Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 18 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:2nd_Elagin_Bridge_SPB_Signboard.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2nd Elagin bridge in Saint Petersburg, ceramic signboard --Florstein 05:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The sing should be cropped from the unsharp rest. --Ermell 09:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: no, it shouldn't. It's simply creative trick. --Florstein 12:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO well done. A sign with surrounding resp. context. --Smial 08:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. -- Ikan Kekek 14:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Internationalists_Park_SPB_(img3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Internationalists Park in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 06:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Good quality, but too much foreground for me. --Steindy 18:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support If this were FPC, I would agree with Steindy, but here, I don't. Having that much foreground gives more context to the photo, showing how distant the buildings are and also showing a bit of environmental garbage. I don't think we should enforce what I would call overly rigid standards of composition at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 14:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 Question @Ikan Kekek: Does that mean that the golden section is irrelevant for QI? In my opinion, the lower third could be cut off. The picture would then achieve much more impact. --Steindy 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 Comment Again, this isn't FPC. "Quality image" doesn't mean "sublime composition that uses my ideal mathematical ratio." I shudder to think how you judge musical compositions. If the climax isn't precisely 2/3 of the way through the piece, does it suck to you? -- Ikan Kekek 03:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Ikan. Technically, the photo is fine, the image composition is not that great, but in my personal opinion it is secondary and in this case very easily customizable by subsequent users. A subsequent user who wants the photo with less foreground can simply crop it, you don't even need specialized image editing software for that. Another user might find this "empty" foreground very useful to insert some text or a banner. My original decision a few days ago was different for the image with the thick branch: it was not easy to cut it off without losing essential parts of the image. Of course, a photo usually looks more harmonious if you move the horizon from the center either a little down File:Strickherdicke winter IMGP2651 wp.jpg or a little up File:Strickherdicke winter IMGP2669 wp.jpg, but to make the golden ratio or the rule of thirds mandatory I think is wrong File:Wolkenstrahlen Abendsonne in Dortmund IMGP9055 smial wp.jpg. --Smial 07:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)