Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 04 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Puerto_Vallarta_-_Jalisco_-_March_2023_-_015.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Nature as Mother, Puerto Vallarta --Another Believer 01:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 08:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but oversharpened IMO. It looks fine on the stones, but spoils sky and sea. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 12:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support DOF okay here and overall good quality. --Milseburg 14:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Horizon should be adjusted. --XRay 03:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good compostion, but   Overprocessed. Additionally I agree with LexKurochkin and XRay. --Augustgeyler 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 13:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Puerta_de_Halle,_Bruselas,_Bélgica,_2021-12-15,_DD_84-85_HDR.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Porte de Hal, Brussels, Belgium --Poco a poco 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Very nice image. But it lacks sharpness. --Augustgeyler 08:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment If you expect to have a sharp image from top to bottom under difficult lighting conditions, that will not happen. I believe that it's indeed sharp and the dof can be the choice of the photographer in cases like this one. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
      • @Poco a poco: I completely agree with you. But I could not find any point where the focus could be found. Where was the focus intended to be? --Augustgeyler 12:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support If I take into account the image resolution provided, then the knight figure that was focused on is without a doubt sharp enough. Whether the scene could have been better represented by a different camera location or other camera settings, I cannot judge. However, the height (or depth) of this building is actually well represented and the depth of field reinforces this rather positively. I'm not entirely happy with the tricky lighting, apparently from several different light sources, but I suppose that can't be changed, and overall it doesn't seem unnatural to me. --Smial 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support sometimes impossible because of the environment, but good enough to be QI. IMHO. --Rjcastillo (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)