Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 23 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Brandenburg_Unteres_Odertal_Polderwiese_Sommer_0122.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Nationalpark Unteres Odertal im Nordosten des Bundeslandes Brandenburg - Nahaufnahme Löwenzahn. By User:GentsBilder --Nightflyer 20:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose nichts richtig scharf, zu geringe Tärfenschiefe --Ralf Roletschek 23:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, we should talk about. --Hubertl 07:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. Jkadavoor 09:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 03:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-07-05-plenarsaal-BT0A9912.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Michaela Grubesa, Landtagsabgeordnete Steiermark --Ralf Roletschek 14:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Eindrucksvoll = impressive. --Alchemist-hp 21:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise --A.Savin 05:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Info Denoised. This is ISO 1600 at 600 mm. --Ralf Roletschek 07:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the denoised version. The first version shows somewhat more detail and the noise is absolutely neglible considering the location and situation. I would support  Support for the first version. -- Smial 09:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Hast Recht. --Ralf Roletschek 10:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Ralf, ich weiß, du weißt, daß diese Ansicht bei den Glattbüglern und Senkrechtzerrern nicht durchkommt. -- Smial 13:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Richtig. Daß das mit dieser Brennweite und ISO nicht anders machbar war, wird ignoriert. Ich hätte auf 11 abblenden müssen, ISO auf 100 und 1/1000 sek. Das Licht denke ich mir einfach dazu. --Ralf Roleček 13:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Awatt, ein Pfund Magnesiumpulver und ZONK! ;-) -- Smial 22:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Die Frage ist natürlich, ob sich die Beurteilung auf die Leistung des Fotografen selbst beziehen und das auch entsprechend vermittelt werden kann was man das Bestmögliche unter den gegebenen Umständen bezeichnen kann? Könnte vielleicht (aber nur vielleicht) zutreffen in diesem Fall, aber ich bin da etwas skeptisch, da es sich nicht um einen speziellen Shot mit einem nicht wiederholbaren Ausdruck in einer nichtwiederholbaren Situation handelt, sondern schlicht ein Bild der Dame. IMO, diese Linse kann´s um einen Deut besser. Aber ein  Support für den Gesamteindruck (Handhaltung/Komposition) --Hubertl 04:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise for a portrait, especially considering the person is sitting still. --Peulle 10:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 03:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Bergamo,_Torre_Civica,_2016-06_CN-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Torre Civica at Piazza Vecchia in Bergamo --Carschten 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Slightly tilted ccw. --Code 07:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Code: thanks, I rotated the image a bit. Is it better now? --Carschten 12:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
     Support Good now. --Code 21:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Leaning in --Ermell 21:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distortet. --Ralf Roletschek 09:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this is not a tower, this is a funnel, I strongly agree with Ralf. --Wuselig 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 03:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Karpatsky_biosferny_21-212-5018_SAM_6781_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. By User:Haidamac --Ата 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small resolution for such kind of motif and a 24 MPix camera --Cccefalon 06:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support It's only a 15 MPix camera --Tsungam 08:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. --Palauenc05 13:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support resolution as others QI --Grtek 11:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's this "easy to take" thing. Some downscaling is absolutely ok, not every photographer has high end lenses and images taken with usual kit lenses look mostly much better if downscaled for some amount. With my old *istDs, a 6 MPix-CCD camera I often used about (linear) 80%. For reasons. But this image has been taken with a rather modern camera and not the worst lens, so I cannot accept a (linear) downscaling to less than 55% resp. less than 30% in pixel count. --Smial 09:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree with Smial here; the image looks very nice, but has been reduced in size for what appears to be no good reason. I quote the QI guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality)."--Peulle 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Changed my mind after Peulle's comment --Grtek (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)