Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 22 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Giant_Manta_AdF.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frontal portrait of Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris) filter feeding. These huge animals (with a wingspan of up to 7 meters) swim in the strong current slowly flapping their 'wings' (pectoral fins) with amazing elegance. Raja Ampat, West Papua, Indonesia. By User:Arturo de Frias Marques --1989 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Posterized area --Cccefalon 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think a POTY finalist deserve at least a discussion with other opinions. KTC 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Unsharpness (presumably due to water) and noticable posterisation banding (not due to water). It may be a POTY finalist but it's not a quality image for me - I think that the POTY is likely on the basis of the wow factor, which it certainly has. Mattbuck 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterized area --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 09:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Unfinished_Monument_-_Küçük_Yazılıkaya_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Unfinished Monument (aka "Little inscribed rock" in Turkish) situated in the west side of Phrygian Midas City in Yazılıkaya, Eskişehir, Turkey --Zcebeci 08:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Even when it´s not perfectly sharp, weak QI. --Hubertl 10:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right side is ok, but left side is decidely blurry. --Mattbuck 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Sharpness could be better. -- Spurzem 12:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 09:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Heuliez GX 317 n°627 Réseau Mistral Mourillon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bus in Toulon --Billy69150 11:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice detail; DoF handled well --Daniel Case 07:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The quality is ok, but there's too much sky. I've noticed this in a lot of your photos - you cramp the subject into the bottom half of the photo. Please either start cropping or aim a bit lower when shooting! --Mattbuck 22:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps it could be tighter cropped but this is no reason to decline. -- Spurzem 12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. On this picture, the sky isn't a problem because the bus is photographed within it's environment. --TwoWings 15:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I have no problem with the amount of sky. Royalbroil 04:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

File:PRR_13182_Ore_Car.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Ore Car --Ram-Man 04:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Notable magenta CA. Area on the right side completly #FFFFFF --Cccefalon 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • These are reflections like this, not the result of overexposure. Ram-Man 12:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I was not talking about the reflections, this was ok for me. It was about the area at the right side of the car. However, after reviewing it with dimmed light, I could see that there is structure in it, so the remaining issue are the pretty dominant chromatic aberrations. --Cccefalon 13:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
        • There are CAs, but IMO CAs are no reason on their own to oppose an otherwise sharp, detailed, and well rendered image. Great if someone can fix them, but reviewers rarely fix them here. Ram-Man 13:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Excuse me, don't you find it blunt, to ask me for fixing your image? As far as I can see, you are using Photoshop for postprocessing your images. In my humble opinion, it is not asked to much, to fix obvious issues by yourself. The QIC rules clearly point out, that such CA are a photographic fault. I always give people a chance to fix their CA, but if you are unwilling to do that petty step, I have no other chance than to decline. Sorry for that, I really wanted to see your photo QI sealed. --Cccefalon 14:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
            • CAs are not an absolute photographic fault nor are they distracting (See image guidelines). There is a reasonableness standard. They are not the fault of the photographer, but instead the equipment. It's unreasonable to expect very specific high quality equipment to qualify for a QI. Ram-Man 18:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
              • +1 --Steindy 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Not overeyposed, but bright sun. --Steindy 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just to see how "easy" it is, I tried correcting CA in photoshop and not only did it fail to remove the CA, it added the inverse CA and blurred the image. -- Ram-Man
    Try using the sponge tool on desaturate. Lens correction rarely removes 100% of CA. Mattbuck 22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - CA on the letters, bottom not very sharp. Mattbuck 22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Barite_and_Fluorite_Specimen_17.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Barite and Fluorite --Ram-Man 04:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, this one is oversharpened and is bearing jpeg artefacts. --Cccefalon 13:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • This has not been oversharpened. There is some noise texture (not JPEG artifacts?), but it's extremely minor. The image may not contain a full 16MP of real detail, but I don't downsample to pass QI. It the end user did, these issues would disappear. Ram-Man 13:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Low DOF, and purple shadowing in the black stuff. Mattbuck 22:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not shadowing. The fluorite is dark purple. And the DoF at f/9 on a 4/3" sensor is right around the diffraction limit. Ram-Man 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:RR97.36_Three-dome_tank_car_No._4556.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Three-dome tank car --Ram-Man 01:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Noise and artefacts. --Cccefalon 08:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good lighting, good perspective, low noise. For me QI -- Spurzem 09:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Cccefalon. Denoising artifacts are too strong here for me (visible especially on the black parts) --Kreuzschnabel 16:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In the shadow area of the wheels too much noise and therefore blurred. --Steindy 22:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Bad ISO noise. Mattbuck 22:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Huis_van_de_toekomst.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The house of the future in rosmalen --Abigor 22:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: The perspective should be done (easy to achieve here). Another issue is the blurry branch that is reaching into the main motif. For me not a QI therefore. --Cccefalon 02:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective is fine for me, but the twigs/fruits in the foreground are distracting and partly covering the subject. --El Grafo 16:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose - I agree with the comments regarding the foreground branches. It's a nice shot, but they're in the way. Mattbuck 22:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Caldas Rainha February 2015-10a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Haunted house behind trees in a dark afternoon. Park Carlos I, Caldas da Rainha, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 20:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Either trees or house. The trees are just distracting. --Hubertl 11:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC) --  Comment Well, that was the way I wanted the photo! -- Alvesgaspar 11:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support This is not a case of poor composition, although I'll admit that the difference between subject and distraction is not always obvious or objective. The trees and house may both be part of the subject of this photo. There is no rule saying this can't be the case. And the picture is rendered correctly, so QI for me. Ram-Man 13:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose - The composition is good, but the top left is blurry. Mattbuck 22:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:AT-119587_Fassadendetails_der_Jesuitenkirche_in_Wien_-hu-_8691.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior figures at Jesuitenkirche, Vienna --Hubertl 07:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose main subject is partialy unsharp (out of focus) --Christian Ferrer 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Please look only at the photo. -- Spurzem 15:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Christian Ferrer is right, although we could (maybe) live with that. But the distracting net in the foreground completely ruins the subject, in my opinion. Alvesgaspar 10:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
But you can not remove this net so long as we have pigeons in town. And I will not kill them. That's the problem. -- Spurzem 14:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 10:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Chalutiers_chantier_naval_Concarneau.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Two trawlers in the Concarneau shipyards. --Bzh-99 12:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too contrasted and perspective issues, maybe fixable --Christian Ferrer 15:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The bottom could do with sharpening too. Mattbuck 21:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not a clear decline to me. The white parts just don’t have much detail to show so their brightness (not to say overexposure) is acceptable for me, at least there is no posterization. Perspective has to be taken care of though (see background buildings on left and right). Framing is very tight. --Kreuzschnabel 09:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments. I'll make better at next time. This picture was shot in a small space, that explain the tight frame and the "perspectives issues". - Bzh-99 11:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 14:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Zaaddoos van Lysimachia clethroides, locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seed box Lysimachia clethroides, Location, Garden Valley Reserve Jonker.Famberhorst 06:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The DOF is not enough. Why only f/6,3? The unsharp front part is very disturbing. --Hockei 12:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Unsharp tip not disturbing for me, and most of the plant is clearly depicted and well-detailed --Kreuzschnabel 06:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. Why compromise with an easy subject? Alvesgaspar 10:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as Kreuzschnabel --Christian Ferrer 13:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support obviously this was taken in a lower light situation. Perhaps under a tree? Late in the day? I don't know the reason, but because most of the subject is sharp and the background is pleasing, I'm inclined to support, even if it's not absolutely perfect. This is high enough quality to be published in a print magazine. Ram-Man 04:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Ram-Man. The scape and most of the raceme are well-depicted. Often pubescence and ribs on the scape are interesting and distinguishing features. The spider silk and background add interest to the image. --Wsiegmund 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support per others --El Grafo 18:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good photo--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 09:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Palacio Sintra February 2015-8a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Room of the Swanns, National Palace of Sintra, Portugal - Alvesgaspar 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Strongly overexposed window in the background. It would have been better to close the door. Not repairable IMO. --Steindy 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the blown area is not reparable, but that is a minor flaw which does not distract from the main subject -- Alvesgaspar 15:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC).
     Comment Alvesgaspar, if you think that this as a „minor flaw“, then you should remember this in your reviews of other photos. I think it is a fatal mistake that would have been easily avoided. Regards --Steindy 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don´t agree that this is a minor flare --Hubertl 00:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bright window is very disturbing. -- Spurzem 12:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Esna_Tempel_40.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Temple of Esna, Egypt --Oltau 09:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 10:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurred and CA at the edges --Christian Ferrer 19:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, plus a too tight crop and disturbing geometric distortion. This is, I believe, the result of using a small focal lens and taking the shot too close to the subject. Alvesgaspar 10:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Detailed and good quality. --Steindy 22:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Christan Ferrer. Lots of JPEG artifacts and blur is the main reason for decline, and these problems can't be fixed. --Halavar 11:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Lan_Diep_16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MS Lan Diep on the Tonle Sap in Phnom Penh, Cambodja --Oltau 07:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality  Support -- Spurzem 09:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The water in front of the ship does not look natural: somehow between posterized and overprocessed. --Cccefalon 23:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 23:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree Cccefalon. It looks strange. Even the boat in the rear. Firtsly i thought its overprocessed due to a high ISO. But its just ISO 100. Cant describe it, but I know what you are talking about. -- DerFussi 08:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC) -- DerFussi 08:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The ship is reflected in water, which is highly enriched with sediments. --Oltau (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info I also took photos at Tonle Sap and I haven't that effect on my photos. --Cccefalon 02:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like strong jpeg compression to me. Alvesgaspar 10:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Cccefalon and Alvesgaspar --Christian Ferrer 13:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree Cccefalon. It looks strange.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Cheek_-_Rakuuna_Rock_2014_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Finnish rapper Cheek performing in Lappeenranta, Finland. --Teevee 15:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion

* Oppose overexposed sky, and background out of focus --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support I disagree Highly atmospheric stage shot with good handling of a very difficult lighting situation. --Smial 05:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood with blurred and overexposed background, would have been distracting otherwise. Subject is well exposed and sharp. ~~~~
     Comment Please, Your vote will count when you sign!--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree my previous speaker. -- DerFussi 08:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support - Bit of minor CA would be better fixed, and the dither patterns aren't pretty, but overall this is a good photo. DOF is intentional. Mattbuck 10:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry again. This might be an interesting photo and a good catch, but not a QI. The image is noisy, overexposed and sufers from strong green chromatic aberration. Alvesgaspar 10:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 00:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Canary Wharf railway station MMB 05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Canary Wharf railway station. Mattbuck 11:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blown out sky, also some CAs on the left side. --Steindy 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. CA is really small and can possibly be reduced. But there is absolutely nothing blown in the sky, it's simply grey. --Smial 05:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    I will attest that the sky was grey. As people who read my reviews well know, I have a low tolerance for overexposure and detest remapping white to grey to "fix" it. Mattbuck 23:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you accept such a grey sky if other candidates would present it? As I know you decline on principle if the sky is not dark blue. Best regards -- Spurzem 10:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I decline an image if I feel the sky is overexposed. I'm perfectly happy with grey skies if that is what the sky was like when the photo was taken. Mattbuck 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 Support CA is very discreet, almost invisible, otherwise well-exposed, good quality and composition. And I've never seen Mattbuck decline a images due to grey sky. --ArildV 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support This is fine. A grey sky is fine. I'd even occasionally support a blown sky, so I certainly agree with Mattbuck's baseline standard for acceptance. Ram-Man 04:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Marko_Halanevych_(DakhaBrakha)_(Haldern_Pop_2013)_IMGP6749_smial_wp.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marko Halanevych (vokals, darbuka, tabla, didjeridoo, accordion, trombone) of DakhaBrakha, a musical group from Ukraine, performing at Haldern Pop 2013. --Smial 11:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too low DOF which is most evident on the eyebrows. --Steindy 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Funfact: Good enough to be used by LeMonde Culture. --Smial 05:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Was hat das mit QI zu tun oder wolltest du es uns nur erzählen. Beim Kölnfoto hast du uns erzählt, welche schlechten Bilder in den Zeitung abgedruckt werden, jetzt erzählst du uns, dass dein Bild trotzdem abgedruckt wurde. Aber trotzdem Gratulation. Wenn es sonst nichts gibt, wird der Festivalsommer aushelfen. --Hubertl 17:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support - disagree concerning DOF: Very good shot – The picture is taken under extreme light conditions and the focus is exactly in the face as needed. -- Achim Raschka 07:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 13:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood for me. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)