Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 08 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Albarine devant l'église Saint-Antoine de Saint-Rambert-en-Bugey - 18 mai 2014.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination La rivière Albarine à Saint-Rambert le 18 mai 2014.--Classiccardinal 07:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support A bit dark, but still ok --Poco a poco 09:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    {{o}} Bad crop (See note). Too dark (but not underexposed IMO).--Lmbuga 18:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark. -- Spurzem 08:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)   Support The new version is OK. -- Spurzem 22:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Est-ce mieux ainsi?--Classiccardinal 09:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  •   weak support QI for me now--Lmbuga 10:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support good quality (pour moi c'est chouette).- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QK for me --Isiwal 16:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Merci les gars--Classiccardinal 14:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support Oui, c`est mieux ainsi. Bonne qualité. --Johann Jaritz 06:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 10:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Byland Abbey MMB 08.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Byland Abbey. Mattbuck 06:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      Comment not sharp on left. Pleclown 11:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion At right too and both sides are leaning in --Christian Ferrer 11:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      Done Mattbuck 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
      Oppose Please brighten up the shadows and dampen the highlights in the sky. Current exposure control is not good. -- Slaunger 11:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      Support Ok --Billy69150 09:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support it's acceptable but I agree that a little brightening and a bit more of clarity too could be a good thing here --Christian Ferrer 05:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for QI.- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Muíños_do_Folón._O_Rosal._Galiza-7.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Watermill of o Folón, O Rosal, Galicia (Spain)-7 --Lmbuga 10:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Insufficient quality. Too blurrish in the background, especially the right upper corner. As always: Third opinion appreciated! --Hubertl 11:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      Done Let's discuss. New version. Upper side less blurried IMO. Sufficient for 5,277 × 3,518 pixels IMO--Lmbuga 16:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support accceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 05:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support new version is ok for me.--Hubertl 20:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me.--Johann Jaritz 06:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 10:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Seagull March 2015-1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A Yellow-legged gull (‘’Laris michahellis’’) photographed in contre-jour. Alvesgaspar 20:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose I'm afraid this is nothing like as good as your picture (Seagull July 2014-3.jpg) illustrating the Wikipedia article. --Charlesjsharp 21:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC) 21:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This is QIC, not WP FPC -- Alvesgaspar 21:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice image but the little overexpositions on the ground and the head are a bit disturbing IMO --Christian Ferrer 05:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed, ca (or what ever a line it is around the animal, visible especially above the head) and lost colour (light blue) on the cervical. --Hockei 08:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 12:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Hoverfly_(Eupeodes_corollae)_female.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hoverfly (Eupeodes corollae) female --Charlesjsharp 16:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality --Billy69150 09:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Leaf unsharp and very noisy. --Daniel Case 05:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The leaf is not supposed to be in focus in this macro shot! New version with noise reduced. --Charlesjsharp 09:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Better but still not enough (And if shooting macroes with a shallow DoF, it's probably better to avoid angles with prominent reflected light, since they'll make the blur that much more obvious and distracting. Daniel Case 16:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough especially the head. The QI bar for insects is quite high. Alvesgaspar 19:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 00:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Boat passing ruined lighthouse, Teluk Penyu Beach, Cilacap 2015-03-21.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Boat passing ruined lighthouse, Teluk Penyu Beach, Cilacap --Crisco 1492 06:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose The upper part of the picture looks overexposed. If not, the weather was not good enough for taking a Quality Image.--Jebulon 09:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    No highlights are blown, and the details of the clouds are all visible. There's no requirement in the criteria for QIs to be taken on clear days. Crisco 1492 09:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I don't like the detail: The subject is too little and could be cropped. Dark and without detail areas IMO--Lmbuga 20:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Already cropped out of the original. A bit of leading room shows that the boat is going somewhere, and not just idling.Crisco 1492 08:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. Cannot see severe technical problems or mistakes caused by the photographer. Of course with an expensive high end lens and a more recent DSLR noise and sharpness could be somewhat better. -- Smial 09:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Am saving up for a 6D, though by the time I have the money the 6D Mark II will probably be out.Crisco 1492 01:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I would not change the camera body if it is not defective. The 60D is somewhat outdatet, but not a bad camera. A new camera is not necessarily a guarantee to get better pictures ;-) -- Smial 10:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's a good picture, but I'm not sure: Prefer "neutral" vote and not look like I am opposed--Lmbuga 19:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Smial --DKrieger 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Question Is the file size: 886 KB, is acceptable for IQ?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • According to the criteria, we set the minimum by megapixels. This image is 3 megapixels, above the minimum. It was saved at Photoshop 11, so there shouldn't be any JPG artefacting (the usual peril with low file size).Crisco 1492 00:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support   Thank you. In this case, good for QI.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 06:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Industar_61_LD_58_f28.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Industar 61 L/D 58 mm f/2.8 --Denis Barthel 15:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support Good quality. --XRay 15:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, see notes --Hubertl 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, as Hubertl. Several dust spots (see notes). Greenish IMO--Lmbuga 17:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree,--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Walhalla in Donaustauf bei Regensburg.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Walhalla (Danube), Donaustauf near Regensburg, Bavaria, Germany Hilarmont 06:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too strong distortion. --Cccefalon 06:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree - I think it's dramatic and QI --Bsmalley 01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cccefalon --Code 05:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will have a try with the image today... Hilarmont 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    ich glaub nicht, dass es geht. Das war schon vom Architekten so beabsichtigt. Nur können wir ihn ja nicht mehr befragen. Aber jeder der da schon mal hochgegangen ist, hat genau diesen Eindruck bekommen, wenn auch durch sein eigenes Hirn korrigiert. --Hubertl 14:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Hubertl: Gehen tut es schon, nur mit recht aufwändigen Methoden weil dann auf gewissen Seiten etwas fehlt. ;o) Ich lasse das hier aber vorerst ins leere Laufen. :) Hilarmont 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too high contrast leads to clipping in the clouds, and lost detail in dark areas. Also CA (red-green). -- Smial 09:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cccefalon: Too strong distortion.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 10:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sesimbra March 2015-6a.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 18th century pannel of azulejos in the Church of Nossa Senhora do Castelo, Sesimbra, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 09:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Can you fill the bottom left corner? --C messier 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done Thank you for noticing Alvesgaspar 20:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Both sides leaning out. Mattbuck 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think that this type of detailed reviewing is useful. Maybe it is leaning but the angle is so small that it doesn't affect the overall quality of the image. To CR thus. Alvesgaspar 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Mattbuck.--Hubertl 09:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy and somewhat unsharp corners. Why ISO800 and f/4 with a non moving subject? -- Smial 10:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the upper right corner is disturbing --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Colchicum montanum MHNT 2007.40.99.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination fruits and seeds of colchicum of Pyreneen - Fruits et graines de Colchique des Pyrénées --Ercé 16:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    Cut-out is way too jagged.Crisco 1492 01:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      Info new version --Ercé 10:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still really rough along the tendril. Crisco 1492 03:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
    • Cut-out is still disturbing.Crisco 1492 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. --Bff 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Crisco 1492. Try feathering your mask by a few (maybe 3) pixels. --El Grafo 13:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 20:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Cardona March 2015-6a.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View from the Castle of Cardona to north, Spain -- Alvesgaspar 10:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It feels a bit washed out - could you reduce the blue shadows and midtones? Also I think there are a couple of dust spots. Mattbuck 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done Alvesgaspar 20:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't see any difference between the versions. Mattbuck 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is some difference in the contrast and saturation. Anyway this is what the scene looked like when the shot was made. A careful exam of the detail will show that the colours are not washed up and that image quality is very good. Alvesgaspar 21:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sending the nomination to CR, as the above comment doesn't seem to help and has the practical effect of an oppose vote. Alvesgaspar 19:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Park_przy_Kaskadach_(10).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Park on the way to Cascade. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment its tilted ccw. --Hubertl 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done New fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 12:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me now. --Hubertl 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The left side is leaning out slightly. --Mattbuck 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Code 14:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Code 11:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Reading railway station MMB 82 70802 43037 43172.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Reading railway station. Mattbuck 07:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support - Good quality. --Cccefalon 08:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA along the platform edge. --Steindy 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy:   Done Mattbuck 09:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 13:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 10:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:London MMB »0O0 Silwood Junction 378204.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 378204 at Silwood Junction. Mattbuck 07:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA on two rails on the bottom right. --Steindy 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy: I couldn't actually see any CA, but I have desaturated it anyway. Mattbuck 09:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate composition due to crop at the bottom --Moroder 20:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    What's unfortunate about it? I liked that crop - showed the downness well. Mattbuck 08:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Moroder --Isiwal 17:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Echternach, Place du Marche = beschermd erfgoed positie1 foto6 2014-06-09 10.03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Echternach-Luxemburg, view to a street --Michielverbeek 20:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry unsharp,noise and need perspective --Livioandronico2013 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Repairable, IMO --Hubertl 08:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think,see note --Livioandronico2013 13:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose you are right Livioandronico2013, But why do we meet each other always at the gargoyle themes? ;-)

--Hubertl 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak   Support. Noise reduction without loss of too much detail is difficult, but possible. -- Smial 09:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Per Smial --Palauenc05 06:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. QI admissible--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Lasiommata_megera_-_Wall_brown.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A sunbathing Wall brown (Lasiommata megera). Canyon Kapıkaya, Karaisalı - Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support OK for me. --Hubertl 02:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not for me. Insufficient quality in my eyes. --Hockei 13:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for QI. --Code 05:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs be cropped IMO; and, ather cropped, the subject id too little and with poor detail.
  • Please sign in! --Code 16:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC))