Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 03 2014

Consensual review edit

File:Tussilago farfara-IMG 5999.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Tussilago farfara in Västerås, spring 2014. -C T Johansson 11:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose Not the entire flower is sharp. --Arctic Kangaroo 18:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Good quality for me. --Iifar 06:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
      Weak support The entire flower isn't sharp, but I don't think that should be a problem since there's not really any detail missing. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support qi for me--Aathavan jaffna 16:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Good quality for me. --Halavar 19:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Ralf Roletschek 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Brandenburg-Havel_pano_(MK).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Morning view from the Havelbridge over the Havel with St. Katharinenchurch in the background in Brandenburg an der Havel (Germany) --Leviathan1983 23:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Insufficient quality. --Blurred Lines 15:26, 26 March 2014
    *For real?? Sorry, but you can`t say that this one got "Insufficient quality" for a qi imo! --Leviathan1983 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
    @Leviathan1983: Ok, let me rephrase my reason. Quality is not that good when I look at it, and the trees are distracting, and blurry. --Blurred Lines 15:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    OK, but I´m still convinced that the quality is good enough for a qi. --Leviathan1983 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's ok --Christian Ferrer 10:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Ralf Roletschek 18:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Ta_Phrom,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_11.JPG edit

  • Nomination Ta Phrom, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 07:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Overexposed, CAs and some areas are a bit blurred --Christian Ferrer 17:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    I have uploaded a new version, should be ok IMO, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ok, there is always a lot of CA, overexposed areas and the bottom is blurred --Christian Ferrer 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    Another version uploaded, still what you call lot of CA I'd say traces of CA, I think it should be ok Poco a poco 20:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    Much better indeed but overexposed areas are for me an issue, really sorry --Christian Ferrer 04:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Ralf Roletschek 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Lighthouse_Paphos_Cyprus_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lighthouse in Paphos, Cyprus. --Nikodem Nijaki 09:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Picture is very noisy and lacks sufficient sharpness, sky is underexposed and in fake colour. --Arctic Kangaroo 18:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Arctic.--Jebulon 09:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Ralf Roletschek 18:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Ratusz_w_Skoczowie_1.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Town hall in Skoczów, Poland --Halavar 23:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 12:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I a not sure about this one, the top crop is not good, the sharpness overall soso and there is some CA --Poco a poco 07:29, 29 March 2014

(UTC)

  •   Oppose I have to agree with Poco, sorry.--Jebulon 09:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Ralf Roletschek 18:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Tamron 18-200 E.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tamron 18-200mm E-mount lens. --Bourgeois.A 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    Any chance of a less tight crop at the top? Mattbuck 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not. Bourgeois.A 06:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    I corrected, is it better now ? Bourgeois.A 17:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    Lots, but there is a slight anticlockwise tilt - the sides of the lens are not leaning out at the same angle. Mattbuck 22:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Distorted perspective. --Blurred Lines 17:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry but I don`t think the distortion is that strong.   Support Qi for me. --Leviathan1983 11:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me. --Ralf Roletschek 14:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Ralf Roletschek 18:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.14.-4-Buchklingen--Busch-Windroeschen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Busch-Windröschen - Anemone nemorosa --Hockei 20:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose I'm seriously not sure when flowers started having unusual outlines around them. --Arctic Kangaroo 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  Comment Perhaps you mean the motion blur because of the wind. --Hockei 05:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm yes. And I think your sharpening amplified it. It caused pixels on those blurred areas, and blue outlines if zoomed in. I think you should moderate your sharpening; you tend to oversharpen your photos. Am I right to assume you use unsharp mask btw? Please note that unsharp mask tends to add pixels to the photo, so you cannot sharpen excessively. Do watch the "radius" (preferably set from "0.4" to "1"), the amount you sharpen (0-500, watch the amount of pixels), and the threshold. The threshold comes in useful to reduce the amount of pixels. --Arctic Kangaroo 04:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  Info I uploaded a new version. If it's not better I'll set it back to the first version. More sharpening reduction makes no sense IMO. --Hockei 19:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Ralf Roletschek 18:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.14.-2-Buchklingen--Busch-Windroeschen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Busch-Windröschen - Anemone nemorosa --Hockei 20:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose Same problem, pixels AGAIN. A layer of pixels on the outlines of the petals. An otherwise perfect picture. --Arctic Kangaroo 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    I Cannot see what you say. Do you look at my pictures with about 400 % magnification or more? --Hockei 18:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm probably because I zoom in the full size. But looking at full size alone (I usually do that) is ok. So change   Support. I added some notes on your sharpening in the previous picture. Do take a look. --Arctic Kangaroo 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Ralf Roletschek 18:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Pelophylax ridibundus DSC 7786w.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Two marsh frogs (Pelophylax ridibundus) in reproduction, Lower Austria --P e z i 23:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not sharp. --Blurred Lines 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)  Comment I'd like to have another opinion. --P e z i 00:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support : OK for me. --JLPC 08:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --C T Johansson 12:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Ralf Roletschek 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Hue_Vietnam_Doors-in-Càn-Thành-Palace-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Freshly refurbished doors in Càn Thành Palace within the Citadel of Huế, Vietnam --Cccefalon 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Parts of image not in focus. --Blurred Lines 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      Info It should be obvious, that the DoF is on the middle of the three groups of doors. The first and third group are intentionally blurred. --Cccefalon 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  Comment DOF is part of the composition and ok, though the bokeh of that lens is not the finest. The image seems to be somewhat tilted and should be rotated CCW. But as I don't know if the walls are really vertical, I'll wait for a correction or a comment before giving a pro. -- Smial 09:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  Done I uploaded another perspective correction. I did my best, but I can either choose to use the door or the pilars as reference. It's not possible to get a compromise. --Cccefalon 20:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)~

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Ralf Roletschek 18:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:2013-08-23_Chiemsee_Reggae_Summer_-_Junior_Kelly_3686.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Junior Kelly at Chiemsee Reggae Summer Festival 2013. By User:Church of emacs --Achim Raschka 09:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose - Low detail caused by high ISO. --Mattbuck 23:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps somewhat too strong noise reduction, but given the lighting situation absolutely ok for QI. --Smial 10:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)-  Support in this situation of light is it QI to me. --Ralf Roletschek 10:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Ralf Roletschek 18:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:2013-08-24_Chiemsee_Reggae_Summer_-_Beginner_5133.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Beginner at Chiemsee Reggae Summer Festival 2013 By User:Church of emacs --Achim Raschka 09:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Unsharp. --Mattbuck 23:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Where is the insharpness? You can count every hair of the beard and even recognize the earring holes. Near perfect given the lighting situation. --Smial 10:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)-  Support in this situation of light is it QI to me. --Ralf Roletschek 10:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 12:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Strasbourg Ponts couverts au coucher du soleil.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Covered bridges at sunset, Strasbourg, France. --Aloïs Peiffer 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Great light and colors. I love the cathedral in background. --Esilerey 17:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, the perspective correction is yet not properly done. --Cccefalon 19:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    I know this place very well and if you talk about the towers, I can tell you that they are not straight. Watch other panoramas to realize it. I think it would be a shame that such a picture is not labeled, it is rare to see a photo of this place with such a quality!-- Esilerey 13:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't ever use comments like "it would be a shame that such a picture is not labeled" or "but it is already a featured picture" in the QIC assessment process. The chances are big, that this will scare away possible supporters. However, I checked the situtation again and recall the objection about perspective.   Support -CEphoto, Uwe Aranas
Ok, sorry for the comment, I'm new and unfortunately, my english is not as good as my french... -- Esilerey (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)talk) 05:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Durasov_palace_wide.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Nikolay Durasov’s Palace in Lyublino, Moscow, Russia --Nino Verde 07:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Coyau 07:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

*   Oppose I disagree, strong CA that should be removed. I will move back to "Promotion" afterwards. --Cccefalon 10:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  •   CommentIf you mean branches of trees - i've did the best. Wide angle lens is not very good at corners, Photoshop and Camera raw failed to remove all CA. So, you may decline this image. --Nino Verde 12:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As it was already promoted, there are only two ways left: Asking third opinion in Consensual review (it will automatically sent there by the QICbot tomorrow morning) or changing Discuss to Withdraw which can be done only by the nominator. Cheers, --Cccefalon 15:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Framing isnt best, but I did not see any terrible CAs. --Florstein 08:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Done Nino Verde, new version uploaded without CAs and a bit more sharp, revert if you don't like --Christian Ferrer 20:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

:  Comment Even after emptying cache, there is still a lot of CA fringe around the branches of the trees. I even would say, it is worse than before. --Cccefalon 22:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Cccefalon, by opening both versions in two windows, I agree not at all, I see a clear decrease and even a disappearance of CAs, please open the both at the same time and compare. --Christian Ferrer 06:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  Comment Thanks! It is definitely better. How did you do this? --Nino Verde 07:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok it is hard to translate the technical terms, but I will try. I used Adobe Lightroom 5. To eliminate CAs I used the tool pipette named to delete the fringe. For the sharpness I increased the gain +59 (radius:0,5; details:50) and to compensate the noise I increased the noise reduction +25 --Christian Ferrer 17:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support some branches switched their colour to magenta, but it's acceptable for me. In general, the photo is of very good quality. --Cccefalon 07:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Florstein 08:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Sèvres_-_petit_coulage_-_démoulage_08.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Small-scale casting (slipcasting) workshop of the manufacture nationale de Sèvres. Turning out of the mold of a piece. --Coyau 04:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support --Cccefalon 06:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
      Comment - Isn;t it a bit overexposed? --Mattbuck 07:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support I don't think so. --Martin Kraft (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 05:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Porsche_-_911_Carrera_4_-_Mondial_de_l'Automobile_de_Paris_2012_-_205.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination une Porsche 911 Carrera 4 présentée lors du Mondial de l'automobile de Paris 2012. --Thesupermat 08:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Comment All the picture is too dark and noisy IMO, but not bad IMO. Also not QI IMO   Oppose--Lmbuga 18:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    j'ai retravaillé la photo --Thesupermat 21:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Lake Windermere MMB 44.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lake Windermere. Mattbuck 08:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Arctic Kangaroo 05:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Comment Clear not QI for me: Rule of thirds. But...
    Español: paso de todo y considero que las reglas no son iguales para todos o me opongo?
    --Lmbuga 17:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    Rule of thirds is hardly a requirement. Mattbuck 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    Note: Rule-of-thirds is a subjective requirement, depending on personal preferences. It falls under the part about composition in the guidelines. --Arctic Kangaroo 08:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support per Arctic Kangaroo. --Cayambe 09:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cayambe 09:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Hauinger_Buurefastnacht_2014_04.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Carnival in Hauingen (Lörrach), Germany --Taxiarchos228 05:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Bad composition due to the gap. --Mattbuck 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
not IMO --Taxiarchos228 07:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 21:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe 12:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cayambe 12:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Close-up of Cynopterus brachyotis (Lesser short-nosed fruit bat).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Close-up of Cynopterus brachyotis. --AntanO 09:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Not too bad. Don’t like the bright flash(?) reflections though. Seems a bit overprocessed too (oversharp hairs around eye) --Kreuzschnabel 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too harsh flash IMHO, also too overprocessed Poco a poco 19:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poco, could be nice a long exposition shoot with low light. (Use tripod) --The Photographer 14:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversharpened, see hairs. --Cayambe 12:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Cayambe 12:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)