Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 01 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Münster,_St.-Lamberti-Kirche,_Turm_--_2017_--_2068_(bw).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cages of the Anabaptists at the Tower of St Lamberti Church, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 03:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose B&W not necessary IMO. Why ? Please let's discuss--Jebulon 09:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - B&W version of a color photo. Why not? -- Ikan Kekek 09:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be OK. --Basotxerri 15:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Gahhh! Horrible things, but the B&W works well here to emphasize this gruesome scene. --W.carter 08:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 08:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Rhiniidae 5922.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rhiniidae sp --Vengolis 03:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not in focus. Charlesjsharp 21:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose lacking sharpness.--Peulle 19:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 21:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Peñón_de_Gibraltar,_2015-12-09,_DD_05.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rock of Gibraltar --Poco a poco 07:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Looks a bit blurred. Camera movement? The exposure too long, maybe. --Peulle 08:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks ok to me. The top was foggy and there you cannot expect the same sharpness. --Poco a poco 07:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think it's fine, especially given Poco's explanation. It's a large file, and I love all the birds. -- Ikan Kekek 07:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree, not sharp. Charlesjsharp 21:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support 24 MP image with only slight unsharpness. -- King of Hearts 20:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 20:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like camera shake for me, not fog. I think that QI should be totally free of camera shake unless it was some kind of unique opportunity in low light conditions. --Shansov.net 21:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Shansov.net: It is impossible for a photo to be totally free of camera shake. What if they invented a gigapixel camera tomorrow? Even 1/100s would be insufficient for a handheld wide-angle photo to be completely sharp at the pixel level. There is no visible blur at 6 MP, so as long as we are still accepting perfectly sharp 6 MP images at QI, there is no reason to punish people for using higher-resolution cameras. -- King of Hearts 22:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Well, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But I don't see much point in buying a 1000 Mp camera unless it provides a way to utilize it's full resolution. Image guidelines mentions camera shake among "common problems" and doesn't says anything about 6 Mp. If some user uploads an image of certain high resolution, I expect it to have appropriate amount of detail for that given resolution and I evaluate it at 100% scale.
    As for "It is impossible for a photo to be totally free of camera shake" - I can't agree with this. Pictures taken with appropriate shutter speed usually don't have any noticeable camera shake at full resolution, and I can see sharp high resolution pictures from same author. Maybe we just have different opinions on that aspect. --- [Tycho] talk 03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    The problem is that if we evaluate all images at pixel level, this provides a perverse incentive to downsample images. Would you have voted to support this image if he had downsampled it to a 6 MP version with no visible camera shake? -- King of Hearts 04:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    I'm afraid what the answer would be... Poco a poco 04:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    If you mean exactly this version, then I would be in doubt and rather skip voting, as I often do when not sure. If it would have some additional processing, making it perfect - then yes, I would support it. Don't need to be afraid, there are others who can vote instead of me :) --Shansov.net 04:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment On the one hand, the guidelines say that an image should not be downsampled in order to appear of better quality. So if such a measure is taken, the image can be declined outright. Similarly, they say that: "The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality, a recognition that is not erased by later advances". I take this to mean that an image taken in 2001 might be considered only of medium quality today, but considering the level of advancing technology, it would still be eligible for QI since it was of good quality at the time it was taken. Here's the point: buying new camera equipment and shooting images today is moving the goalpost forward. A 20 Mpx image taken in 2017 cannot be judged by mid-2000 standards when much lower resolutions were the norm. The norm moves. This means each image must be judged individually, but it also means that the "this is a high resolution image, so flaws should be overlooked" argument is weakening.--Peulle 07:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment At 1/30 sec, a tripod would usually be necessary. On a windy day, then it could still be too slow. Charlesjsharp 09:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough for QI. --XRay 18:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 13:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 08:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)