Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 25 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Ciofes_dinsta_te_Ncisles_Gherdëina.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trail on the Ncisles pasture in Gherdëina, South Tyrol. --Moroder 07:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Needs a more specific category, green lens flare at middle top, inflated file size --Poco a poco 19:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks, it's not an "inflated file size", it's the normal size of a medium format camera, downsizing seems to be forbidden --Moroder 08:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The flare is gone, but sorry, you do inflate. I shot with FF for many years and my camera has more MPx than yours, and I rarely upload a file with more than 10 MB. The file size has nothing to do with downSAMPLING. I'm asking to reduce the upsizing of your files, as it isn't normal. --Poco a poco 19:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment FF, I guess full frame, is not the same as medium format and what you say does not make sense --Moroder 04:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you want to finish the discussion with a "what you say makes no sense", fine. Just do me a favour and read about downsizing and downsampling, and also export this file with a size of 10 MB and tell me if you see a different vs 30 MB. --Poco a poco 08:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I know exactly the difference. I don't have any reason to downsample the output file and modify the file size set by Hasselblad --Moroder 13:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No reason? reducing space on the project servers, letting quicker downloads, and both without loss of quality. Again, I talk about downsizing, not downsampling, same resolution, smaller file size --Poco a poco 15:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment A request for downsizing is a personal view and no issue for QIC --Moroder 08:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sent to CR for discussion there.--Peulle 08:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment The big file size results from a motif, that has a lot of high contrast details all over the whole image. I tried saving the image with irfanview at 100% quality with subsampling "off" and got even 45MB file size. Subsamplng set to "on" still has 30 MB. So I believe, there ist nothing "inflated". High detail images give big filesizes, it's that simple. In addition, the file contains unusually many different color values, irfanview counts far more than 600,000 different colors. This may be related to the ability of the MF sensor to differentiate many colors in the shadow areas, where small sensors in telephones and compact cameras, high-resolution crop cameras and also the Canon with 50 MPixels like to make a mess. Of course it is possible to set higher compression rates, irfanview set to 80% gives about 9MB, but then you get lots of compression artifacts. No way. --Smial 09:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    Sureley, a shot of a blue sky everywhere versus a shot of a subject with very different colors and samples will guide to a small or big size. That is obvious and not the point here. Long story short: prove that an image like this one with 33 MB is of higher quality if you export it with full quality but limiting the size to 15 MB. If you succeed, I'll shut up. If it cannot be proven then it is an inflated file. Period. Poco a poco 16:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
     Info I uploaded a version here saved at 100 and 80 % jpg-quality. You can see the difference if you look carefully, not huge differences but still possible to see. The smaller file is still 22 mb and D810 have only 36 mp. Nikon and Hasselblad have superior sensors compared with Canon, with better color depth and significantly greater dynamic range and therefore larger files?--ArildV 17:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
     Comment I simply don't understand the term "inflating" in this context. In all instructions for photos with good quality it is pointed out that you should save with lowest JPG compression to prevent artefacts. Detailed pictures in full resolution then have such large files. From my K-1, always with exactly the same compression settings, images come out between under 20MB to (rarely) over 40 MB. I don't "inflate" anything and can only influence this by either downscaling the images or setting higher compression rates, contrary to all the usual recommendations here. --Smial 19:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
  •  Support Good quality. --Smial 09:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality, and I don't understand the dispute about the size. -- Ikan Kekek 15:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sweets_of_Tunisia_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A selection of sweets offered for a small Eid al-fitr celebration in Tunisia --Kritzolina 08:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 11:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 19:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too dark, a little bit noise and blurry. --XRay 05:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Seven Pandas must not have checked this thoroughly.--Peulle 07:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Peulle: Snide back-handed comments are not needed. Seven Pandas 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DOF and probably blurred by noise reduction. --Smial 18:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sonneneinstrahlung_in_Wald_6146421054.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View into the outside of the forest with tree shadows. --PantheraLeo1359531 20:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  CommentSchönes Foto, aber die Perspektive sollte korrigiert werden, weil sich die Bäume nach innen neigen. --Manfred Kuzel 09:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice picture, but CA too strong for a QI --Dktue 13:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Dktue.--Peulle 06:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, barrel distortion, noisy dark areas, sky partially overexposed (colour channel clipping). This high contrast motif was too much for the small sensor. Very nice composition, though. --Smial 09:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Vslaeum,_Ulm_(_1050055).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Potted plants at Verschwörhaus Ulm --MB-one 13:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Die Blätter der linken Pflanze müssten schärfer sein, und die rechte sieht nicht gesund aus. Außerdem wirken die Plastiktöpfe nicht gut und der Hintergrund ist leicht schief. -- Spurzem 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Diskutieren kann man hier einzig und allein über die Schärfe der Blätter. Ob eine Pflanze gesund ist oder nicht und ob sie in einem Plastiktopf oder im Garten steht, hat nichts mit der Qualität eines Fotos zu tun. Ähnliches gilt bei einer Nahaufnahme für den ohnehin unscharfen Hintergrund, weil es hier einzig und allein um das Motiv (die Pflanzen) geht. --Manfred Kuzel 08:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment Das stimmt nicht so ganz. Auch wenn Getaltungsaspekt hier sicherlich weniger bedeutsam sind als bei FPC, so gilt trotzdem: "The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed." --Smial 13:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Volle Zustimmung zu Manfred. Hier geht es um die Fotos. --Aristeas 06:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Aristeas: Worum sollte es sonst gehen als um Fotos? Qualität von Fotos ist meines Erachtens aber nicht allein eine Frage von Schärfe, abgesehen davon, dass sie in dem zur Diskussion stehenden Bild nicht einwandfrei ist. Und noch eine Frage, auch an Manfred Kuzel: Warum habt Ihr dem Foto hier kein Pro gegeben? Vergessen? -- Spurzem 09:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DOF, distracting background. --Smial 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood quality. Hier ist mein Pro, Spurzem. --M@nfred (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, --Cvmontuy 02:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   ----Seven Pandas 00:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-01_(105)_Argynnis_paphia_(silver-washed_fritillary)_on_a_Phedimus_aizoon_(aizoon_stonecrop)_at_Bichlhäusl,_Tiefgrabenrotte,_Frankenfels,_Austria.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Argynnis paphia (silver-washed fritillary) on a Phedimus aizoon (aizoon stonecrop) at Bichlhäusl, Tiefgrabenrotte, Frankenfels, Austria.--GT1976 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Gorgeous colors. Great composition. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is this really a QI? Everything and nothing is in focus. No butterfly is really sharp. Some are flapping their wings. Colors seem a little off. --Pro2 19:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somewhat blurry. There are several overexposed areas. Colors look unnatural, especially the greens. --Stoxastikos (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   ----Seven Pandas 00:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:AMW.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination By User:Poznaniak --Piotr Bart 12:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry but I think this is not similar enough to the original. Small details like the shadowing on the wings and legs might be forgiven, but the letters, crown and lines in the structure the eagle stands on - these are all different.--Peulle 17:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be similar to be a quality image. --Piotr Bart 08:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I feel it needs to be an accurate depiction of the logo. This, then, becomes a CR discussion about how dissimilar the image can be from the original.--Peulle 21:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:The_Northeastern_Corner_Round_Tower2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The Northeastern Corner Round Tower, Tobolsk Kremlin, Russia. --СССР 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hmmmm I think we should discuss this; the image seems a bit underexposed.--Peulle 07:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image would definitely be (even) better if it was a bit brighter. Should be easy to correct, just dont’ clip the highlights. --Aristeas 07:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: brightened --СССР 02:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still too dark for me. --Rbrechko 23:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: brightened more --СССР 04:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me now. --Aristeas 06:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Halo is way too strong. --Pro2 11:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Préfecture_du_Haut-Rhin_(1)_-_sans_lumière.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prefecture of Haut-Rhin without light in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 12:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  SupportGood quality. --Cvmontuy 01:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
     OpposeI disagree This image is underexposed by at least 1/2 f-stop, probably one f-stop. --Smial 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
     Neutral Smial is right that the image would be better (nicer) if lifted by about 1/2 to 1 f-stop. On the other hand, this seems to be a blue hour photograph, and the blue hour is dark, so one could argue that the brightness (darkness) of the image is just reality. --Aristeas 07:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment It's a series of photos taken at one minute intervals (with File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (2) - avec lumière.jpg and File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (3) - avec lumière bleue.jpg), the settings are the same, actually the first is less exposed because no light on the building. Gzen92 [discuter] 06:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I changed the brightness. Gzen92 [discuter] 09:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:PuertoPuntadelEste-jul2019.4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Punta del Este, Uruguay --Ezarate 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline * OpposeOverall insufficient quality. Dark, noisy, perspective not corrected, maybe tilted. --Dirtsc 06:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    *@Dirtsc: see now, please Ezarate 22:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ezarate should have put this image to CR by himself after it was first rejected by me and then reworked. As this was not done, I put it to CR, to have more opinions. I'm still not convinced, it is better now, but now has slight CAs on the edges of the buildings. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
CA fixed, thanks Ezarate 11:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good now --Dirtsc 08:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I appreciate the rework done but IMO, the image still seems dark and a little soft to me. --GRDN711 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose there is a stitching problem on the building on the left --Moroder 06:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective is skewed (the buildings on the left and right sides of the picture are leaning outwards). The image lacks contrast. --Stoxastikos 16:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)