Commons:Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 100% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Shortcut
COM:QIC
Zu den Nominierungen springen
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

Dies sind die Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder. Beachte bitte, dass es sich hierbei nicht um die exzellenten Bilder handelt. Falls du nur Kommentare zu eigenen Bildern erhalten möchtest, ist die Seite Fotokritik (z. Z. nur englisch) der richtige Ort.

Contents

Hintergrund

Der Zweck der Qualitätsbilder ist, die einzelnen Benutzer anzuregen, einzigartige Bilder zur Verfügung zu stellen, um diese Ansammlung zu erweitern. Während exzellente Bilder die absolut besten Bilder darstellen, sollen Qualitätsbilder dazu anregen, selbst solche qualitativ hochwertigen Bilder zu erstellen.
Außerdem sollen Qualitätsbilder dazu dienen, anderen Benutzern die Methoden der Verbesserung eines Bildes zu erklären.

Richtlinien

Alle vorgeschlagenen Bilder sollten von Commons-Benutzern erstellt worden sein.

Für Vorschlagende von Qualitätsbildern

Unten werden die wichtigsten Richtlinien für Qualitätsbilder genannt, ausführliche Informationen findet man unter Qualitätsbildrichtlinien.


Anforderungen an die Bilder

  1. Urheberrechtsstatus. Qualitätsbilder müssen unter einer verwendbaren Lizenz hochgeladen werden. Alle Lizenzanforderungen sind unter COM:CT zu finden.
  2. Bilder sollten den Commons-Richtlinien entsprechen, einschließlich COM:Photographien erkennbarer Personen.
  3. Qualitätsbilder müssen sinnvoll benannt, brauchbar kategorisiert und genau beschrieben sein. Mehrsprachige Beschreibungen sind besser, eine englische Beschreibung wird dabei gerne gesehen, ist aber nicht vorgeschrieben.
  4. In den Bildern soll keine Werbung oder Signatur enthalten sein. Die Copyright- und Autor-Hinweise sollen auf der Seite mit angegeben sein. Sie können auch in den Metadaten enthalten sein, sollen aber den Bildinhalt nicht behindern.


Urheber

Bilder müssen von einem Wikimedianer erstellt worden sein, um als Qualitätsbilder ausgezeichnet werden zu können. Das bedeutet, dass Bilder von z. B. Flickr nicht geeignet sind. (Die Auszeichnung als exzellentes Bild hat diese Einschränkung nicht.) Von Wikimedianern erstellte photographische Reproduktionen zweidimensionaler Kunstwerke sind zulässig (und sollten der Richtlinie entsprechend als PD-old markiert sein). Wenn ein Bild ausgezeichnet wird, obwohl es nicht von einem Wikimedianer erstellt wurde, sollte die Auszeichnung wieder entfernt werden, sowie der Fehler bemerkt wird.

Technische Anforderungen

Ausführliche technische Anforderungen stehen unter Qualitätsbildrichtlinien.


Auflösung

Die Grafiken bei Commons werden nicht nur auf dem Bildschirm betrachtet, sie sollen auch für den Ausdruck oder für die Betrachtung auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen geeignet sein. Da auch niemand vorhersehen kann, welche Geräte in der Zukunft verwendet werden, sollten Bilder eine brauchbare Auflösung bieten und nicht unnötig verkleinert werden. Als Untergrenze gelten zwei Megapixel, wobei an Aufnahmen, die relativ einfach zu erstellen sind, von den Bewertern auch höhere Ansprüche gestellt werden können. Diese Regel schließt Vektorgrafiken (SVG) oder computergenerierte Bilder aus, die mit frei lizenzierter oder offener Software erstellt wurden, wie in der Bildbeschreibung angegeben.


Bildqualität

Digitale Bilder sind verschiedenen Problemen beim Aufnehmen und beim Speichern ausgesetzt, wie z. B. Bildrauschen, Artefakte bei der JPEG-Kompression, abgesoffene Schatten- oder Spitzlichter-Bereiche oder falscher Weißabgleich. All diese Kriterien sollten berücksichtigt werden.


Bildaufbau und Beleuchtung

Die Anordnung des Hauptgegenstandes sollte zum Inhalt des Bildes beitragen. Der Vordergrund und Hintergrund des Bildes sollte nicht ablenken. Beleuchtung und Fokus tragen auch zum gesamten Resultat bei; der Hauptgegenstand sollte scharf sein.


Wert

Unser Hauptziel ist es, Qualitätsbilder zu sammeln, die wertvoll für alle Wikimedia-Projekte sind.


Wie man ein Qualitätsbild vorschlägt

Einfach eine Zeile unter Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list im Abschnitt Nominations einfügen.

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ |2=}}

Die Beschreibung sollte sehr kurz gefasst sein und aus wenigen Worten bestehen. Bitte lasse zudem zwischen deinem neuen Eintrag und einem noch existierenden alten Eintrag eine Zeile frei.

Wenn du das Bild eines anderen Wikimedianers nominierst, dann füge dessen Benutzernamen in die Beschreibung ein, Beispiel:

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung (by [[User:BENUTZERNAME|BENUTZERNAME)]] --~~~~ |}}

Hinweis: Es existiert ein Helferlein, QInominator, mit dem man Bilder einfacher vorschlagen kann. Es fügt einen kleinen „Nominate this image for QI“-Link oben auf jeder Dateibeschreibungsseite hinzu. Klickt man auf den Link, wird das Bild zu einer Liste möglicher Kandidaten hinzugefügt. Sowie diese Liste vollständig ist, bearbeite Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. Oben im Bearbeitungsfenster wird ein grüner Balken angezeigt. Klickst du auf den Balken, werden alle möglichen Kandidaten in das Bearbeitungsfenster eingefügt.


Anzahl der Vorschläge

Wähle sorgfältig deine besten Bilder zur Nominierung aus. Jeder Teilnehmer darf täglich bis zu fünf Bilder nominieren.


Bilder bewerten

Jeder angemeldete Benutzer bis auf den Vorschlagenden darf Bilder bewerten. Voraussetzung ist außerdem, dass sein Benutzerkonto mindestens 10 Tage existiert und der Benutzer mindestens 50 Bearbeitungen nachweisen kann.
Beim Bewerten von Bildern sollten Rezensenten dieselben Richtlinien beachten wie der Vorschlagende.


Wie man bewertet

Wie man den Status aktualisiert

Betrachte aufmerksam das Bild, öffne es in voller Auflösung und überprüfe, ob die Qualitätsstandards eingehalten worden sind.

  • Wenn du Dich entscheidest, das Bild zu unterstützen, ändere folgende Zeile von
File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ |}}

nach

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Promotion|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --Signatur des Antragstellers|Warum Du dafür bist. --~~~~}}

In anderen Worten, ändere die Vorlage von /Nomination in /Promotion und füge Deine Signatur hinzu, eventuell mit einem kurzen Kommentar.

  • Wenn Du Dich entscheidest, das Bild abzulehnen, ändere folgende Zeile von
File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ | }}

nach

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Decline|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --Signatur des Antragsstellers |Warum es Dir nicht gefällt. --~~~~}}

In anderen Worten, ändere die Vorlage von /Nomination in /Decline und füge Deine Signatur hinzu, eventuell mit Angaben zu den Gründen der Ablehnung (Überschriften von entsprechenden Abschnitten in den Richtlinien reichen). Wenn zahlreiche Probleme erkennbar sind, nenne am besten nur die zwei bis drei dringlichsten oder füge einfach die Phrase multiple problems ein. Bei einer Ablehnung hinterlasse bitte den ausführlichen Kommentar auf der Diskussionsseite des Benutzers. Denke daran, höflich zu bleiben. In dieser Nachricht solltest Du eine ausführlichere Begründung für Deine Ablehnung geben.

Hinweis: Bitte zuerst die ältesten Bilder bewerten und möglichst für jede eigene Nominierung eine andere auswerten.


Schonfrist und Ernennung

Wenn es innerhalb von zwei Tagen (genau 48 Stunden) nach der Bewertung keinen Widerspruch gibt, ist das Bild entweder ernannt oder gescheitert. Wenn du Einwände hast, kannst du das Bild in den Abschnitt einvernehmliche Beurteilung (consensual review) verschieben, indem du den Status des Bildes in Discuss änderst.


Weitere Vorgehensweise

QICbot macht dies automatisch zwei Tage, nachdem eine Entscheidung getroffen worden ist. Ausgezeichnete Bilder werden unter Commons:Quality_Images/Recently_promoted zwischengespeichert, um kategorisiert zu werden, bevor sie automatisch auf die entsprechenden Qualitätsbilder-Seiten eingefügt werden.

Wenn du glaubst, ein Ausnahmebild gefunden zu haben, das den Status „Exzellentes Bild“ verdient, dann nominiere es auch auf Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder.

  • Bilder, die noch bewertet werden müssen, sind blau umrandet.
  • Bilder, die ernannt wurden, sind grün umrandet.
  • Bilder, die abgelehnt wurden, sind rot umrandet.


Nicht beurteilte Bilder (blau umrandete Bewerbung)

Vorgeschlagene Bilder, die weder Stimmen für eine zustimmende noch für eine ablehnende Bewertung gesammelt haben oder Einvernehmen – gleicher Widerstand wie Unterstützung in einvernehmlicher Beurteilung – in der Bewertung erzielen, sollten nach acht Tagen auf dieser Seite ohne Auszeichnung von dieser Seite entfernt werden. Archiviert werden solche Bilder unter Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 09 2019, kategorisiert mit Category:Unassessed QI candidates auf der Beschreibungsseite des Bildes.


Einvernehmliche Beurteilung

Einvernehmliche Beurteilung (consensual review) wird immer dann eingesetzt, wenn der oben beschriebene Prozess nicht ausreicht und eine Diskussion erforderlich ist, um zu mehr Meinungen zu kommen.

Wie man um einvernehmliche Beurteilung bittet

Um eine einvernehmliche Beurteilung zu fordern, ändere einfach das /Promotion, /Decline zu /Discuss und füge unmittelbar an die Beurteilung deinen Kommentar an. Ein automatisierter Bot wird es innerhalb eines Tages in den Abschnitt Einvernehmliche Beurteilung verschieben.

Bitte schicke nur Dinge zur einvernehmlichen Beurteilung, die als angenommen oder abgelehnt beurteilt wurden. Im Falle, dass Du als Urteilender Dich nicht entscheiden kannst, hinterlasse Deine Kommentare, aber lasse den Kandidaten auf der Seite.


Regeln für die einvernehmliche Beurteilung

Siehe Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Seite neu laden: purge this page's cache

Shortcut: COM:QIC/L

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 03:25, 9 Dezember 2019 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

December 9, 2019

December 8, 2019

December 7, 2019

December 6, 2019

December 5, 2019

December 4, 2019

December 3, 2019

December 2, 2019

December 1, 2019

November 30, 2019

November 29, 2019

November 28, 2019

November 27, 2019

November 26, 2019

November 25, 2019

November 24, 2019

November 20, 2019

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review

File:Iglesia_de_Santiago,_Werfen,_Austria,_2019-05-18,_DD_84-86_HDR.jpg

Iglesia de Santiago, Werfen, Austria, 2019-05-18, DD 84-86 HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Ceiling of St James church, Werfen, Austria --Poco a poco 11:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Corners are unsharp and lighting is too irregular. Sorry. --Imehling 13:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Harsh review, given the resolution still ok to me --Poco a poco 17:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support given the resolution. --Smial 05:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 20:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:The_Triumphal_Procession_Carrying_the_Spoils_from_the_Temple_of_Jerusalem,_attributed_to_Jean-Guillaume_Moitte,_c._1797,_terracotta_-_Fogg_Art_Museum,_Harvard_University_-_DSC01402.jpg

The Triumphal Procession Carrying the Spoils from the Temple of Jerusalem, attributed to Jean-Guillaume Moitte, c. 1797, terracotta - Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University - DSC01402.jpg

  • Nomination The Triumphal Procession Carrying the Spoils from the Temple of Jerusalem, attributed to Jean-Guillaume Moitte, c. 1797, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S. By User:Daderot --Another Believer 04:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not sharp enough on the left side. -- Ikan Kekek 06:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a bit distorted due to the short lens but sharp enough. Please discuss -- Spurzem 13:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support, overall good enough. --Kritzolina (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 20:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Rhinoceros_Sculpture,_School_of_the_Museum_of_Fine_Arts,_Boston_-_DSC09370.jpg

Rhinoceros Sculpture, School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston - DSC09370.jpg

  • Nomination Rhinoceros Sculpture, School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. By User:Daderot --Another Believer 04:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. But I would crop out a little bit at the left. no crop, sorry --XRay 06:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems overexposed on top. Probably fixable. User:Daderot, would you like to try lowering the brightness of the highlights somewhat? -- Ikan Kekek 09:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 09:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 20:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Cape_Bridgewater_(AU),_Petrified_Forest_--_2019_--_0757.jpg

Cape Bridgewater (AU), Petrified Forest -- 2019 -- 0757.jpg

  • Nomination Solution pipes (Petrified Forest), Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, Australia --XRay 03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The foreground and the backgrond is not sharp. --Steindy 00:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you. It's sharper now. --XRay 08:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support First version sharp enough, second somewhat enhanced, fortunately not oversharpened. --Smial 21:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 20:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Port_Campbell_(AU),_Port_Campbell_National_Park_--_2019_--_1013.jpg

Port Campbell (AU), Port Campbell National Park -- 2019 -- 1013.jpg

  • Nomination Port Campbell National Park, Port Campbell, Victoria, Australia --XRay 03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Too much noise and oerall not sharp. --Steindy 00:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination You're right. --XRay 08:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 20:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Austria_national_under-21_football_team_-_Teamcamp_October_2019_(81).jpg

Austria national under-21 football team - Teamcamp October 2019 (81).jpg

  • Nomination Trainings impression of the Austrian U21 national team. From left: Marco Grüll, en:Vesel Demaku, Marko Raguž, Dario Maresic, Emanuel Aiwu, Leonardo Lukacevic, Valentino Müller und Kevin Danso. --Steindy 00:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. There are only a few faces sharp. --XRay 10:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's right, not all players are crackpot, but they're all clearly recognizable. The players also run in a row. What do you think, how big the DOF is with a 300 mm lens? It is therefore ridiculous to talk about insuffcient quality. --Steindy 16:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 20:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Petermann_Ranges_(AU),_Uluru-Kata_Tjuta_National_Park,_Uluru_--_2019_--_3595.jpg

Petermann Ranges (AU), Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Uluru -- 2019 -- 3595.jpg

  • Nomination Uluru (Ayers Rock) seen from Yulara in Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park, Petermann Ranges, Northern Territory, Australia --XRay 06:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Overall not sharp. --Steindy 00:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you. It's sharper now. Please respect that Uluru is at a distance of about 10 kilometers. There is a lot of dust in the air. --XRay 08:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:_Thurner_RS_(2015-09-12_3745_Sp_r).JPG

Thurner RS (2015-09-12 3745 Sp r).JPG

  • Nomination Thurner RS based on NSU 1200 C. 121 of these cars were built between 1969 and 1974. -- Spurzem 17:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough for QI --MB-one 19:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    @MB-one: So what is called "return coach". Right? I would like to hear other opinions. -- Spurzem 20:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MB-one. -- Ikan Kekek 06:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: About your reviews, I can only wonder. Do you permit me to regard them as ridiculous? Photographically unsuccessful pictures are good in your eyes, good pictures are bad. -- Spurzem 08:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Is it up to me to permit you to have a differing opinion, or are you asking my permission for you to be rude and dismissive? -- Ikan Kekek 11:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It's amazing what kind of competence someone suggests, who does not contribute pictures himself. Symbol support vote.svg Support Given the circumstances, a higher sharpness would have been possible only with increased noise, both has advantages and disadvantages. It simply was not better possible. --Ralf Roletschek 14:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
So a viewer should shut up here and not participate? Do you really want to make that elitist argument? Do you think when I perform, I can tell my audience that only fellow musicians, nay flutists, have the right to appraise my performance? If your audience is only fellow photographers, I don't think Commons, a repository of photos for anyone to use, is the right place for you. But I suppose your feeling is, you provide the photos for anyone to use, but they should be merely passive viewers. OK then... -- Ikan Kekek 21:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, two other things: (1) one or more participating photographers usually agrees with my votes; (2) I can be wrong, but there is a corrective: I have but one vote and can be outvoted. And there is at least one person who's voting contrary to other voters routinely in CR, so I'm not sure why a couple of you are so dismissive toward me in particular, but whatever makes you happy. -- Ikan Kekek 23:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to show that under the given circumstances with today's technology it is almost impossible to make this photo better - and that is quality to me. For pictures of concerts, sports and moving objects like here you have to cut corners. A 1.1 monster lens from Leica may do the trick better, but that can not be the benchmark here. --Ralf Roletschek 00:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that. But why do two other people agree that this is not a QI? Perhaps because it's not only about what's possible in a given situation but that some situations might not be possible to produce a QI from. I'll again make an analogy. Suppose I choose to perform a piece of music that's too hard for any flutist to perform well. If I perform it as well as I can, is it a good performance? Food for thought. -- Ikan Kekek 03:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I would say yes. You can not achieve excellent results in all situations. But you can deliver good quality. If a piece of music is so difficult that no one can do it perfectly, then you can still play good quality. Sorry, all my threads are Google-Translate, my english is too bad. --Ralf Roletschek 18:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, Lothar, das entspricht nicht deinem gewohnten hohen Standard. Sieht verwischt aus. Aber schönes Auto. --Smial 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Smial: Mir soll's recht sein. Aber wie schon gesagt: Es fällt auf, was hier alles an Knipsbildchen hochgejubelt wird – nicht nur Autos und Motorräder –, und wenn auf einem meiner Fotos die kleinste Plakette nicht lesbar ist, dann ist das Bild Sch… Von „verwischt“ kann bei der hier zur Diskussion stehenden Aufnahme keine Rede sein. Wenn es so wäre, hätte ich sie nicht vorgestellt. Dieser Tage wurde ein Bild besprochen, das oben links zu dunkel und unten rechts zu hell war – Ergebnis: ein Qualitätsbild, weil die Tageszeit der Aufnahme und/oder der Raum kein anderes Ergebnis zuließen. Aber ist ja egal: Ich kann mir – wie man so schon sagt – „nichts dafür kaufen“, wenn ein Foto als QI bewertet wird, und umgekehrt macht es auch nichts aus, wenn rot eingerahmt ein Decline da steht. Trotzdem macht das Spiel allmählich keinen Spaß mehr. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 19:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Das Alternativbild vom selben Auto mit der hochgeklappten Tür ist perfekt scharf, das hier vorgestellte halt nicht. Das Thema hatten wir doch schon, daß hier öfters grottig gestaltete Autobilder promoted werden, aber willst du dir die wirklich als Maßstab nehmen? Du bist für mich hier Maßstab, was die Präsentation von Autos angeht, auch wenn andere vll. die höher auflösende Kamera oder das fünfmal so teure Objektiv haben. Mir liegt nichts ferner, als dich vergraulen zu wollen. Versuch es sportlich zu nehmen ;-) --Smial 23:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although many of Lothar's automobile pictures are sharper than this one, IMO it's still good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 09:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this one is sharp enough. 1/125 may not have been a high enough shutter speed for a moving car.--Peulle 20:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Peulle: I had missed your rating yet. Thank you for the valuable instruction, how to photograph a moving car; I will keep that in mind. The pictured car however is not moving. -- Spurzem 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 09:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Ebrach_Turmfalken_Nest-RM-20190425-01.jpg

Ebrach Turmfalken Nest-RM-20190425-01.jpg

  • Nomination Kestrel at the nest on the facade of Ebrach Monastery --Ermell 08:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 09:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Very interesting picture. However too soft, blurry and noisy for QI, sorry --George Chernilevsky 09:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So it's good to discuss. IMO the photo is OK for this kind of image. --XRay 09:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per George. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please note that 400mm MfT focal length corresponds to 800mm FF. I don't think it would have been possibly better under these lighting conditions.--Ermell 08:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per XRay. A photo at 800mm focal length (equivalent) of moving animals is really difficult, and the main motif was captured well. --Aristeas 11:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unter den gegebenen Bedingungen exzellent umgesetzt, +1 zu Aristeas--Ralf Roletschek 14:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Aristeas, and has far more than 6 MPixels. Similar shots strong downscaled have been promoted. --Smial 16:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 17:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kritzolina 12:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per XRay. Image is compelling. --GRDN711 20:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 11:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Nautilus_House,_Liverpool.jpg

Nautilus House, Liverpool.jpg

  • Nomination Grade II listed office building on Rumford Place, Liverpool. Conferedate Consulate in the 1860s American Civil war. -- Rodhullandemu 20:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The upper part is very noisy and not sharp. --Steindy 00:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The upper (esp. upper left) part is soft, right, but overall it is IMHO still OK. --Aristeas 11:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I agree it's below standard. There'a better version in the pipeline. Rodhullandemu 21:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 11:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Austria_national_under-21_football_team_-_Teamcamp_October_2019_(74).jpg

Austria national under-21 football team - Teamcamp October 2019 (74).jpg

  • Nomination Bernhard Neuhold, managing director of the Austrian football federation. --Steindy 00:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Appalling composition. Subject is looking downwards and framing is non-optional Rodhullandemu 00:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And what exactly has WHAT to do with quality? Am I responsible for where the depicted man looks and against which background he sits? You always have remarkable arguments. --Steindy 00:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you very much. You don't seem to have any trouble getting your other subjects to look into the camera, set against a more uniform background and, if it matters, you have nominated three other images of this person. I'm happy if anyone else disagrees with me, but composition- and that includes background- is one of the QI criteria. Rodhullandemu 08:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think you should read the image guidelines. These would help to avoid disruptive comments like above and like this → [[1]]. I think it's better to hear other user. --Steindy 12:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Composition is indeed relevant to judging a QI, but I'll allow this. It's a good composition if his team just lost. -- Ikan Kekek 07:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - He doesn't look very happy but that's not a matter of composition. And uniformity of background is good enough for QI in my view --Imehling 10:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image seems fine. Not all portraits have to be of people looking into the camera.--Peulle 11:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one works really good. Balanced sharpening and noise reduction, much better than several other images. --Smial 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All arguments have already been mentioned. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Bra_shirt_and_tights_-_partly_visible_worn_under_a_pant_suit_-_composite_image_-_Modelled_by_Lady_Alexi.jpg

Bra shirt and tights - partly visible worn under a pant suit - composite image - Modelled by Lady Alexi.jpg

  • Nomination Composite image of bra shirt and tights - partly visible worn under a pant suit. --Tobias ToMar Maier 22:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a montage, it's jarring and lacks compositional integrity. It's just a bunch of maybe otherwise good pictures jammed together. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry, but “jarring” and “jammed together” are exaggerations and quite impolite. IMHO the montage is good enough for QI. Let’s hear other voices, please. --Aristeas 08:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Composition is one of the QI criteria IIRC and that includes the way in which a montage is presented. No intention to be impolite, just say how the whole looks to me. Rodhullandemu 08:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for clarification! OK, sorry, so I have misunderstood your comment (“jarring” can be (mis-)translated to German “erschütternd” which would mean “deeply shocking” – I see that this was wrong) and apologize. Well, I suggest we just hear other voices, as it seems this montage is a matter of taste ;–). No offence and best regards, --Aristeas 08:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, I agree; the way these images were put toghether doesn't quite work. Individually, the images might be fine.--Peulle 11:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Street_market_in_Marsaxlokk_05.jpg

Street market in Marsaxlokk 05.jpg

  • Nomination Street market in Marsaxlokk - salmon --Kritzolina 21:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. While this camera can take technicaly great pictures, this is not one of them. --Tobias ToMar Maier 22:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Somewhat random composition, but good enough as a QI. --Smial 10:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is not sharp IMO, and it looks like a random composition --Cvmontuy 13:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No beautiful motive but a good image -- Spurzem 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not a random composition, but in my opinion, not sharp enough. And it's clear that Ralf Roletschek voted for and Tobias ToMar Maier voted against, so I'm recording that. -- Ikan Kekek 20:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, JPG artifacts, low quality. --Magnus (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Hamburger-kunsthalle-alter-treppenaufgang.jpg

Hamburger-kunsthalle-alter-treppenaufgang.jpg

  • Nomination Alter Treppenaufgang in der Hamburger Kunsthalle. By User:Daniela Kloth --Ralf Roletschek 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't agree, not sharp enough, f-value too low --Michielverbeek 20:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info its a photo from 2008, with this camera ISO more than 400 have big noise. --Ralf Roletschek 21:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not ISO, focus. Too much lacking in sharpness, even for 2008 Rodhullandemu 00:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. And I don't see what's gained by nominating old photos that are not very good, but of course anyone can nominate any photo they like. -- Ikan Kekek 20:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Dizengoff_Square_Tel_Aviv_Lowshot.jpg

Dizengoff Square Tel Aviv Lowshot.jpg

  • Nomination Dizengoff Square. By User:אילן ארד --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Why so small? Unless there's a good reason for the photo to be this small, I think it should be declined, as the picture, while of course an interesting motif, is not outstanding for its size. -- Ikan Kekek 09:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    But since when 2,556 × 1,830 (3.58 MB) is too small? --Andrew J.Kurbiko 10:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I feel like you've made this argument repeatedly, have you not? Just because a file is not below the absolute limit for QI consideration doesn't mean it's not overly small for 2019 for a particular motif, and the point is not only that this photo is small but that it's not very sharp. So again, I ask whether there's a very good reason for the photo to be this small. I think you can't answer that; only User:אילן ארד could. So I'll wait a bit for an answer, and if it's not forthcoming, expect a decline. -- Ikan Kekek 11:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    If you dont like playing by the rules you should consider changing them. This is a complex shot made from a high point (which is technically challenging). Additionally, it is dated 2012, which is before the ultra-high resolution era. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 13:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The rules say no photo under 2 MP can be a QI, not that all photos slightly larger than 2 MP have to be QIs. I did a little research about the standards in 2012. Here are some photos that passed at FPC in the first quarter of 2012: File:Novgorod - View on Yuriev Monastery from Volkhov 02.jpg, 3,371 × 2,255 pixels; File:Villa Ephrussi de Rothschild BW 2011-06-10 11-42-29a.jpg, 3,592 × 2,176 pixels; File:Quito as from panecillo Basilica.jpg, 4,170 × 2,583 pixels; File:Jerusalem Mount of Olives BW 2010-09-20 07-57-31.JPG, 3,872 × 2,592 pixels; File:Šmarjetna gora 03.jpg, 3,789 × 2,540 pixels. By all means, make your argument that a not very sharp 2,556 × 1,830-pixel file was standard for QIC in 2012 and we should therefore promote it now in CR. Of course QIC is different from FPC, but I think that even in 2012, a little more sharpness may have been desired. I will send this directly there and save you the trouble. -- Ikan Kekek 13:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The size is OK for me. I'd support it if there was desription in English. --Palauenc05 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have added an English description to the image. The camera used is capable of a much higher resolution which would also add better color depth in this image. --GRDN711 19:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downsized. --Peulle 11:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 08:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would support if a higher resolution image was uploaded. --GRDN711 20:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 08:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Plaza_del_ayuntamiento,_Kiel,_Alemania,_2019-09-10,_DD_54-95_HDR_PAN.jpg

Plaza del ayuntamiento, Kiel, Alemania, 2019-09-10, DD 54-95 HDR PAN.jpg

  • Nomination Town hall square, Kiel, GermanyT --Poco a poco 17:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Very impressive work! I have found two stiching errors and a row of green dots (dead pixels?) in the sky, and have marked them with image notes. No offence, I just want to help to make the photo even better ;–). --Aristeas 08:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Poco a poco 11:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you very much! --Aristeas 10:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose several stitching errors (see example annotations), dead pixels, colour noise; different sharpness of the single frames (or some are blurry). Doesn't seem fixable to me. --Carschten 15:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you Carschten, your all those annotations. I'll fix the stitching problems but I am not sure about your statetement that some frames are blurry. Which ones? they all were of course taken with a tripod and the look good to me. Poco a poco 08:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still some stitching errors at the top of the theater building at the right side. And a lot of hot pixels are visible as well..--Ermell 10:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solved and very good now.--Ermell 08:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've fixed the stitching issues (and didn't mean above that I had done it before) FYI Ermell, Carschten Poco a poco 21:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Poco, you need to state what kind of projection you used for this photo. Apparently, the buildings don't really curve like that, so not admitting up front that you're distorting them isn't really, shall we say, sufficiently informative. -- Ikan Kekek 06:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Ikan Kekek: I've added in the description that it's a cylindric projection panorama, but, to be honest, I think that there are more viewers who will know that the building is not curved that those that know what kind of distortion you can expect of a cylindric projection. Poco a poco 18:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, good quality and sufficient information. While you may be right, people can look up "cylindric projection" if they like. Curved buildings do exist, and I could easily imagine a strange space that actually looks like this, though the buildings in question would presumably be of more recent construction. -- Ikan Kekek 21:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 21:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

File:View_of_Conques_06.jpg

View of Conques 06.jpg

  • Nomination View of Conques, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 07:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have looked at this photo 3 times now. I really like it, but there is something weird about it. I guess brightening was too much; there seems now to be some lack of contrast, and the green of the trees seems somewhat washed out. Could you try to make the photo (espec. the darks) a bit darker again? This also would increase contrast, and I hope so we would get a more natural look. No offence! I just want to help. --Aristeas 08:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Chenspec 21:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose so far. IMO it lacks of dark midtones. That happens when the shadows are rised especially whith blue hour photos.--Ermell 10:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO tone rendition of this image at blue hour just seems strange to me. Suggest going back to the original and starting over with processing with the expectation that the image would be darker (let the street lamps glow) with a greater tonal range. --GRDN711 22:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose exactly as Ermell and GRDN711. This is the same what I already tried to express in my initial comment. Please rework this image; it really deserves the extra work! --Aristeas 11:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Aristeas 11:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Tonga_nuku_fukave.jpg

Tonga nuku fukave.jpg

  • Nomination Nuku & Fukave Island, Tonga --Arne mueseler 20:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Dust spots to remove. --Steindy 23:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Chenspec 21:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. There are some dust spots to remove. --Steindy 10:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The dust spots aren't that large and not so bad, but Arne, please remove them, and then I'll happily support. -- Ikan Kekek 07:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Adrian_Horridge_FRS_on_his_90th_birthday.jpg

Adrian Horridge FRS on his 90th birthday.jpg

  • Nomination Portrait of George Adrian Horridge FRS on his 90th birthday, in his garden at Yarralumla, Canberra:. By User:Thennicke --Tomer T 14:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! The face is not sharp. --Steindy 15:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Face is perfectly sharp for that of a 90-year old man. QI for me. Rodhullandemu 19:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't understand how his age is relevant. Not quite sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The photo is a bit noisy but in my opinion sharp enough for QI. And why should the age of the gentleman with the short trousers not be mentioned? -- Spurzem 11:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • His age should be mentioned, but it's not relevant to how sharp his face is in the photo. That's my point. -- Ikan Kekek 20:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem --Smial 16:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem --Ralf Roletschek 17:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose techncial quality Charlesjsharp 10:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft. Alvesgaspar 21:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Spurzem --Michielverbeek 07:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Spurzem --Palauenc05 09:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Michielverbeek 07:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


Zeitplan (15 Tage nach Nominierung)

So 01 Dez. → Mo 09 Dez.
Mo 02 Dez. → Di 10 Dez.
Di 03 Dez. → Mi 11 Dez.
Mi 04 Dez. → Do 12 Dez.
Do 05 Dez. → Fr 13 Dez.
Fr 06 Dez. → Sa 14 Dez.
Sa 07 Dez. → So 15 Dez.
So 08 Dez. → Mo 16 Dez.
Mo 09 Dez. → Di 17 Dez.