Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2011

Consensual review edit

File:Moon Marki 19032011 2.JPG edit

  • Nomination Full Moon through clouds from Marki, Poland. --Crusier 08:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Nice. --Mattbuck 12:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
     Comment In the sky you'll see several red dots and one purple dot. What are they? --Makele-90 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
     Info Hot pixels, I fixed it. Check now. --Crusier 13:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much darkness, too small. --Yikrazuul 14:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Yikrazuul. To me, poor quality--Lmbuga 01:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 15:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Monument aux morts de Castetner .JPG edit

  • Nomination Castetner War memorial, France --France64160 14:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline house cutted off at right --Carschten 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    ✓ Done fixed --France64160 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Wire shadow on the monument, tight crop of the building.--Jebulon 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Miracle des billettes Saint etienne du Mont.jpg edit

  • Nomination Early 17th century stained glass window in church Saint-Etienne du Mont, Paris.--Jebulon 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Seems to suffer from the same CA problems as your previous (withdrawn) nomination, especially visible at the bottom sections. Qiqritiq 06:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
     Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 12:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but the bottom sections were especially very carefully reworked...--Jebulon 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    That's a pity, it seems to be a difficult object to make picture of without disturbing CA. Qiqritiq 21:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 Question In way to improve, could you please annotate CA ? Thank you --Jebulon 22:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any CA. Very nice, QI to me. --Avenue 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Autre vue du lavoir Tramezaïgues.jpg edit

  • Nomination Wash, Tramezaïgues, France --France64160 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline good and useful --Mbdortmund 11:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry I disagree, in my opinion too low quality for QI, because of JPEG compression artifacts, notably in overhead wires. --D4m1en 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose + Bad composition: to tight crop at right.--Jebulon 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Scutalus_alauda_01.JPG edit

  • Nomination Shell of a Peruvian land snail, Scutalus alauda --Llez 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeUnfortunately not sharp. Qiqritiq 06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Insufficient for FP, but enough to QI, for this definition. --Archaeodontosaurus 10:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me a QI Holleday 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Parasol-macrolepiota procera.jpg edit

  • Nomination Macrolepiota procera (Growth-7 days) --Holleday 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support good --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
     Support Very good, I suggest going to VA --Archaeodontosaurus 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please remove the ugly black border. Qiqritiq 18:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)~ 06:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC) seems fine now, though the heave black line in the middle could also be reduced. Qiqritiq 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good QI. --David Perez 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
     Support Good --Llez 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
     Question Who is User null??? Must be checked! Has he the right to vote? --Llez (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • That was me, something went awry with the java script. And don't be so paranoid, every logged in user can vote. Qiqritiq 18:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Bagatelle Paris cascade.jpg edit

  • Nomination Cascade in the park of Bagatelle, Paris, France. --Myrabella 07:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support some minor CA, but overall very good --Carschten 10:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but I find the CA quite bothersome. --Jovianeye 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've tried to reduce it a bit. New version uploaded. --Myrabella (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 Support Its better now. --Jovianeye 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Carschten.--Jebulon 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good QI. --David Perez 06:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality Remi Mathis 06:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Николай_II_-_Государь_в_тужурке_._Серов_В.А..jpg edit

  • Nomination Nicolaus II. Portret by Serov --Vitold Muratov 18:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good. --Jovianeye 18:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    Fails the COM:QIC#Creator requirement. A.Savin 07:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    "Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible" - I dont see any issues. --Jovianeye 17:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Comment It is impossible to understand the data of the image. I am against while they are not more intelligible (I can understand several languages)--Lmbuga 00:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose see above (¿can you translate the data to es, gl, pt, en, fr, it, ro, ca or other language than I can, easily, translate with a automatic translator? Which is the language of the image?--Miguel Bugallo 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 Comment Valentin Alexandrovich Serov: January 19, 1865 - December 5, 1911. I don't know why |Date=1913, but Serov's works is in public domain. Lvova 12:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 Comment The language of the image is Russian. (That is so frequent in use as Spain language).But the data is wrong.This picture was made earlier December 5,1911.Vitold Muratov 23.13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 Comment Ok. So the data in the sourcebook is wrong. I tried to find a date: my version is 1900-1904, 1900 is more possible (see descripiton page). The paint in public domain, so I'm think that promote, but if Vitold Muratov'll help with the date, it would be better then my description. Lvova 20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Looking for "Guidelines" on QIC page I see the Creator section. It states: "Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. ... Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible." But this image is not made by Wikimedian, it is done by some other photographer.--PereslavlFoto 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Euro-manifestation - Brussels - 24-03-2011 (17).jpg edit

  • Nomination Policeman and water canon during a demonstration in Brussels --M0tty 23:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Mattbuck 17:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The policemans and water canon are not overexposed. The background is overexposed, but it's not the subject. --M0tty 21:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
QI is about technical quality and this fails at being a technically good photo due to the large amount of overexposure. Mattbuck 22:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --per Mattbuck. --Elekhh 03:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 21:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Euston railway station MMB 16 350247.jpg edit

  • Nomination 350247 at Euston. Mattbuck 12:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline A little confusing... I think --Tyw7 22:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    How do you mean? Mattbuck 12:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    Like the rail line. Anyways, I will switch to discussion if you want. --Tyw7 23:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A few compositional shortfalls, perhaps none fatal on the their own, but they add up. Probably too much lead room, definitely too much head room, and the post in front of the train is distracting. --Avenue 10:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Grantham MMB 03 Nottingham to Grantham Line 158774.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Maker's mark on a double-glazed window. Mattbuck 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment Is this free to use, or is it classed as a deriviate of a logo? --V-wolf 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    I hadn't thought of that, the logo could very well be PD-ineligible, or PD-old, I think it's a British Standards mark. Mattbuck 07:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    If you're still unsure, DR it. Mattbuck 09:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I was hoping someone here among all the pros could give an answer and review the picture. --V-wolf 13:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 00:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:2010-09-07-pilze-by-RalfR-20.jpg edit

  • Nomination eine junge "Braunkappe" --Ralf Roletschek 12:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good --Jebulon 10:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not. Insufficient DOF, to little detail. Camera issue? --Qiqritiq 13:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 21:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noised and oversaturated, sorry -- George Chernilevsky 09:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I like the composition, but for a stationary object I would have used a slower shutter speed which would have allowed a lower ISO setting (less noise) , and a larger f stop number (deeper depth of field). --Tony Wills 09:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, I agree with Qiqritiq, George Chernilevsky and Tony Wills, very little DOF and noise, but not especially from the ISO but from the global composition. Next time, you should lower the shutter speed and increasing f values ​​of 8 or higher. --DPC (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sofia Synagogue 11c.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sofia Synagogue east elevation. --MrPanyGoff 22:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blown highlights at top center --Daniel Case 01:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Blown highlights cannot be seen here, give another reason for opposition, please.--MrPanyGoff 18:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
  •  Support Seems OK to me Remi Mathis 07:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jebulon 22:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that the above calculation is not correct.--MrPanyGoff 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about that, formatting and sum are always corrected before closure, but I fixed it for now. --Elekhh 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Arvicola sapidus 02 by-dpc.jpg edit

  • Nomination Southwestern Water Vole (Arvicola sapidus), León (Spain). --David Perez 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support some CA but imo acceptable --Mbdortmund 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much CA, especially on the vole, which matters. Qiqritiq 21:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment CA corrected, imo. --David Perez 10:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me a Ql and usefull Holleday 16:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice composition, good quality, and useful indeed. Cookie 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Much improved. How did you do it? Qiqritiq 21:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --MarisaLR 13:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Congratulation for the correction --Archaeodontosaurus 15:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Col de Labays8.jpg edit

  • Nomination Cows at the Col de Labays, France --France64160 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Supportyes, no FP quality, but I like it and it's imo good enough for QI --Carschten 16:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 Comment QI is not for second rate FPs. FP usually requires images to be of a QI standard but also having some "wow" factor that makes them stand out. --Tony Wills 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI like it too, but the technical side is insufficient for a QI: too many compression/camera artifacts. Qiqritiq 06:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Qiqritiq. But I regret because it lacks little technically to make it good. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Louis XIV Versailles Cartellier Petitot Crozatier.jpg edit

  • Nomination Louis XIV. Versailles.--Jebulon 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportTrès bien découpé. --Cayambe 20:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but do you really think that this is QI? Upper part of statue is not sharp and disturbing white background. I do not agree with QI status. --Chmee2 10:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment do you really think that this is QI? Yes, the first reviewer thought so, obviously. Maybe he his wrong, maybe not, but I think he is nor blind neither stupid... It should be better to avoid comments of comments...--Jebulon 17:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Cayambe --Llez 21:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This picture is not perfect but it's better than many images promoted here --Croucrou 23:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I dont like the white mask used. It's not pleasant on the eyes. Perhaps you should change the colour of the mask.--Jovianeye 03:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Jovianeye 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry my friends, but there is no mask here, neither " cut", but only the natural color of the sky over Versailles this day !! Thanks for reviews, but It may change many votes...--Jebulon 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Qiqritiq 21:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality considering the lighting, which I agree creates a harsh contrast. Slightly tilted CCW; QI to me nonetheless. BTW, I learnt a little something new here - I wasn't aware that horseshoes could have studs. --Avenue 10:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thank you. Yes they have. Now (today), Parade horses (Régiment de Cavalerie de la Garde Républicaine in France, for example) or Police horses have some, for they have to work and walk on "urban" slippery grounds.--Jebulon 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Blancpain Endurance Series - BMW Z4 - 022.jpg edit

  • Nomination BMW Z4--Thesupermat 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Tilted --Jovianeye 02:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • C'est volontaire--Thesupermat 12:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support That sort of thing is common in motorsport photography. Apart from the tilt there's nothing wrong. Mattbuck 11:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Mattbuck. En la matière, le choix esthétique du photographe me parait devoir être respecté. Technically good (maybe crop a bit tight right nevertheless...)--Jebulon 09:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilt and upright format are imho not appropriate for wikipedia. --Berthold Werner 10:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. --Yikrazuul 18:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted.--Lmbuga 00:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All votes under this line are given after the maximum CR time period of 8 days and are thus void, I'm very sorry. --Carschten 12:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Of course, it's tilted but on purpose, to make a great composition! And the picture is technically good. Remi Mathis 14:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support technically good; Commons no is Wikipedia, its usuable for other projects. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good DOF and composition. Inisheer 15:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Tilt on purpose, technically fine. Qiqritiq 21:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jebulon and Remi Mathis. --Avenue 10:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Reopen under rules stating closure after a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry. Mattbuck 17:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the minimum period of a CR is 48 hours (always after last entry), but the final maximum period is 8 day (independent of the last entry). So IMO the voting period is over. --Carschten 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 Info The 8 day thing was just added as a timeout for when no decision can be made and there is no on going discussion. The basic idea is to try and reach a decision and keep it open so long as comments/votes are coming in at a rate of at least one every two days. But if it is obvious that there is no discussion or a draw, then to close it after 8 days. Discussion can continue forever if further comments or votes are coming in until there is a break for at least 2 days. If there is a break for at least two days, and a decision can be made, then the entry can be closed - but it doesn't have to be closed at that point, but it can be if desired. There is no point in closing an entry without a decision as the image can simply be re-submitted, might as well strive for a decision when we can. --Tony Wills 22:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? Mattbuck 17:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Inzlingen - Katholische Kirche2.jpg edit

 I withdraw my nomination --Taxiarchos228 07:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guildford MMB 03 University of Surrey.jpg edit

  • Nomination University of Surrey stag statue (renom after CR timeout). Mattbuck 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Previous discussion here. I disagree with the legalistic closure previously, as stated in other occasions. Nevertheless, if it is reopened my opinion regarding the qualities of the image remains. --Elekhh 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • But it was not promoted and the closure was correct. Please use discussion page instead. --Mbdortmund 22:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 Comment The idea of CR is to get a decision, closing off the nomination without a decision was pointless when there were in fact subsequent votes that came to a conclusion. As it was closed without a decision it can of course be re-nominated. Normally if there is no decision it is because it is marginal, or uninteresting, so no great point in re-nominating. But in this case there was actually sufficient votes for a decision, the no-decision closure was unnecessary, and just necessitates this re-nomination. I hope all those who voted originally will vote again, in a timely fashion this time :-) --Tony Wills 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support again... --Carschten 09:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me, the people in front is disturbing. --Bgag 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same opinion, the person should have been removed --Archaeodontosaurus 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

File:AKW Biblis 05.jpg edit

  • Nomination Biblis Nuclear Power Plant (Germany), cooling towers and core from block A seen from North-West --PS-2507 09:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose IMHO bad composition, what is main object power plant, or water?; overexposed at cooling tower --Jagro 13:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Water is needing for cooling, so it should be of course a part in the composition. The small blown out parts aren't disturbing and because of sun almost inevitable. The quality is very good and it's a picture with high EV about a current much-debated topic --Carschten 17:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - good composition, but unsharp at the left side and crop a bit too tight. -- Felix Koenig 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg edit

  • Nomination Notre-Dame de Paris, this 2 april 2011, morning.--Jebulon 17:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Nice view but perspective should be corrected --Mbdortmund 18:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. It was ! What is wrong, please ?--Jebulon 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support ok imho. Vielleicht eine optische Täuschung durch die Diagnale? --Berthold Werner 13:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think I know what Mbdortmund means, I made image annotations. The composition is nice, but the quality isn't very good, too: the image is soft and there are hard chromatic aberrations (visible already at 100%, conspicuous at above 300%/400%). Should be discussed imo, sorry... --Carschten 17:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Danke alle ! Ich bin gar nicht einverstanden mit perspektive problemen, alles ist gut für mich. Please notice that the bridge is not strictly perpendicular to the point of view. But I agree with you regarding the CA (not so biiiig !), and I'll correct this soon. Merci pour ces revues germaniques !--Jebulon 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support convinced by Jebulons annotation --Mbdortmund 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 06:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:2009-11-28-fahrradmesse-by-RalfR-13.jpg edit

  • Nomination Hub Dynamo --Ralf Roletschek 18:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion CA red and blue in the left part, unsharp in nearest part.--PereslavlFoto 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see any visible or disturbing CA and it is sharp where it matters. --Niabot 20:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I feel the same: there is no technical problem in the photograph. However the caption is too much reduced. It lacks the size of the constructor's name ...--Archaeodontosaurus 06:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Niabot --Carschten 15:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Support No useful description. Keine sinnvolle Beschreibung. Gerne pro, wenn das repariert ist. -- Smial 15:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    ok, wenn du Recht hast... ;) --Ralf Roletschek 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    Nuja, Beschreibung ist wichtig, und mir soll keiner nachsagen, ich würde nach Nase abstimmen :-) -- smial (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 06:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Paysage depuis Castetner vue 2.JPG edit

  • Nomination Point of view from Castetner, France --France64160 14:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Too much empty sky. Rule of thirds...--Jebulon 23:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done fixed --France64160 14:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Bien meilleur. Merci. Tu aurais pu/du garder les couleurs originales. Mais maintenant ça penche !!.--Jebulon 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of compression artefacts. Wetenschatje 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 06:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Grenzach_-_Rathaus.jpg edit

  • Nomination Grenzach: City hall --Taxiarchos228 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support --AFBorchert 20:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose vertical distortion --Tlusťa 07:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • There is no vertical distortion --Taxiarchos228 07:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC
  • {{o}} Per Tlusťa--Lmbuga 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Support Ok. No vertical distortion, perhaps a little horizontal distortion (correction of vertical distorion), but good --Lmbuga 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Cayambe 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:SeagullBansin7.jpg edit

  • Nomination A young gull (Larus argentatus (immature)) --BennyJ 14:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Too much (oversharpened) noise, a halo around the head and too harsh lighting. Dunno how you made so much noise at ISO 100... --Grand-Duc 15:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll try to fix the sharpening later. Noise seems ok to me though, but I'll apply some filtering for that as well. --BennyJ 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Problems fixed, thanks for your help @Grand-Duc --BennyJ 07:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support It seems to be OK by now. Grand-Duc 00:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would love to see the original (non photoshopped) image straight from the camera, could you perhaps upload it as a separate file? --Tony Wills 11:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    There is none. I shoot in RAW only so there is no original image and every image gets "photoshopped" to some extent. The older version can be found in the history. However, the differences are rather subtil (a bit darker, more noise, too much sharpness). --BennyJ 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    Isn't there any small JPEG preview image in the RAW file that could serve this purpose? Regards, Grand-Duc 11:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont keep the RAW anyway cause I convert everything to DNG. The DNG contains a preview but as far as I know it's created by the converter using default settings (or gets overwritten once you change something in CR). At least it doesn't look like the JPEGs that would come straight from the camera. Aside from that, I don't see what this should be useful for after all, since it would just be another (and usually worse) way of interpreting the RAW. --BennyJ 12:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The original uploaded image shows photoshop in the EXIF data, the image background exhibits a sort of criss-cross pattern characteristic of some sharpening/smoothing processing. I am wondering how much this processing has affected the definition of the feathers. I would have expected that a photo of this resolution from a good camera, at low ISO, would have shown much better definition of the feathers at full resolution. So could I see the image with default conversion straight from the DNG, or even the DNG file (you could email it)? --Tony Wills 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It shows Photoshop in the EXIF cause I use CR as my RAW(DNG)-to-RGB-converter which is, of course, a Photoshop plugin. So the resulting JPEG image (original version) has been saved - but not processed - by Photoshop. I don't wanna hand out the DNG actually, sorry. But you can trust me: I'm not interested in making things look worse than they need to :) The image wasn't shot under perfect conditions and the lens isn't so great either, so I'm sorry if the quality does not meet your expectations as to what a 60D image should look like. Next time I'll pay more attention and avoid some little mistakes I did on this one. --BennyJ 22:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support little CA at the edge of the bird, but for QI it is okay. nevertheless I would scale the image down (66 % of original size): (1) it is enough resulution (2) the little technical problems are not as good visible --Taxiarchos228 12:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sergey Lukyanenko MOW 03-2011.jpg edit

  • Nomination Russian sci-fi writer Sergey Lukyanenko. A.Savin 15:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sure he hasn't red hair so the strong CAs at the hair of his occiput should be fixed. Otherwise very good. --Carschten 15:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI --Ralf Roletschek 05:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 13:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gleitschirmflieger qtl1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Paraglider closeup. --Quartl 17:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Carschten 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose halo --Carschten 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 Neutral very good correction. Because there's still a little halo, I do not support, but I of course don't oppose, so I abstain. --Carschten 15:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to remove the halo - better now? --Quartl 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good now --BennyJ 11:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 15:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gorki 5470.jpg edit

  • Nomination Walkway to the museum «Ganshin Manor», Gorki village. --PereslavlFoto 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • overexposed --Carschten 08:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
What place is 255,255,255 bright white colour?--PereslavlFoto 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Where did I write something about blown out places? --Carschten 09:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
What is overexposed then? The whole picture looks too bright for you? Well, as for me, it is not too bright, and some spots in the picture are even too dark... Hope to get others' thoughts.--PereslavlFoto 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment in picture. This is a Sun, its light cannot be managed. The exposition is corrected to show the whole picture, so the sun-beamed places are brighter. Still there is no overexposition, all colours and details are clearly visible. And the tree is bright yellow because of Autumn time.--PereslavlFoto 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Parts of the plants are unsharp, perhaps motion blur. --Mbdortmund 16:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please make me an advice about how to stop the leaves from moving and the wind from blowing?--PereslavlFoto 16:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
1/40 Sek. is simply too long for this situation. --Mbdortmund 23:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Tripod used. The lightning conditions (dark clouds and sudden sun beams) did not allow to use shorter times with f/9 aperture for correct DOF. ISO 100 on canon 350d is the only possible setting to avoid any colour noise. And there was to aim to photo the leaves and branches; the aim was to photo the walkway in whole.--PereslavlFoto 08:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 06:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:HH-110314-19808-Blohm-Voss.jpg edit

  • Nomination Blohm+Voss Dock --Mbdortmund 19:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    levels adjusted
  •  Support Good composition and fine "schietwetter"-(bad weather)photo --Alupus 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - and not underexposed for topic "bad weather" --Alupus (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed --Carschten 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC) - and underexposed, no matter for which topic. --Carschten 19:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info Looking at the histogram for the image, it is definitely under-exposed, I adjusted it using the levels tool in GIMP, and have posted the result above. It retains the "bad weather" mood. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hab's mal aus dem Raw ein wenig verstellt. --Mbdortmund 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed, as Carschten--Lmbuga 00:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All votes under this line are given after the maximum CR time period of 8 days and are thus void. --Carschten 12:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think your new version shows technically ok exposure, personally I would probably tweek it a bit more to bring out the buildings --Tony Wills 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reopen under rules stating closure after a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry. Mattbuck 17:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good new version. --David Perez 11:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

*{{opp}} Underexposed and not sharp enough. To me, at right, vertical distortion--Lmbuga 21:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I can't vote 2 times --Lmbuga 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  •  Support es gibt nicht nur Sonnenschein --Ralf Roletschek 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp on the top of the photo. And too dark also.--PereslavlFoto 16:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Town hall in Trogir.JPG edit

  • Nomination Trogir - town hall --Pudelek 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tight crop.--PereslavlFoto 16:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
geocoding is not required in QI --Pudelek 18:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
GC is not required (and it is supplemented) --Tlusťa 9:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice view, minor CA, otherwise ok. -- Smial 15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop. It is possible to get the whole left side of the building on the picture, see here. --Quartl 17:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Quartl--Lmbuga 18:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I don't particularly think the cropping looks good. Sugar-Baby-Love 21:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Bronze eagle from the german Reichskanzlei.jpg edit

  • Nomination The famous Nazi Eagle that often stood behind Hitler --Tyw7 10:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Background is (c) by Евгений Халдей; † 1997 - copyright violation --Ralf Roletschek 10:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? I took the picture... --Tyw7 11:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, unsharp, bad exposure, heavy distortions. Sorry, I do not expect high end equipment for a QI, elaborated pix from compact cameras are ok. But this is not. -- Smial 14:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial--Lmbuga 17:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not even worth to think about QI on this one. Really bad image. --BennyJ 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with the above comments. Sugar-Baby-Love 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 15:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Hauingen_-_Fasnachtsbrunnen.jpg edit

  • Nomination Hauingen: carnival water well --Taxiarchos228 06:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose DOF is too shallow (whole wheel should have been in focus) and crop is too tight (whole basin should have been visible). Qiqritiq 07:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • the whole wheel is in focus. --Taxiarchos228 07:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support all ist sharp, lets discuss. --Ralf Roletschek 18:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeComposition. The crop is too tight at right, sorry.--Jebulon 10:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition, but tight crop (on the right side), wrong colours (red clouds), the wheel needs to be sharp.--PereslavlFoto 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Male Anas platyrhynchos breeding plumage side portrait.jpg edit

  • Nomination A portrait of a male of Anas platyrhynchos in breeding plumage. --Grand-Duc 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support stange crop, good quality --Carschten 16:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is not good, since there is way too much headroom, please propose a different crop. --Quartl 17:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
     CommentDo you have any suggestion where I can place the cuts? I'm without a good clue at the moment. :-) Grand-Duc 14:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    It is always a good idea to apply the rule of thirds. Currently, the eye is right in the center of the image. Cutting away 1/4 of the height of the image from the top would place the eye on the 1/3-line. Maybe also crop a bit from the left and the right to keep the aspect ratio. --Quartl (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    At the moment of the shot, I thought about a horizontal composition, where there are three bands. The lower one find its limits by the horizontal line that could be drawn on the top of the back of the duck, the upper has a limit at the change of structure in the background. There should be also two eye guiding lines: the diagonals intersect approximately in the eye, the beak and the back of the head equally sit on them. I'll try a rule-of-the-third based crop later. Regards, Grand-Duc 10:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Quartl--Lmbuga 14:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)(UTC)
  •  Support It is a pretty standard compositional technique to place the eye on the vertical center line. -- King of Hearts 05:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --King of Hearts 05:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sarcoscypha-jurana-kelchbecherling.jpg edit

  • Nomination The rare Sarcoscypha jurana--Holleday 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I like the colours and the accentuation of the diagonal --Llez 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Large part of subject blown out in the red channel. --Avenue 23:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Support The previously blown-out part still doesn't show as much detail as other parts, but I think it's good enough. --Avenue 21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree, the red is significantly blown. If you still have the raw file, you can try converting the image to a different colorspace. --Quartl 10:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Better now. --Quartl 19:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I can see real colors and textures of mushroom and moss around. Technically good. --David Perez 07:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello, at the original picture I didn´t change the colours. Now you see a new version with a minimised red colour. What do you think about it? Many greetings--Holleday 16:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good --BennyJ 14:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support What Llez said. Sugar-Baby-Love 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Asperitas_inquinata_penidae_01.JPG edit

  • Nomination Shell of an Indonesian land snail, Asperitas inquinata penidae --Llez 13:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Really sharp, but perhaps (I'm not sure) chromatic aberrations. Probably very good--Lmbuga 14:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, now I think that the image is very good--Lmbuga 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Question Did you use stacking? Qiqritiq 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Info Yes, otherwise it is impossible to reach this DOF with f/5 (Diameter of the shell only 3,3 cm) --Llez 05:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      •  Oppose It didn't exactly work out perfectly here: some shells are sharp on top, sharp on the bottom image, but blurry in the middle. Qiqritiq 07:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 15:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 06:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Rather visually appealing. Sugar-Baby-Love 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Minsk Metro in 2010 - Construction site on Dzerzhinsky avenue.jpg edit

File:Rajpoots_2.png edit

  • Nomination Rajpoots --Jovianeye 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • cannot be QI, becaUse not made by a wikipedian, if I'm not wrong.--Jebulon 22:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • It can be a QI. It is a scanned reproduction by a Commons User. The QI rule says "Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible" --Jovianeye 00:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent quality, horrible thumbnail! This is no less a Wikipedian's work than File:Résurrection Corneille cartouche central 2.jpg, for example. --Avenue 04:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to remove my technical opposition because it seems I was wrong. But the comparison between a two dimensional scan of a whole engraving (very fine work, indeed) and a photograph of a detail of a fresco vault is totally wrong too. Assuming good faith is sometimes very hard... I know it does not look like a personal attack, but it is, obviously, even if well done.--Jebulon (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I meant no offense, but it seems I have offended you. I'm sorry. Using your photo as an example was clearly not as clever as I thought. I'll also happily apologise if my analogy is incorrect. It still seems true to me, though. I think both images are meant to be accurate copies of an essentially two dimensional artwork, and both would be copyright violations if the artwork was younger. Yes, one used a scanner, the other a camera, but I don't see any real difference. --Avenue 16:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Jovianeye 15:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Château de Versailles, salon de la paix, buste d'empereur romain (Othon).jpg edit

  • Nomination Bust of roman emperor Otho, Versailles. --Coyau 07:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good.--Jebulon 21:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Light spot distracting. --Elekhh 05:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the lower left corner is too bright. --Avenue 13:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 16:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto_-_ON_-_CN_Tower_from_Harbor2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Toronto: CN Tower --Taxiarchos228 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment looks a bit ccw tilted to me --Carschten 18:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ja, es ist besser, aber Turm scheint immer noch nach links zu kippen... --Carschten 20:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten. I can't understand your words, but tilted. It is easily improvable--Lmbuga 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support looks straight enough, see my notice on the file. --Mbdortmund 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment It seems well to me that you see it different. Your note demonstrates for me that it is tilted. To me it's impossibel "enough": or tilted, or stright. It's easily improvable --Lmbuga 17:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support straight and good --BennyJ 08:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose really not straight --Carschten 14:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tower is right... but the right side building is not at all --Archaeodontosaurus 08:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Archaeodontosaurus 08:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Rheinfelden_-_Christuskirche.jpg edit

  • Nomination Rheinfelden: Christ church --Taxiarchos228 12:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice photo and colors. --Jagro 13:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I think that there are distortions: A little vertical distortion (the tower isn't right) and a big horizontal distortion (to me). Perhaps only to me. Perhaps the image can be QI and I am not right--Lmbuga 14:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • of course there are distortions, this is unavoidable and natural, so what? --Taxiarchos228 07:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment (spanish, sorry) No quiero discutir: Me siento perseguido. Retiro el voto y lo coloco como comentario. Para mí la imagen no es de calidad, pero no me siento con la verdad. Puedo aprender, aunque a veces sea tozudo. Un cordial saludo--Lmbuga 15:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI with all distortion - without no. --Ralf Roletschek 19:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mbdortmund says, «Parts of the plants are unsharp, perhaps motion blur».--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps some small distortions, doesn't bother me... overall seems rather nice. Sugar-Baby-Love 21:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I must vote Strong  'Oppose'--Lmbuga 17:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • would be very nice if you bring arguments --Taxiarchos228 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Kommentare hat er ja oben abgegeben. Das Spanische heißt etwa: "Ich will nicht streiten: Ich fühle mich verfolgt. Ich ziehe mein Votum zurück, und lesen Sie es als Kommentar. Für mich ist die Bildqualität nicht OK, aber ich bin nicht der alleinige Inhaber der Wahrheit. Ich kann lernen, wenn ich auch manchmal dickköpfig bin. Regards" mfg --Mbdortmund 17:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Arguments are in the note (Somebody has erased previous notes)--Lmbuga 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
          • The note can be deleted after the voting--Lmbuga 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Your argument is not comprehensible for me: why should be the distortion of the bell towers roof not okay but the distortion of the nave? And particularly: how you want seriously avoid distortion of a building that you photograph from a sloped angle? Every picture has distortions and that is how perspective-geometrical rules are working. Give an advise to make the picture better in your opinion. I am very curious about that. --Taxiarchos228 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Ok. Your better than me (it is what you wish to hear?), but I can have opinion--Lmbuga 20:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
                • For sure you can and my opinion is: your acquaintance in photographie is nearly 0. You can also have the opinion that the moon is a cube. ¡hasta luego! --Taxiarchos228 21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • To avoid those distortions you may use 2 steps. First (basic), get a shift lens. Second, get a scaffolding to avoid shooting from the ground. You may also use a truck-mounted raising cabin, or make a photo from some nearest building.--PereslavlFoto 21:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Comment poor english: Taxiarcos has been denounced: four or five times he deleted my note (see the history of the image).--Lmbuga 22:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Please stop this conflict immediatly, we had no serious problems here on QI since a long time and I hope it will not be necessary to stop this conflict as an admin. --Mbdortmund 22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Stop is impossible to me. I feel attacked in my right of vote and expression (see this and this)--Lmbuga 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Warum ist das leider überschriebene Originalfoto weniger stark verzerrt als der Kandidat? --Smial 07:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Wieso soll es weniger stark verzerrt sein? Die Dachkante vom Glockenturm fällt doch noch steiler ab (zumal in der ersten Version der Turm ja noch "stürzt"). Generell zur Situation vor Ort: will man Langhaus und Glockenturm zusammen abbilden bleibt nur diese Seite, die leider von einem (im Bild auch noch im Ansatz sichtbaren) Mäuerchen getrübt wird. Weniger Schräge in der Dachkante würde bedingen, dass ich mich mehr nach links bewege was wiederum dazu führt, dass das Langhaus stärker verzerrt würde und dazu (was noch schlimmer ist): man würde es weniger sehen. Zum Schluss noch: wieso müssen wir 5 Tonnen für ein QI diskutieren? Man könnte fast den Eindruck gewinnen hier ging es um FP. Sehr verwunderlich. --Taxiarchos228 07:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Distortions seams only natural to me. Otherwise sharp, light is ok. So no reason to deny it. --Niabot 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distortion exists --Archaeodontosaurus 07:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • and nobody negates this, every picture has distortions. --Taxiarchos228 09:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality, insignificant distortions are totally accepatable for a QI --BennyJ 09:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --BennyJ 09:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Breisacher_Altstadt.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Breisach --Taxiarchos228 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good view and quality --Smial 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose View is good but I don't agree in terms of quality. The white parts of the buildings are clearly overexposed/clipped, there's a strong lack of detail, especially at the sides (trees etc.) and the overall image is too soft. Don't think it deserves QI status. --BennyJ 11:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 10:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Mirów zamek 29.05.2010 p5.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ruins of the Mirów Castle, Poland --Przykuta 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose underexposed --BennyJ 08:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Imo the best one of the serie --Mbdortmund 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The underexposure gives it a dramatic mood IMO. Good use of contrast of light and dark. -- King of Hearts 05:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure is fine and picturesque. Colour noise is horrible, please clear the image with a noise reduction filter.--PereslavlFoto 16:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Elekhh 23:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:JJelcz M121I 4922 Marki 2.JPG edit

  • Nomination Jelcz M121I (#4922) in Marki, Poland. --Crusier 08:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Please add geotag. --Cayambe 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the wheel are cut by the foreground --Croucrou 22:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the vehicle is the thing that is to be shown on the photograph, you must see it completely. Not here. --A.Ceta 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Papaver somniferum 01 by-dpc.jpg edit

  • Nomination Opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) in Valladolid, Spain. --David Perez 06:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I think the harsh light from the flash spoils this image. --Quartl 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, the object is absolutely neat, the colors look pure and the image is technically correct and nice. Cookie 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree about the harsh light but for me it does not spoil the otherwise great image. Sugar-Baby-Love 21:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Too tightly cropped on top, dark shadows on foliage underneath, and IMO the light makes the flower look too unnatural. It does show lots of detail though. --Avenue 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Tightly cropped on top fixed. The other observations are impossible to change (shadows and flash light) or, imo, are personnal apreciations (unnatural). Thanks for your comments. --David Perez 14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for improving it. --Avenue 21:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Abstain Colors are great. My only objection would be towards the composition. A different angle would of been interesting. It would of permitted the viewer to appreciate the depth of the different parts of the flower. I'm truly ambivalent on this one, I abstain from voting. Good work though, keep it up. Nicolas M. Perrault 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Quartl and Avenue--Lmbuga 20:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:2010-01-03-schnee-im-nebel-by-RalfR-39.jpg edit

  • Nomination snow in the fog, River Oder in Poland --Ralf Roletschek 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment CAs needs a correction, snow in foreground looks a strange (see annotations) --Carschten 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support nice atmosphere --Mbdortmund 04:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment snow looks much better now. But a chromatic aberration correction is till needed --Carschten 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Guildford railway station MMB 10 455907.jpg edit

  • Nomination 455907 at Guildford. Mattbuck 18:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI, technically good --David Perez 21:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for me it's Underexposed, less discuss about it --Croucrou 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looking at a histogram of the colours in this image, I would say the image is perfectly exposed. Because of the painted white elements in the photo, if you exposed it for any longer they would be over-exposed. But presumeably it was an overcast day (no strong shadows), and the train itself is not very brightly lit. So apart from taking the photo when the train is better lit, or covering up anything glaringly white before taking the shot, the easiest way to keep QI reviewers happy would be to tweek the brightness levels with something like the "curves" tool in GIMP (which distorts reality but illustrates the train better). --Tony Wills 08:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Barrell distortion should be corrected --Mbdortmund 16:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to correct exposure, barrell distortion, perspective. Please delete my version, if you don't like it. --Mbdortmund 06:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition --A.Ceta 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Mbdortmund 00:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Furcifer_pardalis_03.JPG edit

  • Nomination Furcifer pardalis is watching you! --Llez 08:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 16:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nose is unsharp (low DOF) and there is strong flash reflectance --Chmee2 08:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I know, but I want to draw the attention to the eyes! --Llez 05:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I see and I have to say, that you made a good job in eyes area, however in my opinion downer part of image is not done well. For this reason is not QI for me (QI is not if you like some part of image, but that you made whole image right). Sorry for it and regards --Chmee2 07:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose low DOF, orange stain in the foreground --Tlusťa 08:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 12:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sea Life_Aquarium.jpg edit

  • Nomination EDF Energy London Eye ticketing office/Sea Life Aquarium building --Tyw7 18:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Poor composition and light. A.Savin 21:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    What do you mean poor composition and light? --Tyw7 16:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)<br\>If I may : The poor light probably refers to the general lack of contrast of the image (everything appears washed out). This was probably caused by the sun shining directly onto the camera's lens. You can avoid this effect by 1- keeping the lens very clean, especially on a cameraphone 2- using your hand to cast a shadow on the lens 3- using high-quality equipment with multi-coated lens designed to avoid this effect (the hand is cheaper and works just as well) D4m1en 18:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I upped the contrast in Photoshop, which made it better, but the noise reduction is really obvious especially on the roof of the building, where it destroyed all of its texture. For QI you should have equipment at the very minimum as good as an iPhone 4 camera (preferably point-and-shoot, and even better DSLR). -- King of Hearts 09:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of contrast and details --Mbdortmund 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I said before I don't think many quality images will come out of this camera. Letartean 19:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 12:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Bonifatiuskirche_-_Kirchturm.jpg edit

  • Nomination Lörrach: Saint Bonifatius church, bell tower --Taxiarchos228 09:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose distorted --Carschten 14:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Noch einmal zu Mitschreiben: "verzerrt" ist kein Contra-Grund, zumal Verzerrungen von dem Standpunkt auch was ganz normales ist. Genauso gut hättest du "blauer Himmel" als Begründung angeben können. --Teikszweizweiacht 14:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, dann noch mal für die Leute, die scheinbar nicht in Lage sind, sich das Bild in größerer Auflösung anschauen, zum Mitschreiben: ich stehe wirklich selten vor Kirchtürmen, bei denen die rechte Seite des Turms kerzengerade ist, die linke Seite unten jedoch nach links und oberhalb das rechts kippt. Falls dir das zu schnell ging: ich hab dir noch mal ein paar Anmerkungen auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite hinterlassen. --Carschten 15:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Diese Art Bemerkungen kommt regelmäßig zurück. Dennoch ist es ganz einfach: die "Verzerrung" ist nur die Wirkung der Perspektive. Es ist vielleicht etwa befremdend, aber es ist OK. Deshalb ist dies für mich kein Grund um dieses Bild abzulehnen. Ich unterstütze es jedoch vorläufig auch nicht, weil der Turm eine leichte Kissenformige Verzerrung hat. -- MJJR 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Zunächst mal nach Diskussion verschieben. --Berthold Werner 18:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ich bin ja meist dafür stürzende Linien zu korrigieren, was aber nicht immer zu guten Ergebnissen führt wenn man beim fotografieren zu dicht am Objekt stand und man deshalb die Kamera zu weit nach oben schwenken musste. Das hier ist nach meiner bescheidenen Meinung an der Grenze. Ich bin mir nicht schlüssig und enthalte mich deshalb. Die Äußerung von Teikszweizweiacht scheint mir überzogen, Wladyslaw wird es verkraften wenn eines seiner Fotos nicht QI wird (ja das denke ich auch, nein ich stehe nicht auf der Leitung ;-) --Berthold Werner 12:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The edge right of the tower is too high compared to the left edge. The perspective is distorted --Archaeodontosaurus 14:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Archaeodontosaurus 14:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)(UTC)

File:MAN NG 363 Lion's City G 3432 Marki.JPG edit

  • Nomination MAN NG 363 Lion's City G #3432 in Marki, Poland. --Crusier 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Disturbingly usharp background on right side --Niabot 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
     Comment But the main object is sharp... --Crusier 11:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
     Support QI IMO --Carschten 10:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
     Support The main object is perfectly sharp indeed. The unsharp right side of the image could perhaps slightly be cropped? -- MJJR 20:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Like that? --Crusier (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Berthold Werner (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Breisacher_Muenster_Tympanon_des_Westportals.jpg edit

  • Nomination Breisach Minster west portal tympanum. Breisach Minster west portal tympanum. --Taxiarchos228 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor image. Unsharp. Pink color. Perhaps a bit tilted--Lmbuga 17:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Perhaps the pink color can be natural... I don't know, but I think that it's not normal: File:Breisacher Munster Ostwand.jpg--Lmbuga 17:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    what is not normal and what should the link to my other picture improve? --Taxiarchos228 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose There's also a large yellowish circle from lens flare, upper right. --Avenue 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    Please Taxiarcos228, you must be respectful (I think)--Lmbuga 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    aha, it is respectless to ask if you give an argument that pose a question. must be your characteristical appreciation --Taxiarchos228 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Berthold Werner (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Mersch Maison Servais front.jpg edit

  • Nomination Luxembourg, National Literature Centre in Mersch. --Cayambe 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Well done and valuable. --Elekhh 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slightly overexposed. Bottom part is tilted --Niabot 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO OK --Berthold Werner 13:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Berthold Werner 13:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Okavango Sunset.JPG edit

  • Nomination A sunset upon the okavango river in Botswana --Nicolas M. Perrault 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Too dark IMO. But since people's tastes differ, I think it's best to open this up to discussion. -- King of Hearts 06:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank-you for opening this discussion, it shows your respect towards me and other people's opinion. -- Nicolas M. Perrault 20:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Question Forgive me for asking a silly question, but why is it so dark? The sun is well above the horizon, it should be basically daylight. Was there cloud, or was there severe haze from dust in the air? Perhaps if we saw the original un-photoshopped image? --Tony Wills 12:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment This picture was never retouched. I manually reduced the exposure before taking the shot. -- Nicolas M. Perrault 13:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the background noise pattern looked like the result of photoshop sharpening/smoothing ... probably the camera firmware then?
I finally realised, that I am being a bit slow - of course if you point the camera at the sun, and you haven't got everything set to manual, it will automatically compensate: the sun will probably still be overexposed (difficult to avoid ;-) but the surroundings will be rather darker than reality. If I take a shot at the sun at mid day I get a bright blob surrounded by a black sky :-). --Tony Wills 03:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This sort of image is difficult because of the extreme range of brightness of the subject. Objects and features are lighted from behind. The side facing the camera is shadowed. In this instance, the image conveys little information in that most of the frame is underexposed while the sun is overexposed. Only the tree silhouette suggests Botswana rather than another low or mid-latitude location. High dynamic range imaging may provide a more faithful representation, but the rather featureless sky (other than the barely resolved bird silhouettes) and backlighted shore would still detract from its quality, in my opinion. --Wsiegmund 16:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Dornach_-_Glaushaus.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Dornach: Glaushouse Dornach: Glaushouse --Taxiarchos228 09:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good. --David Perez 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)  Oppose Not composition-wise: one step to the left and the entrance would be visible. Also better time for taking images from the bush could have been chosen. --Elekhh 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Kabira Bay Ishigaki Island08s3s4592.jpg edit

  • Nomination Kabira Bay in Ishigaki Island, Okinawa, Japan --663highland 11:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 12:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I will be glad have here another opinion. In my view, ships are overexposed, am I wrong?--Chmee2 12:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes they are but that might be inevitable since they reflect the sunlight. But there's also different kinds of CAs, for instance at top of the mountains... --BennyJ 14:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blown out boats. Because they are an important part of the main motive, is that a reason to oppose IMO --Carschten 14:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per blown out boats and CA on horizon. Otherwise a nice landscape. --Elekhh 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 14:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Château de Versailles, cour royale, buste de Romain, Vdse 143 01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Bust in the inner cour d'honneur of Versailles. --Coyau 08:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Niabot 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted , distorted --Mbdortmund 12:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info Corrected. --Coyau 17:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support but I would prefer the distracting sides be cropped out. -- King of Hearts 09:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Caralluma europaea 1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Caralluma europaea in bloom. --Gidip 07:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Supportok --Carschten 10:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy --Llez 12:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral After corrections --Llez (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reduced noise and  Support. -- King of Hearts 09:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 12:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Obélisque louqsor concorde vertical.jpg edit

  • Nomination The obelisk of Louqsor, Place de la Concorde, Paris.--Jebulon 09:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality Remi Mathis 13:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice lightng and compositzion, but it's unsharp --Carschten 20:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Not horribly unsharp. If you reduced it to the 2 MP minimum, it would be very sharp. -- King of Hearts 09:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 12:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Grottes-crav-2.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Inside the Cravanche caves (Grottes de Cravanche), near Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  SupportNice shot. There are some very bright and very dark areas, but they add up nicely to produce a contrasty image. -- King of Hearts 06:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted perspective and the center of the image is overexposed. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 12:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ceratites nodosus MHNT.PAL.CEP.2001.105.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Ceratites nodosus --Archaeodontosaurus 09:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good and informative --Llez 09:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. The cropout is in most parts unsharp and has some errors. Please try to use masks or submit me the original to improve the cropout. Niabot 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I have a little difficulty translating, but I think I have found several errors in cropping. Is this better? --Archaeodontosaurus 15:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There are still some errors, mainly to the top left. You would not need to do this by yourself. In many cases this could be done automatically. If you would like to show the uncut original im sure that i could make it for you with a much sharper outline, as i did in this example: Original/Edit. --Niabot 15:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I am here to learn. Can you show me the errors, with a frame? --Archaeodontosaurus 06:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing my attention to these 4 points, but there is no error trimming.--Archaeodontosaurus 17:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 12:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Rathaus1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Lörrach: (New) City Hall, view vom northeast --Taxiarchos228 09:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Niabot 09:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Obviously left tilted, needs a slight CW rotation. --Elekhh 23:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Oppose as issue not addressed; --Elekhh 22:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
      • please make clear what here is the problem with this picture. The verticals are correct and the perspective looks for me correct too. --Taxiarchos228 12:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Than please look again. The left edge is (fairly) vertical, while the right edge is strongly left leaning, thus the whole building appears to be left leaning. I have nothing against retaining the slight perspective distortion, but a tower building which is vertical must appear as vertical. (Nochmal auf Deutsch: das Gebäude ist nicht senkrecht abgebildet. Du kannst es überprüfen bei dem du die linke Kante mit die rechte Kante vergleichst. Bei einem Hochhaus ist dies ein Problem). -- Elekhh 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Dass die rechte Kante wesentlich von der Vertikalen abweichen würde ist eher deine Fantasie denn Realität. --Taxiarchos228 07:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Look again! --Elekhh 11:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Aha, Argumente gehen aus. Ich frage mich direkt wie dieses File:Clore Gallery London Dec07.JPG Bild hier nur QI werden konnte wobei die Vertikalen hier ebenfalls nicht exakt ausgerichtet sind. --Taxiarchos228 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
                • Aha, now you switch to nonsensic personal attack detracting from the discussion of the image. Too bad. --Elekhh 12:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • Sehr sinnfrei und persönlich erscheint mir mein Vergleich nicht, dass die Vertikalen eines wesentlich niedrigeres Gebäude eines von Dir aufgenommenen Bildes kein Problem scheinen als die marginale Abweichung in diesem Bild bei einem 85 Meter hohen Bauwerks. Zu Schade: eine Begründung würde schon interessieren. --Taxiarchos228 12:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
                    • I will not participate in this one sided discussion: you refuse to look and refuse to listen, instead talk about another image which has nothing to do with this one, and removed twice the explanatory notes I placed on the image. All the explanations are above, bilingual. I can't do more for you. --Elekhh 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
                      • Of course you could: you could answer my question instead of acting the fool. --Taxiarchos228 06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Here the roof edge is "falling" too and the middle border is streched, but this building is not even a fourth as high as the town hall. Have we here also a false perspective?
  •  Support noch mehr Verzerren und es wird vollkommen unrealistisch, bitte die Fotos nicht dontworrysieren! --Ralf Roletschek 08:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction that was made, increases too much central edge of the building. This side is too high and distorts perspective.(Too bad for comment in German I do not understand.).--Archaeodontosaurus 14:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • This building is 85 meters high and my location was about 200 meters away from it (otherwise there is no possibility to take a picture of the building including the basement). Even architectural pictures of professional photographer have for sure distorts. They are not avoidable and actually natural. So what's the problem? --Taxiarchos228 14:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The problem is in your method of correction, it is good for vertical but stretches the center of your photos, I'm sure you can find a good setting.--Archaeodontosaurus 15:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • As I said: it is not avoidable that the middle vertical border is stretched. On the contrary it is natural: when you look (with or without a camera lens) at the corner of a rectangular building, the roof edge is "falling". We can not chance the laws of geometry. Look at the picture for comparison this situation. --Taxiarchos228 06:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose as per Archaeodontosaurus. Visible perspective "correction" (I would rather call it "deterioration" ;-) ), building looks unnatural and deformed. --BennyJ 21:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BennyJ 21:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Palais_du_Luxembourg1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Paris: Palais du Luxembourg --Taxiarchos228 09:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Niabot 09:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The red lady in the center of the compo is disturbing/distracting to me. I think that The shadow of the left wing of the building is too strong. Please let's have a discussion.--Jebulon 21:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's good. The red lady is rather interesting than disturbing to me. It's obviously a crowded sight so that's what you would expect. --BennyJ 09:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perpective distortions --Carschten 09:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten; The first building is leaning, but not the chimney. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Archaeodontosaurus 14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Habropoda male 1b.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Male Habropoda tarsata on Asphodelus. --Gidip 07:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --ComputerHotline 08:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, seems to be heavily oversharpend. --Berthold Werner 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Should I upload it without sharpening? My experience with editing programs is limited, I will be happy if anyone can edit it better. Gidip (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I've tried to. Check it now. If you don't like it or it's worse, just revert. --David Perez 09:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment Thank you but let's do this properly. It's always better to go back to the original file. I uploaded it now. Gidip 18:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is truly not bad, and bees are notoriously hard to capture well, but it imho doesn't quite qualify as QI since it is too noisy and too unsharp. The main reason for this is the combination f/25 and ISO 400. With the very closed aperture you get a nicely wide dof but also lose sharpness due to refraction. With the high ISO you get a lot of noise, at least with the D60. Try an f-stop around 14 and an ISO of around 200 next time. --Quartl 17:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The amount of noise and sharpness is acceptable. This is a difficult shot to do. -- King of Hearts 05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per King of Hearts --Carschten 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough --A.Ceta 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --A.Ceta 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sickla_strand_april_2011.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sickla strand. Built 1947-48. --Ankara 19:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I don't like the shadow. Sorry. --A.Ceta 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment You will always have shadows from the balconies there (remember that the sun is lower in the north = longer shadows). I think the image was taken in the best possible conditions in terms of light. With all due respect, it is a weak justification (and more a matter of taste, than about the quality). Best regards --Ankara 19:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 11:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

File:QC_-_Basilique_de_Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré.jpg edit

  • Nomination Basilique de Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, Canada --Taxiarchos228 08:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Typical example of a need of a perspective correction, IMO.--Jebulon 15:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon --Lmbuga 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon --Archaeodontosaurus 08:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon --Carschten 09:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral per Lmbuga --Carschten 07:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective corrected. (I've never tried to take credit for my edits, they're just to help the nomination succeed, so I think I'm allowed to vote. In theory, this is to resolve coordination games.) --King of Hearts 05:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good job King of Hearts, it looks much better. -- Nicolas M. Perrault 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus 09:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - very good after perspective correction. -- Felix Koenig 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good, but distortion--Lmbuga 12:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC).  Support Good. Only very little distortion--Lmbuga 12:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem more for QI.--Jebulon 14:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice file. Deserves the QI.badge. --High Contrast 06:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Hausstein,_Muggendorf.jpg edit

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stèle funéraire dans le cimetière de Castex (Gers, France).JPG edit

  • Nomination Funerary stele in Castex Cimetery, Gers, France -- Florent Pécassou 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Supportok --Carschten 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop above.--Jebulon 14:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon --Archaeodontosaurus 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Bausenhagen_St_Agnes_IMGP6613_wp.jpg edit

  • Nomination Bausenhagen: Saint Agnes church, frontal view (photographer: User:smial) --Taxiarchos228 13:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The central edge of the tower is too high compared to the edge Right. The perspective is distorted. Error of perspective on the building left.--Archaeodontosaurus 14:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Taxiarchos228 14:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I always thought the nominator had no vote, but I couldn't find this rule in our guidelines. Am I wrong? --Mbdortmund 09:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I found it here: "The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's." --Mbdortmund 16:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support (despite the non optimal lighting) -- MJJR 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortions and hard shadows --Carschten 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortions --Ankara 15:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 Comment There is no distortion error. 12mm wide angle is 12mm wide angle, and perspective correction is intentionally not set to 100%. It is ok to decline a candidate because of unpleasant perspective, but please with technically correct reason. The lighting is really not very good, but I wasn't able to turn the church or the earth by 180 degrees to get the sun's light on the northern side of the building. Also my nuclear pocket flash was on service that day, so I could not fill in ;-) --Smial 21:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Perspective distortion is always a result of the choice of lens and angle. You have chosen lens, time, perspective correction, and angle here. Thus, perspective distortion is a valid, technically correct reason here. You probably also chosen to shoot in JPG, which gave you less opportunity to correct the exposure, shadows and dark areas of the image. I know I sound like an arrogant pro here (which I am not), but I do not think your explanation is convincing. --Ankara 22:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment was related to Archaeodontosaurus's vote. I do not defend this nomination. If it's declined then it's declined. No problem, I'm not dying to get the Bapperl. But we have obviously a different opion about "distortion", but I'm sorry, my capabilities in english language are too bad to explain this in detail. -- Smial 01:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 11:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Lin An Tai Historical House 03.jpg edit

  • Nomination Doors in Lin An Tai Historical House, Taipei --Bgag 14:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very noisy.--Jebulon 15:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I have imported a new version. Should be better. --Bgag 15:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ecuador Manta Murciélago fishermen.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ecuador, Manta, Pacific Ocean: fishermen. --Cayambe 20:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. The main subject is too little and placed in the middle. Just a grey sky. --Elektroschreiber 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I rarely do this... but I really want to hear other opinions here. Please see the general mood: two fishermen among rolling waves, with every detail being recognizable. --Cayambe 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a QI to me, and a good one.--Jebulon 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --Ankara 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition. This is not intended to be a headshot of the two fishermen. -- King of Hearts 20:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I'm not convinced by the composition. The fishermen, which act as a focal point, seem too centrally placed, and other crops seem better. Otherwise it's good though. --23:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Could it be that there is a small anti-clockwise tilt? Qiqritiq 09:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (very) small ccw tilt can easily be fixed --Carschten 08:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 Info New version uploaded, slight 0.13 CCW-tilt removed. Thanks for noticing. --Cayambe 19:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 Support very good straightening, clearly a QI now (even if it's a bit noisy) --Carschten 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Red_Rock_Canyon_Panorama_-_Calico_Basin.jpg edit

  • Nomination Panorama of Calico Basin --ZooFari 00:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Multiple stitching errors --Niabot 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think I fixed the errors Niabot was referring to (forgot to fix the sky), but I didn't receive any response from Niabot's talk page, so putting this into discussion. --ZooFari 22:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I checked the image and found no further errors. Good quality. --Quartl 11:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good job. This might be a little tedious, but would it be easy to fill in some blue in the the upper right corner? It seems like a last, small, stitching error... -- Nicolas M. Perrault 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Nicolas M. Perrault 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Calotes_versicolor_01.jpg edit

  • Nomination A lizard from the family "Calotes versicolor" --Sreejithk2000 06:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion *nice picture, but please add a discription --Taxiarchos228 07:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • now  Support --Taxiarchos228 07:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No species name. Qiqritiq 07:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I have requested to add the name, no reason to decline a few minutes after the nomination has started. --Taxiarchos228 07:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment beautiful colors --BennyJ 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the colors may be nice, but only very small portion of the whole image is in focus. --Quartl 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Quartl--Lmbuga 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Disagree  Strong support Shallow depth of field is not something that you must systematically spot as faulty. As a matter of fact, if used in a judicious context, it can build intimacy between the subject and the viewer. This picture uses this artistic technique in a masterful way and thus has my strong support. Nicolas M. Perrault 12:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Quartl --Archaeodontosaurus 08:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above, and for the cut off tail. I like the shot, but IMO it's not a QI. --Avenue 13:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Don't like the cut off tail at all. Sugar-Baby-Love 21:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Strong support totally agree with Nicolas M. Perrault. Shallow DOF is an artistic technique demonstrated very well in this image. --BennyJ 08:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Anoopan 09:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Colour noise visible in left top corner. Was there any noise reduction done?--PereslavlFoto 19:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment - No noice reduction done. This image is straight out from the camera. --Ajaykuyiloor 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      •  Oppose strongly. Colour noise visible in left top corner, no noise reduction, wrong colours, no post-processing.--PereslavlFoto 20:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice picture ! Antoinetav 03:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Definitely a very nice picture, it is a cute animal, and the shallow DOF technique is well employed. The question is if is quality, and indeed the depth of focus is slightly too shallow and the crop of the tail another minor imperfection. --Elekhh 23:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support A striking image. -- King of Hearts 05:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Junaidpv 05:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Imo, everything is OK but the cut off tail. --David Perez 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image. The cut off tail does not bother me since it is hardly visible due to the depth of focus. --High Contrast 07:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice Photograph -- Raghith 09:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, as per others, focus and tail...--Jebulon 09:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Thanks for finding the name, the cut tail is however an issue here, though I agree with Nicolas M. Perrault about the DOF being intentionally shallow at times (and with moderation). Qiqritiq 09:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Weak support the focus is super, the DOF makes it interesting. Just the cut off tail... But the image is good enough for QI imo (a bit per High Contrast) --Carschten 09:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support this is not VI, and if I want a photo of the head of this species then this photo is a good choice. --AngMoKio 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - what Jebulon says - Silver Spoon 19:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 11 support (excluding the nominator), 10 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 04:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Roller Chain Render (with numbers).png edit

  • Nomination Rendering of a Roller Chain (with numbers) --Niabot 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 06:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC),
  •  Oppose Hmm I doubt about this one, one of the number 2's seems wrong. the number 2 at the bottem seems like it should be a number 4? Mvg, Basvb 17:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good illustration. Both number 2s are inner plates with large holes, the left one having a bushing (4) attached to it while the right one hasn't. Similarly, both number 1s are outer plates with small holes and with the left one having a pin (3) attached to it. --Quartl 10:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It has been corrected:  Support now. Mvg, Basvb 11:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC) If it's possible i withdraw my consensual review. Mvg, Basvb 11:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Far much better than the first version IMO.--Jebulon 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --AngMoKio 10:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --AngMoKio 10:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:MosMetro VDNKh 2011.jpg edit

  • Nomination: VDNKh Metro, Moscow. A.Savin 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Review No FOP in Russia.--PereslavlFoto 18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It was kept as per DR, besides, are there any QI rules on copyright issues? A.Savin 19:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Let's discuss the problem. --Mbdortmund 20:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • No reason to discuss non-free image. The whole design of this station is protected by copyright, so the photo is a copyvio.--PereslavlFoto 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I still expect an answer: Is there a QI rule on copyright issues? Besides, you are not the copyright police here; editing in long closed DR's is clear vandalism and may cause a ban of your account. A.Savin 07:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I have not edited in a closed DR. I started a new DR that was somehow added to the previous one. Thus I hope to hear your apologies.--PereslavlFoto 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
          • You may check Commons:Image guidelines to see that an image requires a suitable license. This image cannot have a free license due to copyright prohibitions in Russia. The photograph violates the rights of four architects: I. G. Taranov, N. A. Bykova, Yu. A. Cherepanov and I. G. Goharai-Kharmandaryan.--PereslavlFoto 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The image has a suitable license (CC+GFDL), and the question whether the depicted things are subject to copyright can only be discussed in a regular DR. Now, there was a DR and the result is at the moment: no, there is nothing depicted which would have enough originality to be protected in general. A.Savin 19:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
This is against the Civil Code of Russian Federation. All architect work is protected, and architect's approval is needed to set any derivative works free.--PereslavlFoto 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Where does the Russian Civil Code say that all (!) architect work is protected? A.Savin 21:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Article 1259 explains: «Объектами авторских прав являются произведения науки, литературы и искусства независимо от достоинств и назначения произведения, а также от способа его выражения». This means: «Objects of copyright are works of science, literature and art, regardless of the merits of the product and destination, as well as the method of its expression» (translated by Google).--PereslavlFoto 07:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 12:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)