Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2008

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Image:Wasp April 2008-2.jpg[edit]

Wasp April 2008-2.jpg

  • Nomination Queen paper wasp guarding the nest -- Alvesgaspar 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Pure colors and good light, but Lack of composition, main subject is not truly recognizable --Twdragon 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - Nonsense. The object is the nest plus the larvae plus the queen -- Alvesgaspar 21:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Meets criteria, interesting shot Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Massimo Catarinella 22:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Alvesgaspar 07:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polistes April 2008-1.jpg[edit]

Polistes April 2008-1.jpg

  • Nomination Queen paper wasp feeding a larva -- Alvesgaspar 08:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Pure colors and good light, but Lack of composition, main subject is not truly recognizable --Twdragon 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - Nonsense, maybe with a transparent nest one could see the whole creature? -- Alvesgaspar 21:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Meets criteria Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Massimo Catarinella 22:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Alvesgaspar 07:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:La Manneporte-Etretat-Normandie.jpg[edit]

La Manneporte-Etretat-Normandie.jpg

  • Nomination the natural arch "La Manneporte" --Tobi 87 08:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good Mrmariokartguy 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Too much compression --Massimo Catarinella 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose -- Poor image quality: noise, general unsharpness, white fringing -- Alvesgaspar 19:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Alvesgaspar 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hibiscus boryanus flower[edit]

Hibiscus boryanus orange flower 5.JPG

  • Nomination Flower of Hibiscus boryanus --B.navez 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Compression looks too high. Guérin Nicolas 15:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Where have you seen any compression ? --B.navez 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg  I withdraw my nomination --B.navez 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Red peony[edit]

Paeonia suffruticosa red070503B.jpg

  • Nomination Peony Red--池田正樹14:00 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Lack of composition, overexposure in some areasTwdragon 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good composition, no overexposure. --B.navez 02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Per above. Mrmariokartguy 02:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Alvesgaspar 07:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Konica Minolta camera[edit]

Konica Minolta alvesgaspar edit.jpg

  • Nomination Portrait of my old camera, using focus bracketing -- Alvesgaspar 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Very high quality image, some underexposured, but the subject is truly recognizable on pastel background --Twdragon 09:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Not near sharp enough, even at 2MP. Thegreenj 22:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Sharpness isn't that bad. Mrmariokartguy 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Alvesgaspar 07:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question Was the background digitally altered? It looks a bit weird (upper right). Dori 02:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - The background is a glass table. I remember removing some blotches from my sensor -- Alvesgaspar 07:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fly poster[edit]

Diptera1.jpg

  • Nomination A poster with sixteen different species of Dipterans (flies) -- Alvesgaspar 08:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Bored image with mosaic composition, low interested --Twdragon 09:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • See above. --Dschwen 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - So, boredom has become a technical reason to oppose. What about reading the instructions first? -- Alvesgaspar 10:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral great potential there (in no way boring or low interest), but I think the text would look better with a slightly bigger font and an outline / shadow outline to bring out the letters. Another option could be to use large numerals with the description on image's page. --Ianare 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Lestath 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Alvesgaspar 07:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The poster is illustrative and well done. However I think a pure raster image is the wrong format for such a combined vector/raster graphic. The font looks ugly in thumbnails. I would no question support e.g. a .pdf version of the poster. --Ikiwaner 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Too late... Alvesgaspar 22:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bee and wasp poster[edit]

Bees and Wasps.jpg

  • Nomination A poster with twelve different species of Hymenopterans (bees and wasps) -- Alvesgaspar 08:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Bored image with mosaic composition, low interested --Twdragon 09:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • and again, see above. --Dschwen 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - So, boredom has become a technical reason to oppose. What about reading the instructions first? -- Alvesgaspar 10:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral great potential there (in no way boring or low interest), but I think the text would look better with a slightly bigger font and an outline / shadow outline to bring out the letters. Another option could be to use large numerals with the description on image's page. --Ianare 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good one! Mrmariokartguy 13:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Alvesgaspar 23:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The poster is illustrative and well done. However I think a pure raster image is the wrong format for such a combined vector/raster graphic. The font looks ugly in thumbnails. I would no question support e.g. a .pdf version of the poster. --Ikiwaner 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Too late -- Alvesgaspar 23:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scorpionfly March 2008-1.jpg[edit]

Scorpionfly March 2008-1.jpg

  • Nomination A female scorpion fly (Panorpa meridionalis) collecting nectar --Alvesgaspar 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Fail as the fly isn't fully in focus (left wing), which is a shame. Mattbuck 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a valid reason IMO. Short DOF is unavoidable in macro shots -- Alvesgaspar 14:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Neutralization : no problem with DOF for this picture. --B.navez 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support res --Beyond silence 19:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Platamon castle[edit]

Zamek platamon wisnia6522.jpg

  • Nomination The Castle of Platamon, Greece. --Wisnia6522 09:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support lights colors and illuminations well valued --B.navez 18:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I disagree. The lighting makes it look like something else. (bad lighting). Mrmariokartguy 23:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose quality if below the requirement of 2 million pixels. (~1.8mill) I hate to oppose based on a technical issue like that. I think the lighting brings a very interesting drama to the image. J.smith 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That is a great photograph for a cellphone ;) -- carol (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Who has heard of a panorama made from a cellphone? Mrmariokartguy 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a size I would expect from a cellphone. If it was made with a different camera, then the uploader is just using the commons for display purposes and it really should be disqualified for this reason alone. QI has in its collection some beauties that are large enough to use. -- carol (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If this is from a cell phone then I am very impressed! J.smith 04:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not from a cell phone :)--Wisnia6522 08:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a larger version of this somewhere? -- carol (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- I uploaded larger version. --Wisnia6522 08:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Interesting lowlight panorama, now of a reasonable resolution for the QI collection. -- carol (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Unfortunately, my vote doesn't count as it was made more than 48 hours after the last vote. Perhaps you can re-enter this now that it is of a resolution of its peers here? -- carol (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Vilnius house Pilies street[edit]

Vilnius house Pilies street.jpg

  • Nomination House in Pilies Street, Vilnius, Lithania. --Sfu 10:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Opposition (unsigned so no counted) : View blocked by market stalls and tree. (unsigned)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good picture. Above opinion is non sense : tree and stalls belong to the composition and to the reality of this street --B.navez 01:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support I agree, the stalls add to the effect of the image --Mozillaman 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mikumi panorama.jpg[edit]

Mikumi panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Mikumi National Park --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment The contrast needs to be increased so the colours don't look so washed out. I've tried and it worked... -- Alvesgaspar 13:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd be really careful with that. Don't just sex-up the image. If this is how it looked, don't make it more unrealistic just to get that gosh darn fracking WOW. --Dschwen 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Beyond silence 19:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Pudelek 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 14:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Branná - nova radnica.jpg[edit]

Branná - nova radnica.jpg

  • Nomination Town hall in Branna (Goldenstein), Czech Republic --Pudelek 09:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion perspective should be corrected and a little bit more contrast would be good; good composition and atmosphere --Mbdortmund 10:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - new version --Pudelek 08:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support In the sky over the tower on the left there ist a small dust spot, rest is OK now. --Mbdortmund 11:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question Before this gets marked for the bot to put the QI template onto it and it gets dumped into the QI pre-gallery area -- can the dust spot be repaired? It is visible in the thumbnail even.... -- carol (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC) WRONG. -- carol (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 03:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Humenné skansen cerkiew[edit]

Humenné skansen cerkiew 19.08.08 p2.jpg

  • Nomination Orthodox church in Open air museum in Humenné, Slovakia (light) --Przykuta 07:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support According to me, it follows quality image guidelines. Note : please add the geolocation template. Guérin Nicolas 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Noisy in dark parts, little contrast. --Lestath 08:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose That's kinda weird for noise, but whatever it is it disqualifies the image for QI sorry. Dori 01:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sympetrum flaveolum 1(loz).jpg[edit]

Sympetrum flaveolum 1(loz).jpg

  • Nomination Male Sympetrum flaveolum --Loz 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Looks good --LC-de 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Sharpness issues in head and abdomen -- Alvesgaspar 07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Not as severe as in the pic above... --LC-de 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Terrible background and the stick has some blur things. Mrmariokartguy 03:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Looks good for QI. --Beyond silence 19:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good composition. --Kosiarz-PL 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Looks good for QI. --Böhringer 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 14:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Chicago overview[edit]

Chicago 2007-19.jpg

  • Nomination Chicago: night view to west, from the top of the Hancock building -- Alvesgaspar 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support What a minute picture, what a world and what a waste of light ! What time was it really ? --B.navez 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC) --
    • The time in the Exif file is Lisbon time. In Chicago it should be 6 hours less -- Alvesgaspar 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose It seems oversharpened or overprocessed (levels?). Dori 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC) --
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support It's not oversharpened IMO. There is some noise in the foreground (e.g. in the trees and on some buildings), but acceptable for QI though -- MJJR 16:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 20:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Melkende ameisen honigtau4.JPG[edit]

Melkende ameisen honigtau4.JPG

  • Nomination Honeydew --Böhringer 13:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support interesting --Mbdortmund 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Yes, interesting, but it's legs are badly blurred. Mrmariokartguy 00:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support For such a macroshot, DOF is necessary shallow. Excellent focused capture of the "milking" time --B.navez 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tipulidae Bastavales Galicia.jpg[edit]

Tipulidae Bastavales Galicia.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- carol 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Chapel of san Antonio[edit]

SMP May 2008-12.jpg

  • Nomination: The chapel of Santo António (St. Anthony), São Martinho do Porto, west coast of Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 08:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support lovely composition Ianare 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose unsharp, CA fringes, akward composition (cropped roofs of the village) --B.navez 03:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - CA was minimized, as well as some sharpening artifacts and blotches. As for the angle, no better shooting position of the front side is possible, as the chapel is on the top of a small hill (see geocode) -- Alvesgaspar 09:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment There is some very obvious CA (green) left at the stone thing at the left bottom border. --Simonizer 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral due to dust spots (just trying to get people to clean those up), I don't see the CA issue (looks more like OOF leaves). Dori 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Can't see any dust spots -- Alvesgaspar 11:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • From the left bell going up, but I'm no longer sure if they're dust spots (one looks more sure than the other, but I don't know), so changing my vote. Dori 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The image looks pleasing. However I agree on B.navez about CA and composition. I can't see dust spots. --Ikiwaner 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good and I can't find the CA. Mrmariokartguy 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Blue line along the left corner, pink line along the right angle of entrance and also pink or green streaks on the azulejos, though they are none as you may check here.--B.navez 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Sorry, the composition is really good, but there are technical problems as B.navez said. There is a lack of saturation and contrast, too. --Mbdortmund 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Pudelek 11:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   -- Lycaon 11:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 p4.jpg[edit]

Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 p4.jpg

  • Nomination: Mirów Castle, Poland --Przykuta 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Bad focusing, low viewfield depth, bad details visibility, poor color --Twdragon 09:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support In my opinion focus and colors are ok --Pudelek 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Very good composition and colors Aotearoa 06:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- carol 23:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 pl.jpg[edit]

Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 pl.jpg

  • Nomination: Mirów Castle, Poland (by Pleple2000) --Przykuta 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Bad focusing, low viewfield depth, bad details visibility, poor color --Twdragon 09:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support In my opinion focus and colors are ok--Pudelek 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Very good composition --Albertus teolog 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose CW tilt. Lycaon 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose ac Twdragon. --Lestath 15:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Beyond silence 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   -- carol 23:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lasagnes.jpg[edit]

Lasagnes.jpg

  • Nomination Lasagna. DocteurCosmos 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Looks good in two ways. Mrmariokartguy 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC) but it isn't straight and crop isn't the best. --Lestath 08:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Composition isn't that good. Dori 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose terrible colours --Mbdortmund 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per above and not particular sharp --Massimo Catarinella 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Coelogyne mooreana x C. Becarni.jpg[edit]

Coelogyne mooreana x C. Becarni.jpg

  • Nomination Orchid Coelogyne mooreana Jwitos 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK --Mbdortmund 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Poor light and DOF for a picture not taken in the wild. Lycaon 07:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Poor DOF Ianare 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Juglans regia Echte Walnußfrucht 3.JPG[edit]

Juglans regia Echte Walnussfrucht 3.jpg

  • Nomination Juglans regia --Böhringer 18:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Nice light. --Calandrella 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose -- Disagree, it is too dark -- Alvesgaspar 11:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support too dark? Main subject is appropriate lighting. _Fukutaro 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral I like the mood (light) but on the other hand it's really dark with a median brightness of 17 out of 255! --Ikiwaner 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Too dark. Mrmariokartguy 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support the main object is perhaps accentuated by the darkness of the rest. --Mbdortmund 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Due to lighting. Dori 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose harsh lighting --Ianare 05:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Beautiful image, sharp and the lighting shows the subject beautifully. I was going to suggest this for FP. -- carol (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Light is excellent --B.navez 08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support count me in the pro camp. Lycaon 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pioneer Village 9198.jpg[edit]

Pioneer Village 9198.jpg

  • Nomination American Revolutionary War reenactement at Pioneer Village (Daniel reminded me that I had some similar pics :). Dori 04:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support good --Mbdortmund 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Could benefit from a bit of noise reduction, but especially from a half man's crop on the left. Lycaon 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I thought about the crop before posting it, but I kinda like the guy pretending to be shot so I didn't cut it. As for noise, I apply a small amount of noise reduction, but I try not to go overboard. I prefer some noise to the loss of detail or smoothness that can result. Dori 18:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support good Mrmariokartguy 03:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mother-spider-and-spiderlings[edit]

Mother-spider-and-spiderlings-0a.jpg

  • Nomination Mother spider. Adamantios 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Very interesting picture but I'm afraid you will have to be more precise on the identification -- Alvesgaspar 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Outstanding. Also, placing here to give more time for someone to help ID. Ianare 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Nice picture; however, it could use a crop and, more importantly, the exact species. Pbroks13 (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose like Pbroks --Mbdortmund 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Giglovce studnia 18.08.08 p.jpg[edit]

Giglovce studnia 18.08.08 p.jpg

  • Nomination well in Giglovce, Slowakia --Przykuta 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Too low contrast. --Lestath 08:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support I would have adjusted the levels a bit, but I think it's good. Dori 00:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Like Lestath, looks not really sharp, could show better details. --Mbdortmund 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 01:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dynasty Fismes[edit]

Dynasty Fismes 270908 07.jpg Dynasty DSC00215.jpg

  • Nomination Dynasty, a Kiss tribute band in concert. Vassil 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Well done --Massimo Catarinella 15:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose on the left side - visible cut background. --Lestath 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment You're right! I cloned out another musician on the left, as you can see on the original pic that I have uploaded. But, as the right arm is black on the shadow, is the cut really visible? I shall do an edit if so. Vassil (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • there is a small line left, easy to remove --Mbdortmund 11:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't it the right arm? Vassil 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Maybe, you're right. --Mbdortmund 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chicago 2007-12.jpg[edit]

Chicago 2007-12.jpg

  • Nomination A view of the Chicago river from the Clark Bridge to west. Chicago, USA. -- Alvesgaspar 08:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Should IMHO be turned a little bit to the left --Mbdortmund 10:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, I see a couple of dust spots. The one near the left building is more noticeable. Not that big a deal but then again neither is fixing them. Dori 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Fixed the blotches. As for the tilt I'm afraid nothing effective can be done, this lens has a weird distortion pattern. -- Alvesgaspar 08:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support (Chicago 2007-12.jpg) Dori 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support I think it's OK now. --Mbdortmund 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question If Alves uploads the edited version over this one, does that change your vote? -- carol (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 21:08 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The edited version received no votes of support -- please consider not uploading that version into this namespace. -- carol 01:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chicago 2007-12-Chicago 2007-12a.jpg[edit]

Chicago 2007-12-Chicago 2007-12a.jpg

  • Nomination A view of the Chicago river from the Clark Bridge to west. Chicago, USA. -- Alvesgaspar 08:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The lens distortion can be fixed, for example with hugin. Distribute a number of vertical guide point pairs with short separation distances along vertical edges in the picture and optimize. This will fix tilt, perspective distortion, and lens distortions reliably! --Dschwen 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    I tried this technique once, I failed miserably making the image much worse than the original. Do you know of any good tutorials explaining the procedure? Dori 00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'll have to write one then :-). I've used it several times now. Correct keypoint placement is crucial. If you have a vertical edge going from the top to the bottom of your frame, you'll have to put a keypoint pair in the top 20% of the edge, another in the bottom 25% of the edge, and some in the center and another one spanning the whole edge. If you don't include the short range paors you can't resolve barrel distortion. --Dschwen 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - This is the best I could do with Hugin. My feeling is that something is naturally tilted: the street-lamps? (not to be evaluated "per se". If this version is better, I'll just upload it on top of the original) -- Alvesgaspar 08:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question Can the participants here determine which image got the votes? It appears to me that the original became QI at 21:08 (UTC) on 2 October 2008 -- carol (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Go ahead, Carol, I'll upload the improved version later on top of the original. -- Alvesgaspar 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • So the version that received the votes is...? -- (who went ahead and rephrased the question to be more concise) carol (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   -- carol 01:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ZamekMirowiePoland[edit]

ZamekMirowiePoland.jpg

  • Nomination Mirów Castle, Poland (by Pleple2000) --Przykuta 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I took the liberty of creating a better version. It does contain more compression though, since I didn't have a RAW-file to work with. --Massimo Catarinella 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Very good composition and colors Aotearoa 06:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment please add this vote to the edited version if that is the image you are supporting, this vote is too late to support the other version.... -- carol (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support -Pudelek 18:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Yarl 20:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Too late for these votes. -- carol 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dortmund-Oper 2586.JPG[edit]

Dortmund-Oper 2586.JPG

  • Nomination Sculptures om the wall of the theatre in Dortmund --Mbdortmund 19:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Very unfortunate lighting - shadows obscure the nearest subject - Peripitus 12:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I took the picture because of the interesting shadows  ;-] --Mbdortmund 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I can see that but the shadows are underexposed (while bits of the facia are over) (0,0,0) so significant parts of the subject are flat black and the loss of detail doesn't work for me - the scene's dynamic range is beyond the camera's ability here - Peripitus 09:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 16:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Milwaukee Wisconsin 0049.jpg[edit]

Milwaukee Wisconsin 0049.jpg

  • Nomination Downtown Milwaukee. Dori 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Incorrect whitebalance, the picture is too red. I'm not judging it, since a conflict of interest ;) (I created a "better" version). --Massimo Catarinella 14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question How did you determine that the whitebalance was incorrect? The version you came up with was too green, and didn't truthfully represent how it looked. Dori 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • By looking at white object. See the advertisement at the side of a building. --Massimo Catarinella 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • So you're saying it's incorrect for that one object. Now there are many lights that cast different lights in the city, and many object that reflect different light. If I shine a red light on a white object how should that object appear in the picture? Since this isn't systemic to my camera how am I going to correct every pixel of the image to make it look how it's supposed to look instead of how it actually looked? As I said your correction actually made the image green (it might have made that object white though). Dori 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Great colors but low field depth, the lens aperture value possibly was too low --Twdragon 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good details, colours are arbitrary --Mbdortmund 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Artificial light gives often an orange or red shine. Look at the moon and the evening sky: colours seem to be OK. -- MJJR 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Looks good. Like the colours, can't really fault the image - Peripitus 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chicago 2007-16.jpg[edit]

Chicago 2007-16.jpg

  • Nomination The Chicago river, view to East from the Ohio bridge. At left, the Marina City building. -- Alvesgaspar 12:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Low color saturation, overexposured sky, rotation needed --Twdragon 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Another opinion, please? Alvesgaspar 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The sky is bright, but not overexposed. The colors are fine, but it does seem that it needs a little rotation or perspective correction. Then again, it could just be the way the bridges are. If the tilt is corrected or thats just the way it is, Symbol support vote.svg  Support . --Digon3 14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment this vote was more than seven days later than the first oppose and almost seven days later than the request for another opinion. -- carol (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Swedish palace 2008-07-18 1 denoised.jpg[edit]

Swedish palace 2008-07-18 1 denoised.jpg

  • Nomination Stockholm Palace a very early summer morning (yawn). -- Slaunger 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support very nice --Pudelek 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose It is blurred in the centre (see the stairs and trees). --Eusebius 14:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per Eusebius --Massimo Catarinella 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I tend to agree with the opposers. As I recall, this is one of the first times I tried using Noiseware, and I think I applied a too aggressive filter in this first shot, and I overlooked the trees, when I checked the result (where I focussed on the details of the building). -- Slaunger 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 16:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lviv - Arsenal - 04.jpg[edit]

Lviv - Arsenal - 04.jpg

  • Nomination Medieval helmet. --Lestath 19:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline would be better, if you would remove the white card, which is overexposured --Mbdortmund 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose White card is distracting, moreover it's cropped. I also find the view angle could be lower. - Till.niermann 05:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 16:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gravestone in Brynica (Brinnitz).jpg[edit]

Gravestone in Brynica (Brinnitz).jpg

  • Nomination Old gravestone in Brynica (Brinnitz) village --Pudelek 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose --Blurry image --Twdragon 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    Blurry? More opinion, please --Pudelek 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support it's OK IMHO --Mbdortmund 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral Nice image, and not blurry! But too small: according to the guidelines, 2MP is the lower limit for QI. Sorry! Changed to "support". -- MJJR 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is over 2MP! exactly 5MP! --Pudelek 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • 1,1 MB, isn't it? --Mbdortmund 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • yes - 1,1 MB and 5MP. where is problem? --Pudelek 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I'm not sure about White Balance for this photo. --Lestath 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The flower is a bit distracting for me. Mrmariokartguy 12:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Ok for QI, and it is not blurry. --Digon3 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment late votes. -- carol (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:John of Nepomuk - statue in Kupp.jpg[edit]

John of Nepomuk - statue in Kupp.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of John of Nepomuk in Kup (Kupp) village --Pudelek 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose --Blurry image with some noise --Twdragon 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • blurry? noise? where? More opinion, please --Pudelek 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Agressive light and contrast --B.navez 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Not bad. Mrmariokartguy 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support No noise that I can see. Lighting is ok. --Digon3 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment late votes, sorry. -- carol (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rezerwat przyrody Jezioro Martwe 1.JPG[edit]

Rezerwat przyrody Jezioro Martwe 1.JPG

  • Nomination Nature reserve Jezioro Martwe, Poland. --Kosiarz-PL 16:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose --Not interested image with noise and poor colors --Twdragon 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Noise? Where is it? Colors seem to be ok. More opinions? --Kosiarz-PL 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Beautiful and interesting, good general quality. It's a pity foreground grasses are so blurred.--B.navez 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral It is a great image with no noise that I can see, but I do agree with B.navez about grass. Colours are fine and the composition is great. --Digon3 14:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indiana State Capitol rectilinear pano[edit]

Indiana State Capitol rect pano.jpg

  • Nomination: Wide angle shot of the Indiana State capitol. --Dschwen 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question Why don't you apply perspective correction and then cut of the sides, which are unsharp? --Massimo Catarinella 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The perspective is correct. I chose this rectilinear projection to minimize distortions on the building! --Dschwen 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, the perspective is that of a lense pointing downwards. Some prefer a remapping with the virtual lense being level, which has its merits. Personally I find it too restrictive to always use a horizontally aligned (real of virtual) camera lense. -- Klaus with K 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral Was going to thank you for cleaning the dust from whatever and promote this but there is a small blemish on the right border which I think the image will be much improved when gotten rid of. -- carol 20:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment a little bit more saturation and contrast would be better, could be a bit darker, too. --Mbdortmund 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   -- Lycaon 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rhododendron ferrugineum (flowers).jpg[edit]

Rhododendron ferrugineum (flowers).jpg

  • Nomination Rhododendron ferrugineum in Moosalp, Switzerland. -- Lycaon 06:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Too large glear fields. Please, use more cropping --Twdragon 14:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • What are glear fields? Lycaon 12:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The Dof is too low and the flower seems a bit overexposed. --Digon3 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 17:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:PCI V.92 Fax Modem Card Digon3.jpg[edit]

PCI V.92 Fax Modem Card Digon3.jpg

  • Nomination Fax Modem Card. --Digon3 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Blurry image, it is possible to make it more crisp --Twdragon 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Another opinion, please? The back end is blured because of Dof, but that is intentional. --Digon3 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pet Rock-2003.jpg[edit]

Pet Rock-2003.jpg

  • Nomination Pet rock. Photographs by Alvesgaspar and Digon3, graphic art and exif hack by carol -- carol 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose IMHO Unnatural shot, great shadow imitation, true Photoshop mastery, but strong lighting conditions difference and unnatural perspective --Twdragon 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment "True photoshop mastery" is very 2001 -- carol 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC) --
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support It seems to me that this picture is technically very good, and the 'unnatural perspective' doesn't bother me -- MJJR 20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The perspective issues are very distracting for me. It -looks- like it's a shoop... and if something looks shooped then it's failed in it's goal for me. --J.smith 01:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment It is an unbranded manipulation. -- carol (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Looks unnatural in some way that I can't quite put my finger on. I think it might be that the rock looks a lot sharper than the tablecloth. TimVickers 19:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The shadows point to different directions for the source of light. At least that's one big issue IMO. Dori 22:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Not that I am disagreeing, but this reason is interesting to me. What about the shadow for this QI? Scoria Macro Digon3.jpg -- carol (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Nothing is really bothering me. Mrmariokartguy 12:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Referring to Stanley Kubrick's 2001 ? Excellent ! --B.navez 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Good job working with this, but the varying light sources and the unnatural perspective in the background(it was taken from above, so it's showing the wrong part of each thread to have been taken like this) really keep me from accepting it as realistic. Thegreenj 15:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   -- --B.navez 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paryż inwalidzi ludwik.JPG[edit]

Paryż inwalidzi ludwik.JPG

  • Nomination Saint-Louis-des-Invalides -- Albertus teolog 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Ok for QI --Berthold Werner 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose In need of perspective correction, noisy and CA. --Massimo Catarinella 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Grain more than noise, good quality for an inside picture. Perspective doesn't hurt my eyes.--B.navez 15:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral I agree with B.navez, but image is too small: 2MP is the lower limit for QI. Sorry! Changed to "support". -- MJJR 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question too small? this picture?? --Pudelek 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This photo is more than 7 MP. Albertus teolog 13:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral I've seen worse noise (not grain IMO) and CA. Lycaon 16:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, grain refers exclusively to film (as in grain size of a given film), so this really should be called noise. Thegreenj 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- --B.navez 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Playing Complaints on Constitution Square in Warsaw[edit]

Lament na Placu Konstytucji w Warszawie - Barbara Wrzesińska, Małgorzata Zawadzka, Katarzyna Maternowska.jpg

  • Nomination Street play, Costitution Square, Warsaw, Poland by User:Gophi --Sfu 07:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Needs proper categorization and English description. Background elements are distracting --Elucidate 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Translated. Background is an intentional part of the playing and it fits very well with the costums and the title. Excellent quality shot of actors.--B.navez 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    thx --Sfu 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Can't see any major problems for QI. Lycaon 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dishon004.jpg[edit]

Dishon004.jpg

  • Nomination Addax nasomaculatus --MathKnight 17:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Very good Per Lycaon --Massimo Catarinella 21:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Too much chroma noise for my liking. Lycaon 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Lycaon. - Till.niermann 06:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support high res for qi --Beyond silence 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose unnatural colours --Mbdortmund 07:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 13:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mt.Chausudake (Nasu) 01.jpg[edit]

Mt.Chausudake (Nasu) 01.jpg

  • Nomination Volcanic crater of Mt.Chausudake, Tochigi, Japan. --Σ64 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Sharp, good exposure. Vassil 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Over exposure --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Sharp --Beyond silence 20:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 13:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arcte coerula larva 08Oct16.jpg[edit]

Arcte coerula larva 08Oct16.jpg

  • Nomination Arcte coerula larva--池田正樹 15:17,16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support The sharpness is very good --Massimo Catarinella 14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Picture is OK, but categorization is part of the quality assessment. Please fix. Lycaon 12:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I am Now fixed categorization.In this OK? 池田正樹 16:26.17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Categorisation seems to be fixed --Mbdortmund 21:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 13:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:MicroATX Motherboard with AMD Athlon Processor 2 Digon3.jpg[edit]

MicroATX Motherboard with AMD Athlon Processor 2 Digon3.jpg

  • Nomination MicroATX Motherboard. --Digon3 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Blurry image, it is possible to make it more crisp --Twdragon 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Are you suggesting I downsample it? It is not blurry. --Digon3 14:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Sharpness is fine, though a slightly lower exposure might have been nice. Thegreenj 15:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Beyond silence 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Really not crisp enough for an easy static object. Lycaon 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you taking into account that this is more than three times higher resolution than the two-megapixel requirement? Thegreenj 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, requirement says nothing about large pictures no having to be sharp ;-). Lycaon 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, but downsampled to 3 or 2 MP, this is incredibly sharp. What, would you support a downsampled version but not the original? That doesn't make much sense to me. Thegreenj 02:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I didn't mention downsampling, you did. And no, I would not support a downsampled image. Lycaon 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I assumed too much. I don't understand how a downsampled version of this would be opposed, since it's perfectly sharp at 2MP. Still, as long as you're being consistant with your interperetation of the guidelines, I can't really question your evaluation. Thegreenj 23:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Sorry but I find that the top is too bright (Looks like a flash or too much light) and the photo is also unsharp. Bidgee 04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 13:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blooms of a yellow rose.jpg[edit]

Blooms of a yellow rose.jpg

  • Nomination Flower of rose variety 'Lowell Thomas' --Elucidate 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Good exposure, but distracting background, no WOW --Twdragon 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rate technique, rather than an impression -- Albertus teolog 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Castiñeiras GDFL 050806 009.jpg[edit]

Castiñeiras GDFL 050806 009.jpg

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Castiñeiras noite Galiza.jpg[edit]

Castiñeiras noite Galiza.jpg

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 02:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Reem-Lavan002.jpg[edit]

Reem-Lavan002.jpg

  • Nomination Oryx leucoryx --MathKnight 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Very good, too bad of the compression artifacts though --Massimo Catarinella 21:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Too much noise. --Eusebius 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support resolution --Beyond silence 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose artefacts. Lycaon 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Too much artifacts. --Mrmariokartguy 03:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Proskowski-Lobkowitz CoA.jpg[edit]

Proskowski-Lobkowitz CoA.jpg

  • Nomination Coats of arms of Proskowski family (left) and Lobkowitz family in Opole (Oppeln) --Pudelek 21:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Probably too dark. --Lestath 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC
  • Decline a few dark. and not sharp detail for sculpture. _Fukutaro 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)) Too dark, the upper motif looks like it should be nearly white, not grey. --PieCam 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)