Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 10 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:IAF-F-15I-Raam--Independence-Day-2017-Tel-Nof-IZE-172.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Israeli Air Force F-15I Ra'am --MathKnight 18:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good quality. --Ermell 20:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Did Ermell strike and change his vote himself? If not, I shall restore his vote to support.--Peulle 14:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes I did. I changed my mind after a second review and have to admit that Cart is right.--Ermell 07:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, there is a lot of chromatic aberration in the photo that should be removed and the black border is not desireble for a normal QI , please remove it. --W.carter 22:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per W.carter. --Basotxerri 07:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Also per W.carter.--Peulle 15:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-11-01_Borner_See,_Schwan_(03)_(freddy2001).jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Common_eland_2016_12_31_3702a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common eland (Taurotragus oryx) on basalt grassland near Giants Castle camp, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, KwaZulu-Natal. --Alandmanson 12:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 16:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dear Alandmanson it does not match the size creteria which has to be above 2 megapixel --IssamBarhoumi 15:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I disagree 2320×1471px equals 3.41MP --Alandmanson 20:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question Your camera offers a higher resolution. Is it a crop or downsampeled? --Milseburg 04:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • slight crop and reduced by 50% --Alandmanson 12:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Question Is there any reason for reducing the image size? --Basotxerri 17:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
        • better IQ, smaller file. --Alandmanson 17:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
          •  Info I´m not a fan of this guidline. It is contoversial and in my eyes it can kicked out. But actually applies: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file". I suggest uploading the original resolution. --Milseburg 09:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the guideline do not permit it right now in the future if the guideline is changed we can QIfy it : we have to rethink the question of sharpness and the condition of taking the shot especially when the subject is far or the light is not Good also I suggest that there is a vote here as In FP more opinion in one picture make the result better for the QI Category --IssamBarhoumi 11:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC) Don´t vote twice. I canceled your second vote --Milseburg 15:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downsampled and only 100mm so I don't see any other reason to downsample except but to make it appear of better quality.--Peulle 15:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question I am confused; is this about the quality of the image I uploaded, or is it about how I got there? If my lens is not good enough to create a quality image at 10MP, but the quality is good at 2.5MP, surely that is as good as the same image by a 3 MP camera using the whole frame - as long as it looks as good?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandmanson (talk • contribs)
It's about the quality of the image. And the answer to your last question is "no". Standards improve over time with the quality of the equipment: if you have an excellent camera the expectations rise. The point here is that it seems you were unable to shoot a QI at full resolution, and compressed it to make it look better. That's "cheating" and it's what the guideline above is made to prevent. Otherwise we'd all just reduce the size of our images to get them past the QIC rather than shooting QIs in the first place. I hope that explains it.--Peulle 06:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Himantopus_himantopus,_Sète_cf09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Himantopus himantopus (Black-winged stilt) near a pond. --Christian Ferrer 19:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --A.Savin 09:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are many water droplets on the lens I think. Charlesjsharp 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question I see that, too. Is it fixable in post-processing? -- Ikan Kekek 04:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay I had connection problems, it is the water lifted by the legs of the bird moves, as evidence this photo taken a few second later, I have at no time wiped the lens nor cloned out any water droplets. At the opposite, this is more an evidence of the good quality, at least for the details. Christian Ferrer 15:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me, the bird facing away from the camera, along with the twig in front of the legs, detract from image quality --Alandmanson 13:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 09:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The composition is acceptable IMHO and the droplets not a problem. But IMHO, it is a bit underexposed and slightly noisy. --C messier 13:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Playa Risco del Paso - Fuerteventura - 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Playa Risco del Paso, Fuertevetura --Llez 16:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support No, no, ..., yes, yes! :-) --XRay 17:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no no! Rule of thirds! yes yes! Beautiful on eyes and mind.... --RaboKarbakian 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, yes, the rule of third is a suggestion/guide not a law. --W.carter 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
So, if not composition, what makes this a QI? -- RaboKarbakian 18:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The quality of a composition isn't based on some precooked ratio. -- Ikan Kekek 20:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This exemplary photographer is no more? --RaboKarbakian 01:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Who is that? Someone real or some theoretical ideal? I react to what I see. -- Ikan Kekek 09:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Llez, always a great photographer on QIC. --RaboKarbakian 21:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that he's a great photographer, but he's very much alive, thank goodness, and you are the one opposing this photograph, not I, so I truly don't understand what you're saying, other than that this photograph disappoints you. -- Ikan Kekek 06:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Master of the suggestions is dying in QI right now. I don't like to see the masters lose it at the 'suggestions' and kill QI a little at the same while. --RaboKarbakian 18:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In this case the foreground is the main part of the photo and it is for me not detailed enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't see a lot of sharpness or detail here ...--Peulle 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - This photo is not about great sharpness or detail; it's a work of art that in my eyes succeeds in its own terms. -- Ikan Kekek 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment What a controversary picture. It's not sharp in front but in the middle, on the horizon it get unsharp again by atmospherical reasons. I think I'm more on the side of the supporters but it's difficult to argue. I believe it's the artistic value for me although this shouldn't be a deciding QI criteria. @Llez: The horizon is slightly tilted, could you fix that, please? --Basotxerri 10:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --Llez 15:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support. Thank you! --Basotxerri 16:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Additional  Info: Exactly here Moses and the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, at least in the film Exodus: Gods and Kings this scenes were filmed at this place (see also the poster in the linked Wikipedia article) --Llez 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - per Ikan. Interesting composition. Horizon is very slightly tilted, but it´s ok for QI--Milseburg 11:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not QI for me--Billy69150 13:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC).
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose with Michielverbeek --Zoppo59 15:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the subject is blurry IMO. Without detail. --Lmbuga 23:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Milseburg 15:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)