Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 23 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Gora Koltso tract1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Caucasian Mineral Waters. Area of the mountains "Ring" --AlixSaz 08:47, 20 May 2017(UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 10:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose This one seems somewhat oversharpened, please more opinions. --A.Savin 10:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I admit that I am very unlikely to have nearly the keen eyes for oversharpening that A.Savin has, but the photo looks good enough for QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 15:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Gutleutkaserne,_Frankfurt,_Central_Gate,_Southeast_view_20170514_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A southeast view of the central gate of the Gutleutkaserne, Frankfurt am Main --DXR 08:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Do those towers really lean out that way, or are they actually straight and parallel to each other? If it's the latter, please correct, as they look strange this way. If not, say so. Otherwise, good. -- Ikan Kekek 09:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I think they do lean in different ways. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • DXR, could you please confirm that they do lean? -- Ikan Kekek 22:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I voted to promote this photo, but I would really like someone to address whether these two towers really do lean in opposite directions, because if not, they shouldn't in the photo. I haven't been to Frankfurt, and other photos are inconclusive on this question. -- Ikan Kekek 21:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  strong support The vertical lines are perfect. The leaning is just an optical illusion due to the deformation of the top which ivariably happens with perspective correction--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Optical illusion? You mean that's not how the photo actually looks? I think it should be corrected, so I will  Oppose, though I know it's symbolic and won't carry the day. -- Ikan Kekek 09:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a typical example of the absurd demand that every photograph of a building must be corrected in perspective in such a way that all verticals are strictly vertical. The architect, of course, draws his buildings with vertical walls and towers. And these will hopefully be built vertically accordingly. However, the architect is completely free in his designs when choosing the perspective. If one looks at drawings of classical buildings, one immediately sees that these are always represented, so to say, from the infinite, or at least from a very great distance. For multi-storey buildings or towers regularly also from an elevated point of view. For us photographers, in most cases it is impossible to find the same or at least a similar location in order to photograph a building as the architect has once drawn. The more unfavorable the camera location, the more blatant the "corrected" image results. Over the last few years, an ideology has emerged, and at the same time an aesthetic, which has nothing to do with a realistic, encyclopaedic, natural representation. The availability of extreme wide-angle lenses and their awkward use does not make things any better. --Smial 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support More than OK for me. Nonetheless I wish the EXIF data was still there. --A.Savin 11:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support. --Peulle 09:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ikan Kekek, et al., this image is a mosaic of nine photos shot at 35mm to give an equivalent focal length of ca. 16mm after cropping, with much more detail than a single image could give. However, this method means that there is no such thing as "a" photo to start with. I must manually tell the software how to place the combined images on a canvas to get a final image, and for that I believe that going for corrected verticals (and in this case, horizontals) is a natural thing. I get that there are valid issues with straightened verticals in wide angles (such as the fact that anything that is not actually perfectly straight becomes exaggerated, such as here, which was created the same way), though I could think of far worse examples than this image and I am yet to hear a much better alternative to correcting the verticals (unstraightened lines also look awkward imo and there would always be a lot of judgment concerning which level of converging lines is the right one - is this really preferable? I know, we all want this view, but it isn't on offer in real life without tearing down an entire quarter ;-) ).
I also understand the perception that "something is not quite right", because not all lines appear to be perfectly vertical. At the end of the day, I have to make some judgment call about which edges to focus on for correcting the verticals, and I believe that here, they are not all fully parallel. Keep in mind that this building is from 1879, so it might as well be not 100% perfect. If I compare the image to this, there also seems to be some imperfection in the way the towers are leaning (and the image is totally distorted vertically), similar here --DXR (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply. the Limburg Cathedral view is a lot gentler in leaning. Anyway, I respect your thinking. Ikan Kekek 22:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 15:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Prenzlau 10-2016 photo05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Prenzlau (Brandenburg): St.Mary Magdalene Church --A.Savin 08:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Is the white balance really ok? It looks a bit yellow to me, making the sky look a little off. --W.carter 09:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The picture was taken outdoor on a normal sunny day, same settings as other pictures of this series. Why shouldn't the WB be OK. --A.Savin 13:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I compared it with two (1 and 2) taken on the same day, and the sky has a much clearer blue tone in those. I did a quick WB based on the sign on the right side of the church and then it matched the other photos. --W.carter 13:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd like to hear third opinion, please. --A.Savin 19:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Please do. Only way we can be sure. --W.carter 19:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comparing the three photos, this one does seem too dark for such a sunny day, unless there was a very brief, really strong cloud cover. I don't know why the WB would be off. What do you think accounts for the discrepancy? -- Ikan Kekek 01:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Seems a bit yellowish, I would say... --Basotxerri 18:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 22:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - In isolation, the photo looks perfectly good to me. But did you look at the other linked photos? There's a mystery about the white balance in this one, by comparison to the other two. -- Ikan Kekek 07:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, new version. --A.Savin 08:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you. Very nice now. --W.carter 09:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, the coloring is a matter of taste, in technically view it is different whether the light is reflected frontally or laterally (look at the angle of the shaddows).--Zoppo59 20:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed unsigned vote.--Peulle 18:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, this was my fault. --Zoppo59 20:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Looks much better, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 04:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)