Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 11 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Giudecca_Rio_di_Sant_Eufemia_piccioni_Venezia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination pigeons (Columba livia) on streetlight over Rio di Sant'Eufemia canal on the Giudecca island in Venice --Moroder 16:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Happy landings! What a charming snap-shot. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose None of the birds sharp. Flying one is blurred. Charlesjsharp 08:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. It's quite normal that a flying bird before landing is blurred.--Manfred Kuzel 09:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You can't see any detail at all in any of the birds. They all look like a dark gray mass. We have other photos of birds on this page right now that are 1000% better than this and are being opposed just because the head is a tiny bit out of focus. PumpkinSky 11:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I don't consider this a photo of pigeons, but a pretty street lamp and side of a building with pigeons as part of the view. As such, it is a good picture. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The description says that the pigeons are the subject and I don't think they are really sharp or crisp enough for a QI.--Peulle 07:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Regardless of the title, my eyes tell me what the subject is. Are you suggesting that if the title of the photo were changed, you might change your vote? -- Ikan Kekek 09:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really, no, since the description has already revealed that the photographer intended them to be the subject.--Peulle 22:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Then if the title and description were changed...I judge things differently, but my advice to Moroder would be to change the title of the picture to File:Giudecca_Rio_di_Sant_Eufemia_con_piccioni and edit the description accordingly. And then everyone could consider this as a cityscape with pigeons, instead of a portrait of pigeons. -- Ikan Kekek 07:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
My point is that since he has already revealed his intention was to photograph the birds. Changing the text now doesn't change that.--Peulle 13:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I judge an artwork based on its results as I perceive them, much more than on the intention of the artist. -- Ikan Kekek 18:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe I could live with the motion blur of the landing pidgeon but the right one IMO is blurred in an unacceptable manner. Maybe cropping could be a solution, I'm not sure. --Basotxerri 07:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I strongly disagree with Charles and despair we are judging "sharpness" of a 36MP image at 100%. The stationary birds are sharp, and some modest downsizing makes absolutely crisp sharpness at 100% should one care. The flying birds have motion blur and that is a perfectly reasonable artistic choice. If the bird at the top right was captured frozen sharpness, it would look like someone had stuck it on the wall. The overall composition with the lamp, the wires and the wall are good artistically. Peulle, we have no current policy of file naming on Commons, only a desire that it not be completely meaningless or ambiguous or incorrect. We certainly don't have any guideline for FP/QI that the filename or file description must convey the artists intentions. For reference, File:Birds on the wire - crop.jpg is an FP and this photo where nearly every bird is blurred won Landscape Photographer of the Year 2016. -- Colin 11:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me --Livioandronico2013 22:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The two images Colin mentions have artistic merit. This one, in my opinion, doesn't. Charlesjsharp 21:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Charlesjsharp: Just out of curiosity. Could you please be a bit more specific about "artistic merit" or artistic value (?).--Moroder 08:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The other two images speak for themselves. This one (since you ask and I risk being offensive) is poorly composed, poorly executed (shutter speed far too low) and taken in poor lighting. The out-of-focus birds aren't posed in any sort of interesting way. I am staggered that anyone would consider this meets QI standards. Charlesjsharp 22:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ugly and surprising poor quality IMO: Dust spots (I have only indicated three), motion blur, strong sharpness, all the birds and heads of the birds have poor detail. Sorry, what is quality here? Ugly composition IMO. Poor idea IMO (why this composition? Random picture?)--Lmbuga 20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment This review is at it's best offensive. I cleaned those tiny, tiny spots the size of a few pixels (dust spots is something else) which probably are blurred birds in the sky. The rest has already been commented --Moroder 21:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not your enemy Moroder. Habitually, I like your pictures. Unfortunately, I do not like this. Please allow me to disagree with you. Sorry--Lmbuga 17:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I just went to see the dust spots again. They were dust spots, dirt stains! They are circular, round. No birds. I do not intend to sink you.--Lmbuga 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Lmbuga: fortunately we are just in a war for excellence ;-). The spots you mention are less than 50 px my DS typically are about 80-90 px, but never mind. Cheers --Moroder 18:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok @Moroder: . Thanks, friend; and sorry--Lmbuga 18:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sharp. --A.Savin 16:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. And Charlesjsharp. And A.Savin. And PumpkinSky. --Smial 12:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I cant see your problems with this image. It's technically good, the motion blur is unavoidable. The lighting conditions are a little bit unfavorable and so the image looks overall a little bit dull. But that reflects the reality. So OK for QI imho --Dirtsc 13:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Already "no composition" would suffice for decline. More issues are present. --Smial 13:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
So wich part of the "composition guideline" seems to be a problem here? If I examine the guideline part by part, I cant find a reason for a decline:
1. The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image.  Neutral streetlamp, wall, wires and birds are part of the image; maybe the image would look better, if the wall is cropped
2. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. OK, because not present
3. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed. OK everything sharp, light conditions well handled
Greetings --Dirtsc 07:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  CommentDon't really understand what means "no composition)". I have several takes of this scene and I selected this with the two birds with motion blur which imo gives movement to the image --Moroder 14:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   Thoroughly discussed, voting now closed.--Peulle 22:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)