Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 01 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Schwarzlsee_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schwarzlsee near Graz, Styria, Austria --Clemens Stockner 11:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is really sharp --Capricorn4049 00:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Weak oppose It seems to me that the focus is too much in front for f/5.6, so the borderline in the back could be better. Is the tower really slanted this way? Looks dangerous and in the other image it isn't. There are some red CAs on the stones on the left and on some parts on the right, too. --Basotxerri 08:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Schwarzlsee_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schwarzlsee near Graz, Styria, Austria --Clemens Stockner 11:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is really sharp --Capricorn4049 00:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Weak oppose I believe that we've got a focus problem here, too. The left side looks worse than the right. --Basotxerri 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Church in Saint-Igne.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church in Saint-Igne, commune of Ginals, Tarn-et-Garonne, France. --Tournasol7 07:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is a white strip on the right side. --Capricorn4049 21:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose  Not done within a week. --Capricorn4049 23:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, please discuss. Sorry for late. Tournasol7 14:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, there is a blue CA on the wire. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_Notre-Dame,_Montreal,_Canadá,_2017-08-12,_DD_34-36_HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica --Poco a poco 10:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree - Poco got himself a 5DS R and is keen on producing great HDR shots to attract the viewer's attention to every single detail of the image, so the images have to bee sharp everywhere and unfortunately the top part is not sharp. High standards demand for strong criticism. --Granada 17:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Addition to my own comment: please don't get me wrong - fix that unsharp part of the image and it would meet my strongest criteria to become a featured picture, not only QI. --Granada 06:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Granada, I've some comments on the modus operandi I'm observing from you here at QI:
If you believe that an issue that you point out can be fixed, please, give the author the chance to react to that instead of sending right away to CR (this section) or declining it. It spares time and resources here, something very precious.
You are really pushing too hard, if you keep doing like this my (and others') motivation to uploaded the images in full resolution will decrease. What we judge here is the result and not the potential outcome of the combination of equipment, lighting, possible angles, etc. the result and a picture with 50 MPx resolution cannot be judged at full resolution as a 5 MPx one. Actually, and I say this out of the experience it is more difficult to achieve under the same conditions a sharp image out of a Canon 5DS R as out of a Canon 5D Mark II, so expecting the same quality independently of double resolution would be just unfair.
Btw, we'd also be delitghed to just your images if you believe that among all reviewers here one or another would be in the situation to point something out that slipped you.
Last but not least, would you please check pending answers to images where you dropped a comment (Ctrl+F Granada)?
Thank you, Poco2 12:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Poco a poco 12:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm saving on a Sigma 20mm f/1.4 to get truly sharp wide angle images out of my Nikon D850. I don't like the argument that a 50MP DSLR cannot produce any sharp images at full resolution (my currently used old Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 does not give any sharp pixels, no matter if in the centre or on the edges). The QI guidelines say that it should be taken into consideration that a QI has to be sharp also in full resolution as it might be used for larger prints and not only viewed on a relatively small screen. Finally I mainly do sports photography and would never dare to put one of these images to this QIC list. I know for myself when an image would be good enough to be judged as good and mine are not. --Granada 15:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Where did I affirm that the Canon 5DS R cannot produce sharp images? most of my images prove the opposite. Can you please show me the spot where it is stated that an image has to be sharp at full resolution. Don't you think that the print quality depends even more on the resolution than on its quality? You cannot compare the print quality of a 50 MPx with acceptable quality than a 5 MPx image with great quality when your print size is considerable. We have regularly images here from concerts, live sport or nature where lighting conditions are tricky and yes, we do take that into consideration as QI reviews is not something than can be done by machines. Poco a poco 18:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - (A) The file is very large. (B) I think it's OK for the ceiling to be less than fully sharp, with the altarpiece being so sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 07:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for a QI IMO. If possible I would try to remove the person's leg on the left. --Basotxerri 08:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good picture, far beyond a lot of QI. (Agree with Basotxerri, the disturbing leg on the left could easily be erased). --Selbymay 17:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    Selbymay, Basotxerri: I got rid of the leg in the last version and also retouched a bit the top (Granada) Poco a poco 19:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, that's much better! --Basotxerri 07:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The unsharpness at the top is caused by perspective correction. Given the size of the photo, I see no issue. --C messier 14:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_María_Reina_del_Mundo,_Montreal,_Canadá,_2017-08-11,_DD_40.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral-Basilica of Mary, Queen of the World, Montreal, Canada --Poco a poco 10:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose You pushed the shadows hard and to pull the attraction to every single detail in the image from center to the farthest borders, so you have to take care the image is sharp everywhere. Apart from that: the level of sharpening is just about to get too much, one can notive some graining to start - be careful with sharpening in LR and I can strongly recommend the new DxO PhotoLab for this job. --Granada 17:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I have seen top is less sharper, but I think the quality is high enough for Q1, probably not for FP --Michielverbeek 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think the sharpness is sufficient, at this size. -- Ikan Kekek 07:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I understand the supporters' arguments but at 100% view it is unsharp in some areas and it does look a bit oversharpened. --Basotxerri 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Given the difficult subject & despite the distortions, it's a very good picture. The baldachin is very well rendered. --Selbymay 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Ermell 13:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)