. But together with your answer (AMaZE) we can summarize that the demosaicing is fine, so if there are any artefacts, as Smial observed, they would probably also occur when using other software. --Aristeas 08:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The artifacts appear to have gone in the new version, but now the sharpness is even worse. I don't change my vote, the image is still acceptable. It meets my minimum requirement: usable/printable in A4 size. -- Smial 13:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to stand by my initial assessment. The image's sharpness is not QI level. Sorry. --MB-one 09:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Achillea_millefolium_Lusatian_Mountains.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: File:Achillea millefolium bloom. By User:Mirek256 --Mirek256 10:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Insufficient sharpness. --EV Raudtee 14:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. --Mdaniels5757 03:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exposure on the high side, therefore few details on the bright petals. Probably fixable by new development from Raw file. Mediocrate sharpness, but "good enough" due to high reslution. Btw: Why landscape format with a really typical portrait motif? -- Smial 11:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Milseburg 11:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Пахарь.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Абалакский природно-исторический комплекс --Ольга Слотвинская 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The girl is not related to the encyclopedic topic, which is important for this photo. Bff 11:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe girl does not enhance the photo and obscures part of the main element of the photo Lorax 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support This kind of portrait is a cliche, but this one is cute and pretty well done. I think it's a QI. Also, Commons is not an encyclopedia but a Wikimedia-wide repository of images. If some of them are non-encyclopedic but good examples of this kind of portrait, where's the harm? -- Ikan Kekek 18:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image with a pretty girl and good quality. No valued image for the encyclopedia of course. -- Spurzem 19:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Smial 10:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose preliminary. Image is good but categories are insufficient. --MB-one 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Beurteilen wir hier Bilder oder Kategorien? -- Spurzem 11:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Both, Spurzem. So to MB-one, I think a category for portraits of girls should be added, but what else? -- Ikan Kekek 00:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. Hallo MB-one and Ikan Kekek, okay now? -- Spurzem 06:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Spurzem. MB-one, are you satisfied? -- Ikan Kekek 08:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 Support I'm satisfied. --MB-one 09:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Aristeas 08:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Oh, how narrow-minded we can be; I, too, immediately thought on seeing this that the girl was inappropriate, and I thank the other users who have pointed out that this image serves as a great example of this kind of portrait. Good quality. Blood Red Sandman 23:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 11:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)