Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 05 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Juist,_Fahrradverleih_--_2014_--_3624.jpg[edit]

File:Juist,_Liebesschlösser_--_2014_--_3607.jpg[edit]

File:2014_Kościół_św._Antoniego_w_Gołogłowach,_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Church of St. Anthony in Gołogłowy 1 --Jacek Halicki 10:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Insufficient quality. Top left looks overexposed, but IMO OK. But: It's too noisy. --XRay 12:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree, I denoised picture --Jacek Halicki 15:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Weak  Support Thanks for denoising. It's better now, noise is still there, but acceptable.--XRay 06:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Support QI Good quality the electric cable is not too disturbing --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 12:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support as others.--Hubertl 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 15:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 3 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree --Hubertl 16:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I do agree. This image has a high EV though to show when perspective correction is unsuitable. Vielleicht haben wir unterschiedliche Sehgewohnheiten, aber mein Auge sagt mir hier eindeutig, daß das Dach in einem Winkel von mindestens 30 Grad nach hinten gekippt ist, erst meine Vernunft sagt, daß das wohl kaum der Fall ist, worauf mein Auge mit „sieht man doch“ dagegenhält. So entsteht kein harmonischer Bildeindruck. Das liegt daran, daß man zwar die perspektivische Verjüngung korrigieren kann, aber nicht die Perspektive selbst: Von diesem Standpunkt wird die Kamera das Dach immer von unten sehen, was bei geraden Seitenwänden nur möglich ist, indem das Dach nach hinten kippt. --Kreuzschnabel 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        •  Comment I totally agree with Kreuzschnabel. Endlich mal einer der das klar ausspricht. Danke! --Dirtsc 08:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As El Grafo, --Dirtsc 08:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Hier sieht man, dass wir es mit der Forderung nach „perspective correction“ nicht übertreiben sollten. Dieser Tage war hier ein Bild mit völlig verzerrtem Kronleuchter zu sehen, aber die Säulen links und rechts standen absolut gerade. -- Spurzem 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   ––Kreuzschnabel 06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 5 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed --Jacek Halicki 18:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Sei mir bitte nicht böse. Aber lässt sich der Turm nicht aus größerer Entfernung mit längerer Brennweite fotografieren? Auf jedem der drei Bilder wirkt er absolut unnatürlich. -- Spurzem 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose see El Grafo and Spurzem--Dirtsc 11:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Kreuzschnabel 06:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Nysa,_kościół_św._Jakuba_Starszego_062.JPG[edit]

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Kreuzschnabel 06:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Heuliez GX 427 Hybride n°200 Réseau Mistral Liberté.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bus in Toulon --Billy69150 12:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support No real issues; could be improved with tighter cropping, though --Daniel Case 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Overexposure in the baclground, and too loose a crop on the left - I find my eye gets drawn left away from the subject. --Mattbuck 21:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good lighting, good composition and good sharpness. Therefore QI for me. -- Spurzem 21:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Kreuzschnabel 06:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Klinikum_Bayreuth_November_21014.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Bayreuth Medical Center, west facade --J. Lunau 11:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)  Commentsky overexposed--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done thank you for your review J. Lunau 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Weak  Support perhaps too blueish, but It's better; . --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's vignetting, and I'm not really convinced from the level of detail.--C messier 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Funny, I took almost the same picture two months earlier ;-) The sky looks better now, but the change made the vignetting much more prominent (could probably be fixed easily in Rawtherapee with the right lens profile – I can check if I have one lying around on my HD) and everything that is not sky seems too dark. Also, there has been a loss of detail - looks like it may be due to a combination of sharpening and de-noising? --El Grafo (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Hello El Grafo, thanks for your review. As notice in upload comments, i only did exposure correction and USM, no de-noising. I noticed the funny coincidence while I set the category for this photo. My shot was done by intent at sunset, which gives the special colors but of course leads also to loss of details. I never tried working with lens profiles in Rawtherapee, so this is my opportunity to learn. If it works, I will upload a better version.--J. Lunau 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      Hi J. Lunau, then maybe it was the USM alone – if you compare the two versions, the later one has some strange artifacts (you'll have to zoom in to 100% and then have a look at some details like the windsock, the car at the left or the street lamps around it). I've found a correction profile for your lens – if you ping me via wikimail I can send it to you. Cheers, --El Grafo 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      ✓ Done Hi El Grafo, thanks for your helpful hints and the offered support. I've uploaded a new version with lens correction profile in use and I think it is much better now.--J. Lunau 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wonderful! I always enjoy seeing your pictures!--LuminitaM 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 SupportPentru this mean You have my vote!--LuminitaM 21:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Kreuzschnabel 06:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambridge railway station MMB 09 317340.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 317430 at Cambridge. Mattbuck 07:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The lighting is good, but it seems, that on that 3rd of May it has more than 30° Celsius. Its blurrish - even there, where there is no heat (train), its unsharp too. --Hubertl 16:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be that hot to generate a heat haze, especially as railways tend to reflect heat fairly well, and trains, even electric ones, put out quite a lot of heat themselves. I'll be honest I'm not 100% sold on this myself. Mattbuck 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I realized, that there will be a heat haze near the locomotive, but look to the very right side. There is no heat source at all. --Hubertl 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a sunny day, bright stones reflect heat well. It's certainly a heat haze. Mattbuck 20:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It is heat haze from the sun (no high temperatures required, it’s a matter of temperature gradients in the air. I shot a heat-hazed picture of a barn roof yesterday at 6 °C) blurring nearly everything of interest within the frame. Thus,  Oppose from me – except showing heat haze is the intention here but the file name does not suggest this. --Kreuzschnabel 09:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QIC. -- Smial 16:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose: I tend to agree with Hubertl. --El Grafo 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Kreuzschnabel 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Residenset_Nyköping_February_2015.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination County Governor's Residence. --ArildV 13:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline the tower of the church is strangely bent. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)  Comment Probably because of an extreme wide angle, I do not think it can be corrected.--ArildV 13:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Comment Thank you but I would like to discuss it.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm afraid that such a distortion isn't be acceptable. Sorry. --C messier 18:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In fact that's what I thought --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Kreuzschnabel 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Eleventh_station_of_the_cross_in_Laghel_Arco.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The eleventh station of the Way of the Cross in Laghel Arco - Jesus is nailed to the cross. --Moroder 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The actual shrine being depicted so small, I think you wanted to show the surroundings and steep road as well. Composition does not work for me though, and the lighting is poor since most of the frame is in shadow while the cloud on the top left is blown. Framing suggestion added, maybe you can re-take this in better light. I’d suggest to use a longer focal length from wider distance to obtain a denser composition. As yet it’s a weak  Oppose from me. --Kreuzschnabel 09:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. I believe the crop is the best to see the environment as with all other stations. The sky is technically not overblown even if the clouds are not structured. I can't take it from a wider distance since I dont have a fliying tripod ;-) I'd like to hear the opinion of others. --Moroder 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support this crop gives me a good impression of the ambience.--Hubertl 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - significant overexposure top left. Mattbuck 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 23:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Giraffe 09723.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Giraffa camelopardalis - Mysore Zoo --Vengolis 14:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose no good crop ..--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I would like to discuss it, because its not a crop. its the füll picture, probably the photographer wanted it like this. --Hubertl 02:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • still  Neutral The author decided to take just a part of the animal into the frame. I see nothing wrong with that. It’s sharp and well-lit. Still the roof in the background (behind the head) indicates a CCW tilt, I won’t believe that structure is really this slanted. Will support as soon as this issue has been fixed. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Not done therefore  Oppose for tilt --Kreuzschnabel 09:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Kreuzschnabel 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Bombardier Eurotram n°1003 CTS Alt Winmärik.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Strasbourg tram line F --Billy69150 11:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion see my note the image is leaning on right--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done Thanks ! --Billy69150 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Is the sky overexposed? Mattbuck 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) No, it's not overexposed --Billy69150 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, just too bright for me. Mattbuck 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support But it is not too bright for me. I like it more than other images which are much to dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 00:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 12:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Some reviewers refuse to accept that the Sky is the brightest part of a picture at least during the day and that clouds are white. What should we do? --Moroder 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Different planet? --Hubertl 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is blown, not only overexposed. I've had tons of declined pictures because of this. Rules must apply for all of us. --Kadellar 16:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Kreuzschnabel 06:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014-07-02 Bonn International School, Bonn-Plittersdorf IMG 2127.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bonn International School, Bonn, Germany (by Hasenläufer)--Leit 11:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The image looks tilted. It should be possible to correct that? --Martin Kraft 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
     Info It's good practice in QIC to give the author the possibility to correct his image before sending it to consensual review. Sending immediately to CR is not covered by QIC rules. --Cccefalon 15:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed it looks a little bit tilted but I think it's really not a big deal on that picture. --TwoWings 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's tilted, not much but visible and there is enough space to fix it. After fixing it I would support it. -- DerFussi 07:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --C messier 15:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)