Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2006

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

Consensual Review[edit]

Malbork - Figura pelikana na zamkowej studni.JPG
  • Nomination Pelican statue on the roof of well in castle in Malbork --Lestat 17:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Composition: should be vertical and not cut the well below, or should take a wider part of the socle. Crop closer?--Diligent 07:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. For me this crop is good. Firstly, it isn't photo of well, but photo of statue. Secondly, background of statue don't disturb me. WarX 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I ack Diligent, the subject is to small, the background should be out of focus to emphasize the statue more and a vertical composition would be better in this case. - Simonizer 23:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with opposers. The funny thing is the most interesting part of the picture (in aesthetical terms) seems to be the background, not the sculpture... - Alvesgaspar 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Result - 1 promote, 3 decline... image Declined Gnangarra 05:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cancun Beach.jpg
  • Nomination Cancun Beach --Pomakis 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline The beach is overexposed and the image unsharp. - Alvesgaspar 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it's considered acceptable protocol for the nominator of a photo to request consensual review, but in this particular case I feel that I must. I don't believe the beach to be overexposed. It's white sand on a sunny day. I carefully considered the exposure of this photograph when I took it, and believe it to be appropriate. There are no blown out highlights. --Pomakis 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think its good, it doesn't look overexposed and sharpness is just fine. --Digon3 21:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I might be wrong but if you look at the rocks in the beach you can't see much detail due to excessive light. If somenoe show me that it is not so, I'll be happy to reverse my vote. - Alvesgaspar 10:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • the large rock at the front of the image is appears to be covered in sand. Gnangarra 03:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. I tried a little edit, to increase contrast, amd a lot of details appeared. - Alvesgaspar 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a still baby photo-judge trying to understand DOF and noise, over-exposure etc. so count my vote as neutral but aesthetically, i find the hotels UGLY and they are the main part of the picture. The architects, the investors should be sued for visual pollution of such a beautiful white (or overexposed ;-) sand beach... --Diligent 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree about the architects, yet the image is technically QI. The ugly buildings are so dominant that its hard see the overall aesthetics. Gnangarra 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically speaking, the white sand is within the tonal range, with an occasional washing out due to reflection angle. The sky falls nicely into a zone VI value, which according to Zone System photography is where it belongs, skin tones are also within acceptable range, so this indicates good exposure. Blown out highlights can always occur, they are called specular highlights, reflections of metal surfaces or water. These are practically imposible to bring into the tonal range. Remenber that texture range in shorter than tonal range. The basic problem with digital photography is that the dynamic, or tonal range, is shorter than analog photograhy. So while the sand may appear to be burned out due to the lack of apparent texture, it is within the tonal range, but outside the texture range.--Tomascastelazo 16:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 Result: 3 promote, 1 decline >> promoted Alvesgaspar 15:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2006-02-25 candle-flame with colour-shift A.jpg
  • Nomination Candle with colour-shift --Roger McLassus 08:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion Beautiful image. This is much more an art picture than an encyclopedic one, which is OK for me. What is the temperature corresponding to each colour?... - Alvesgaspar 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree, the colorshift brings out too much noise, the other version is better. --Dschwen 07:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I also like the other but prefer this one. For me, the "noise" is an important part of the picture. - Alvesgaspar 10:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The noise is just a result of an inadequate capturing device, it has no physical meaning. Also the presentation seems to suggest a temperature coding in the image. This is not the case, you'd need a thermal imaging device for that. --Dschwen 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We are obviously evaluating the image from distinct perspectives. Yours, from the technical side and mine from the aesthetical one (you might of course tell me this is not the right place for artistic pictures and that would lead us to a very lenghty discussion...). Of course, I was not serious when I referred to the correspondance between colour and temperature! - Alvesgaspar 10:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but my verdict on the aesthetics of the image would even harsher. Of course it is somewhat subjective, but the colors look downright ugly to me and the noise just doesn't fit the cleaner look of flame and wax. --Dschwen 11:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 decline, 1 promote >> not promoted - Alvesgaspar 14:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

White sands soldiers1.jpg
  • Nomination A group of soldiers at Whitesands --Dschwen 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline I have looked at this picture several times with the same feeling: it is underexposed, too dark. But that is easily corrected, is it not? - Alvesgaspar 23:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you are plain wrong here. The exposure is to the point. The picture was taken shortly after a rainshower leaving the white gypsum sand dunes wet and dark. --Dschwen 18:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I didn't notice the title. For me it looks like a group of military walking in the snow with t-shirts (for endurance). Also, in full resolution, there is visible noise in the mountains (due to high ISO)? I like the composition though. - Alvesgaspar 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the picture is ok for QI. The colours are pretty good for a bad weather picture. - Simonizer 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case, overcast weather made it possible to capture the sand with evident tonal differences in the first plane, at the limit of the texture range, well below the limits of the tonal range. It is particular difficult to photograph white subjects in sunlight and retain texture or tonal differences without sacrificing texture or tonal detail in the lower end of the scale. Basically the overcast weather shortened the dynamic range of the image in general thus allowing a normal representation in tone values of the objects depicted within the image. If for example, this pic had been taken in sunlight conditions, in order to retain the tonal range of the white sand, the skin tones would have been represented much darker, well outside the normal representation according to Zone System photography and acceptable visual representation, this is due to the fact that the tonal scale would have been lengthened. Something like turning a blond into a brunnett. Given a scene within the photographic media, all subjects exist in light values with regards to others, and if you slide the representation value of one subject through exposure, the others are affected as well, like a sliding scale. In a few words, this picture has, in my opinion, a very good exposure.--Tomascastelazo 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with opposers. Lestat 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 Result: 2 promote, 2 decline >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 15:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nomination Kurdyban --Lestat 10:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline the picture doesnt convey the subject matter Gnangarra 15:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ??? - that photo exactly show hallmarks of Kurdyban Lestat 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a problem with that picture too. If it represents a "wallpaper" in cordwain the composition is too close / not showing the motive, if it represents leather work only, it is too dull, dark, flat - maybe technically ok, but what's the merit of having a correct DOF on a flat surface and not tilt on bended motives? --Diligent 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 Result: 2 decline >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 10:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Navy binoculars.jpg
  • Nomination US Navy "Big Eyes" binoculars with reflected vertical replenishment operation. --Dual Freq 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion perfect --Ikiwaner 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This image is from the US Navy, it isnt a self published image and therefore isnt eligable to be considered here Gnangarra 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • exact quote from top this page Copyright status. Quality images have to be uploaded to Commons by copyright holder under suitable license. Full license requirements are at COM:CT Gnangarra
  • Of course, you are right. Alvesgaspar 09:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 Result >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 09:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rosa Ave Maria 1.jpg
  • Nomination Rosa „Ave Maria“ --Eva K. Message 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Good composition and DOF but the rose is mostly orange than red because reds are overexposed. There are also colour fringes around the rose because of overexposure. --Ikiwaner 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Dark orange is the original color of that breeding. Its not a red rose. --Eva K. Message 13:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ikinawer on the coloured fringes. Also, there is too much visible noise in full resolution. If we don't look too close it is a nice picture tough :) Alvesgaspar 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with both :-) Of course the rose is overexposed and make the rose look more yellow than ist was. It doesn't have to be a red rose though. --Ikiwaner 17:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 Result: 2 decline, 0 promote >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 21:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lightning storm over the Caribbean.jpg
  • Nomination Lightning storm over the Caribbean --Pomakis 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice --Wikimol 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Its a nice picture indeed, but in my opinion too unsharp Simonizer 09:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How do you evaluate it? I mean, usually the sharpness is evaluated on hard edges and tiny details. Clouds are "naturally unsharp", sea surface should be naturally blurred due to it's motion. Not much is left here, I looked on the lightning path and the horizon line, which look ok to me. --Wikimol 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Simonizer. Moreover there is too much noise visible in full resolution. Alvesgaspar 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There is vignetting too. Could probably be fixed. --Ikiwaner 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, you've convinced me. --Wikimol 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 Result: 1 promote, 3 decline >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I did some noise reduction and vignetting correction. Could pass as QI imo now. --Ikiwaner 13:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the best way is Pomakis nominate it again. Would you please put the original image back? Alvesgaspar 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I can nominate the corrected version (thanks, Ikiwaner) if that's considered the appropriate protocol, but for me to do so, wouldn't it make sense to keep the corrected version in place? --Pomakis 18:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Noise reduction is only visible at 100% feel free to revert my edit if you think it's bad. --Ikiwaner 06:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a bit confused. I'm fine with your edit (even though IMO there was no vignetting in the original; that's really the way the lighting was; the edges that I cropped were much darker still), so isn't that the version that I should be re-nominate? There's no point in me re-nominating the original, and there's no point in me re-doing the editing work that has already been done. --Pomakis 15:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)