Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Saint-Amant_16_Cour_enneigée_2009.jpg edit

  • Nomination Snowy farmyard, Saint-Amant, Charente France --JLPC 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Looks somehow strange / overprocessed. If you look at the fence around the house a lot if details are killed. Have you reduced the number of colors? Also the traces in the snow look strange. --Tuxyso 21:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. New file uploaded. --JLPC 18:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Remarkably better, but IMHO overall quality is not convincing (sharpness, crop at the top). --Tuxyso 11:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I'd like other opinions. --JLPC 19:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. We feel the snow & the mood. --Selbymay 13:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strong noise suppression afterwards oversharpened. But really nice view. -- Smial 12:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Selbimay. OK --Rjcastillo 02:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strong noise suppression afterwards oversharpened.--Grondin 18:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Aquarelle effect on trees. Sharp halos over wires. --Nino Verde 10:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 14:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Hornisgrinde Hochmoor 2011.JPG edit

  • Nomination The highmoor on Hornisgrinde plateau, Northern Black Forest. -- Felix Koenig 17:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice composition but overexposed IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 17:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Bright but not overexposed I think. Nice pic. --Jastrow 20:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. -- Smial 12:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Idem Jastrow.--Grondin 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 14:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Publicidad_-_Fiesta_to_go.JPG edit

  • Nomination Publicidad - Fiesta to go --Rjcastillo 02:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - Wrong histogram, the image is too dark. --Tupungato 07:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Others opinions --Rjcastillo 21:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    Still seems fairly dark to me. Mattbuck 12:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done now ? --Rjcastillo 17:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, ok.  Support Mattbuck 11:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support QI for me.--Grondin 18:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 14:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Derby railway station MMB 33 156408.jpg edit

  • Nomination 156408 at derby. Mattbuck 02:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeThe image is definitely too dark. Maybe if the whole image was in focus, or the whole front of the train was visible, it would be ok. But this composition and these lighting conditions - decline. --Tupungato 08:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    I have brightened it, is that better? Mattbuck 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support Composition could have been somewhat better with full view of front, but QI though. -- Smial 12:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Need fix category missing and DoF problem --The Photographer 13:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    Category fixed. Mattbuck 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Just OK, DoF is good. Personally I had opened the aperture even wider to show that you choose consiously that DoF - front sharp, station unsharp, but most of the people on QIC do not like that. I see a marginal problem at the left top of the train's front - it's not completely sharp, probably due to border unsharpness? --Tuxyso 07:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. imo --Rjcastillo 15:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Idem. --Grondin 18:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 14:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Bentley_Continental_GT_Supersports,_Santa_Cruz_de_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-15,_DD_01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Bentley Continental GT Supersports, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I accept you take it where you find it, but I think the background is a bit distracting, especially with the graffiti, --Mattbuck 11:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Tough review, according to this criteria almost no shot of cars would be promoted Poco a poco 21:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Have you tried a closer crop ? Pleclown 12:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Which crop do you suggest to get rid of those red lines in the wall (it isn't graffiti to me)? I see no way Poco a poco 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support Could be QI. --NorbertNagel 21:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)  Oppose Wide angle perspective and contrast of main object not convenient. -- Smial 12:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 14:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:BnF stairs under Snow.jpeg edit

  • Nomination BnF stairs under snow --H4stings 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline minimum 30 degrees tilted Arcalino 15:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
     Info in the full resolution picture you mean ? --H4stings 16:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support its tiltet, so what? Good picture! --Ralf Roletschek 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    When you get to that much tilt, it's intentional, part of the composition, not accidental. That said, I'm not sure it's QI - there are some JPEG artifacts. Mattbuck 00:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very low quality. --Selbymay 10:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, lots of artifacts, blown highlights, dark areas without any detail. Perhaps useful at com:fpc, because of wow! factor. -- Smial 11:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low JPEG compression with artifacts. Sorry.--Grondin 19:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 14:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2012.08.11.-14-Viernheimer Heide Viernheim-Kleiner Feuerfalter-Weibchen-crop.jpg edit

  • Nomination Kleiner Feuerfalter, Weibchen - Lycaena phlaeas --Hockei 16:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Not sharp enough I'm afraid --A.Savin 17:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
     Comment And I had almost found that would be one of the best of this picture series. Particularly in terms of the color. Maybe I was wrong? More opinions would be nice.--Hockei 18:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC
  •  Support Good work --Archaeodontosaurus 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC))
  •  Support QI enough. Jkadavoor 11:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - JPEG artifacts. Mattbuck 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mattbuck --The Photographer 12:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good sharpness, good colours. --Esquilo 06:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI enough. --Grondin 18:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 14:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Catedral,_Gniezno,_Polonia,_2012-12-24,_DD_01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Cathedral, Gniezno, Poland --Poco a poco 17:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice shot, but a lot of colour noise in dark areas, the main subject is not in focus, to much sharpening. --CLI 18:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Noise improved, where do you see signs of oversharpening? Poco a poco 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    OK Poco a poco, it looks better now, but I think that second opinions would be helpful. --CLI 18:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose due to noise and error diffusion. Mattbuck 12:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm curious about post processing of this image. First version has some colour noise, yes, but looks acceptable sharp with natural colours. Second version now is blurred. First version has a lot of funny artifacts that somehow look like Runzelkorn (I don't know the english word). In second version these are somewhat supressed, but still detectable. -- Smial 11:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject is OoF, oversharpening artifacts. --Iifar 12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 14:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Hp22tricolorinkcarttridge.JPG edit

  • Nomination HP22 Tricolor ink cartridge --Ezarate 00:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry but I don't think the background is very suitable. Try a white piece of paper. --King of Hearts 01:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC) now? --Ezarate 23:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)  Oppose "2 megapixels is normally the lower limit"! --Ximeg 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    Also, please don't overwrite an image with a completely different image, especially at QIC. --King of Hearts 04:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Below resolution threshold of 2 Mpix.

--Esquilo 06:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 OpposeBad isolation, the down part of cartridge has visible traces of background removal. --Nino Verde 12:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Below 2 Mio pixel, artefacts.--Grondin 18:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 12:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Honey Bee (Apis cerana) on a Rhododendron leaf in Hong Kong.JPG edit

  • Nomination Eastern honey bee, on a Rhododendron leaf in Hong Kong. Photographed by Earth100 13:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Decline I am not convinced due to suboptimal shapness/focus but I think that it is worth a discussion with others Poco a poco 17:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Me neither. And for me a little too noisy around the bee. Hockei 09:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Westliche Honigbiene, Apis mellifera auf Weidenkätzchen, Salix 10.JPG edit

  • Nomination Westliche Honigbiene auf Weidenkätzchen --Böhringer 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice macro -- George Chernilevsky 21:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose DOF not enough I find Hockei 14:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support There's enough death of field, and excellent sharpness.
    •  Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. --Iifar 12:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Please sign. Hockei 06:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 Support Focus set i bit too close (whole right wing in focus but not whole body) but a good shot anyway. Apperture f/8 gives barely enough DoF. --Esquilo 06:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Focus too close is probably better expressed than not enough DoF. --Hockei 09:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 Support It is good DoF for macro shot. --Nino Verde 12:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 Support Idem Nino Verde.--Grondin 18:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

File:TWT_2012_24_K_2319_k5_3964_bei_Hst_Josefstaedter_Strasse_U.JPG edit

  • Nomination Historical tram at the Tramwaytag 2012 event in Vienna --Darkweasel94 22:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good but it needs a bit of perspective correction. --Selbymay 08:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    done --Darkweasel94 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Better for the buildings but now the tram itself is larger at top and white halos appears around the wires. We could use another opinion. --Selbymay 07:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Denoising and oversharpening now have killed this image. Both versions have some CA. -- Smial 13:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 09:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2012.08.17.-14-Vogelstangsee Mannheim-Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpg edit

  • Nomination Weidenjungfer, Männchen (male) - Chalcolestes viridis oder Lestes viridis --Hockei 09:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
     Info white balance changed Hockei 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Noisy on the eye (jpeg compression) and the background.--Grondin 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
     Info New version produced from raw and uploaded. Maybe better? --Hockei 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support QI IMO but needs the advises of others users.--Grondin 06:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Can you remove some hot red pixels pointed via note on image page? But. anyway it's nice for me. --Nino Verde 17:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done As far I can see the color. Hope it's good so(?) Hockei 19:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 09:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2012.08.17.-16-Vogelstangsee Mannheim-Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpg edit

File:Kabk.JPG edit

File:BMW_Welt,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2013-02-11,_DD_03.JPG edit

  • Nomination BMW Welt, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 08:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)  Comment A bit noisy under the roof --Moroder 09:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Seems ok to me. Mattbuck 12:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded addressing the noise Poco a poco 20:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 08:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Rathaus-Venlo-2013.jpg edit

File:Shard_and_City_Hall.JPG edit

File:Naval_College.JPG edit

  • Nomination Greenwich Naval College --Martin Falbisoner 07:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)1/3 to 1/2 f-stop underexposed. Somewhat dull colours could be enhanced by s-curving. -- Smial 08:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC) --Smial 08:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Info new version online. better now? --Martin Falbisoner 19:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx for cautious enhancement. Good now. -- Smial 10:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice for me. --Nino Verde 12:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work.--Grondin 04:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Nile_Luxor_R18.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Fishing on the Nile near Kings Island, Luxor, Egypt -- MJJR 20:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. Though: Does not look like "fishing" ;-) -- Smial 08:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC) --Smial 08:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    Well, it's a fisherman rowing on the Nile. So you are right: he is not actually fishing on the picture... I changed the description on the file. -- MJJR 09:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The fisherman doesn't look in focus to me --Poco a poco 19:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same for me. Fisherman is not in focus. --Nino Verde 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the best quality, but OK for me. Focus is with regard to the size OK for me. Focus is one the boat. --Tuxyso 13:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 06:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Mudejar_Pavillion_-_Parque_María_Luisa_-_Seville_(6).JPG edit

  • Nomination Mudejar Pavillion - Parque María Luisa - Seville --Jbribeiro1 10:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Bad point of view, too much distortion. --Nino Verde 14:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
     CommentThe perspective distorsion can be fixed imo. Let's give the author another chance. --JLPC 17:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm a beginner in this matter and I have no clue where to start. I'd be very grateful if someone could do it for me and teach me how to in my DP afterwars (hopefully using a free software, if possible). Jbribeiro1 02:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
If using Windows, you can try ShiftN, freeware. I've uploaded a new version made with this tool. -- Smial 09:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Should be ok now. -- Smial (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)  Oppose heavy distortions now and unnatural perspective. Sorry, one must not do everything that is possible with image manipulation. -- Smial 08:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  SupportOK for me --Rjcastillo 15:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately i did not change my mind. From my point of view, the window should be perspective corrected by vertical (which is done) and horizontal. --Nino Verde 16:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)  Support Much better now! --Nino Verde 12:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. New file uploaded : Nino Verde was right and Jbribeiro needed a little help. @ Jbribeiro : look carefully at Gimp's tools. There's one for perspective correction. It's easy to use and Gimp is free. --JLPC 08:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm planning to use this weekend to explore some of this tools! Thanks again for the help, guys! Jbribeiro1 10:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, good work--Lmbuga 11:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me.--Grondin 04:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Child_and_his_mother_by_selling_bananas.jpg edit

  • Nomination Child and his mother by selling bananas --The Photographer 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Red channel overexposure on the shirt. Mattbuck 13:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)  Info The red is satured only in the shirt?, I was there and watched the RAW file, red is not saturated --The Photographer 17:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support There are some very small areas on the shirt where the red channel is clipping, but these are negligible. -- Smial 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Quality is good, the red color is not overexposed in critical parts or large areas. But the composition and photo subject is not clear and nice. Thus - neutral. --Nino Verde 12:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Not the best composition, more like a snapshot. Alvesgaspar 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 06:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ermita_de_San_Juan_Bautista,_Puerto_de_la_Cruz,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_03.jpg edit

  • Nomination Hermitage of St. John Baptist, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 18:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Barrel distortion, CA, noise...--Moroder 12:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 19:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
     SupportQI for me, IMO.--Grondin 19:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment Looks like you promoted your own image, but issues are still there (notes added). --Iifar 05:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    Iifar, I don't usually promote my own pictures. This one was promoted by Grondin on March 29th 19:08 (just updated the signature), and therefore I changed the status to Discuss, although actually it should be promoted by now and only due to a problem with the bot the nomination is still here. Anyhow your comments are fine and will work on it, Poco a poco 08:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    I confirme, I've promoted the picture.--Grondin 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Support imho good--Steinsplitter 08:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:View_to_Kiev.jpg edit

 Comment Hmmm, i've checked on three monitors - the colors is normal, it is early morning and spring, thus a bit yellowish. Blur (on the buildings if i understand right) is produced by far distance to them and in this case air in city with dust particles do it bad work, check the bridge - it is ok. Also i can't find overexposed sky, can you please point me? Blown buildings i'll redo (not critical, from my point of view, but if you want). --Nino Verde 18:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Thought again, do not want to fix, just withdraw. --Nino Verde 07:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malik Ambar. Tomb in Khuldabad.jpg edit

  • Nomination The Tomb of Malik Ambar in the vicinity of Aurangabad Tervlugt (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose dome details lost in overexposition --Nino Verde 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose idem. If you toke this picture with raw format, it's possible to correct that.--Grondin 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose on overexposure grounds. Mattbuck 01:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Phare de Sète (2).jpg edit

  • Nomination The lighthouse of the Saint-Louis breakwater in Sète, Hérault, France. --Christian Ferrer 11:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose blurred/unsharp --Steinsplitter 11:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • new file uploaded --Christian Ferrer 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Very unsharp, indeed. Alvesgaspar 11:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred on the edges of the photograhpy.--Grondin 17:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Lawinengefahr-Warnschild_in_Österreich_-1.JPG edit

  • Nomination Danger-of-avalanches-sign in Austria --High Contrast 23:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment The sign itself is tout of focus from my point of view. --Nino Verde 09:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
     Support I think that this is not obvious. More reviews are necessary.--Grondin 11:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
     Weak supportThe entire pic is a bit blurred, maybe due to poor lens quality (DSLR lenses that take really sharp pictures cost at least as much as the body, so kit lenses never will). Still not a bad shot IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 12:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Objection, your honour ;-) Kit lenses of course can provide acceptable quality. -- Smial 23:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Being an Olympus user, I know kit lenses don’t need to be too bad. However, having tried a better one, I don’t want to step back :-) --Kreuzschnabel 05:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Sorry guys, but the sky doesn't look good to me: too extensive and obvious noise Alvesgaspar 11:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 08:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Saint-Amant_16_Ensileuse_2008.jpg edit

 Oppose Better, but not all. Check the sky and grass on the background, looks like there are JPEG compression artifacts or a result of noise reduction. --Nino Verde 07:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 OpposeOversharpened, the grass does not look natural at all. --Kreuzschnabel 12:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination

File:Grafer-Kapelle_Innervillgraten.JPG edit

  • Nomination Grafer-Kapelle in Austria. --Steinsplitter 08:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--ArildV 08:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree Suggest a crop on the left right --Moroder 10:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC) I agree about the crop, the new version is better.--ArildV 10:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Grondin 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Disturbing roof corner on the right edge should be cropped out. Then QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 12:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor framing. The picture would be much better with a generous crop. Alvesgaspar 11:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose+ Info During nomination a crop was uploaded, nominated and promoted.--ArildV (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - seems like the improved image was already promoted. Mattbuck 14:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Crocifisso_nella_Basilica_di_San_Giorgio_Maggiore_a_Venezia.jpg edit

  • Nomination Crucifix 16th century in the Church of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice --Moroder 17:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noise and blurred --The Photographer 17:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, noisy. --Nino Verde 11:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 05:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Intercambiador,_Santa_Cruz_de_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-15,_DD_01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Intercambiador, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 17:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Rather dark. Mattbuck 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support A very little dark but QI. --Grondin 15:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Rather dark. --Iifar 05:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit overdramatic given the subject, but good quality. --Jastrow 09:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support But, I have to say the colour looks unusual, blues and reds look intense yet the yellow lines look under-saturated. Perhaps, it was just the light. Danrok 14:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 15:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:CampanarioCapillaSantaGemma.jpg edit

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Santa Gemma Chapel, Calvary of Tandil --Ezarate 14:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment needs perspective corrections, a bit unsharpness, noise in the sky --Rjcastillo 15:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC) ✓ DoneEzarate 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Can you upload a better resolution, I see some artefacts on the cross upper the steeple. Without that, It will be a good picture.--Grondin 15:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose - artifacts, tilt, unsharp tree. Mattbuck 20:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, red colour from the cross is bleeding in to the sky. Details are generally too soft. Danrok 14:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 15:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Villars_16_Croix_céramique_2013.jpg edit

 Oppose Not sharp, artifacts in shadows --Nino Verde 07:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose For reasons already given. Danrok 14:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination

File:Helags_Mars_2013_01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Mount Helags, Mars 2013. --ArildV 09:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Weak oppose Everything looks fine, only one thing bothers me a bit. Notes added. --Iifar 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Blur in bottom right. Mattbuck 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • @lifar: I do not know exactly how the lines have emerged, they are in the original files (before sharpening).
    • @Mattbuck and how is it relevant? a small part of the foreground (12 kilometers from the main subject) is not in focus, it is a criterion for QI that everything has to be in focus? Has this very sharp 80 megapixel panoramic image lower quality than the average QI?--ArildV 13:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support In 2000×759 format the defaults disappear.--Grondin 15:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Grondin, we don't say that because something is sharp when smaller that it's ok. I think the image is very good generally, but that (rather large) patch of blur (doesn't appear to be simple focus) disturbs me. Mattbuck 17:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • As already mentioned, the distance to the main subject is over 10 km, which means that the picture is taken with a zoom (Lens focal length 185mm) on a full-frame camera (yes, about focus! the blur part are very close to the camera). And size has some significance, it is completely absurd to decline a high-resolution picture that looks fantastic in 10 megapixels (but not perfect at 150 megapixels) and promote a 2 megapixels images.--ArildV 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit noisy sky, but QI for me. The blurred part is not very important for this image --Nino Verde 07:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Vogelreservaat.JPG edit

  • Nomination recognized bird sanctuary.--Famberhorst 06:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment seems better cut imho. (Note) --Rjcastillo 22:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks.--Famberhorst 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)  Comment needs a fine correction of verticl and horizontal lines --Moroder 09:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    It's fine as-is. Mattbuck 12:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 01:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --JLPC 15:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Grondin 08:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Purdue_University,_West_Lafayette,_Indiana,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-15,_DD_12.jpg edit

  • Nomination Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA --Poco a poco 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sky is overexposed (look at the area around the leafs). IMHO not recoverable. --Tuxyso 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good quality... and I don't see a clear overesposition. Please, let's discuss--Lmbuga 19:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    I also disagreed (no overexposure in histogramm), but just uploaded a new version which is far from any doubts. The chromatic noise was actually a problem, fixed now Poco a poco 19:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeStill not convinced. IMHO leafs are burnt out. --Tuxyso 20:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Many dust spots on the sky, CA on both sides. --Iifar 13:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    CA and dust spots fixed, thanks, Poco a poco 21:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ok -- Smial 15:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Ralf Roletschek 20:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Idem.--Grondin 08:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 15:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Kapelle_23633_bei_A-2122_Ulrichskirchen.jpg edit

  • Nomination Urlauberkapelle Ulrichskirchen, NÖ by Robert Heilinger nominated by --Herzi Pinki 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Need to correct perspective a bit --Nino Verde 16:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Don't think so, inner edges of the opening are really straight and parallel, making outer edges straight will sacrifice inner edges' parallelness. Not everything in last centuries' architecture is that straight. --Herzi Pinki 21:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Hmm, i didn't see this in real world, so i cant tell should the outer edges be straight or inner ones. Thus better ask others. --Nino Verde 09:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Irrelevant academic discussion. Nice picture!--Moroder 09:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 19:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Idem.--Grondin 08:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 15:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Franxault_2013_02_17_11_IR.jpg edit

  • Nomination Plaza de la Iglesia, Franxault (Côte d'Or, Borgoña, Francia) fotografiada con un filtro infrarrojo 760 nm. --Grondin 05:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose sharpness problems Arcalino 19:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    I desagree with you, an Infrared photography is never absolutely sharp. I want more advices from others users on the issue and we need a discussion.--Grondin 20:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
     Support Sharpness is fine when scaled down to 2 MP. --King of Hearts 17:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its QI. --Ralf Roletschek 20:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Sorry guys but image quality is not good. Why should the IR filter be a mitigating factor? -- Alvesgaspar 11:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    It is not an IR filter problem, but the IR light problem. IR light is longer in wavelength than visible light and focuses differently and we need to adjust this focus manually. In fact, an infrared photography is almost never clear. It is an utopia. To realize a photography strictly sharp is exceptional or even impossible.--Grondin 12:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    Moreover, the photocamera lenses are not designed for the IR light, that is why they tend to show much stronger dispersion in the near-IR, which in turn leads to CA and blurring. Even the focus adjustment would not help. --Ximeg 14:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, very unusual --Ximeg 14:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 15:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:JeffersonMemorialJuly2012.jpg edit

  • Nomination Tomas Jefferson Memorial, view since the bridge on the river, --Ezarate 17:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support wow! Good quality. --Steinsplitter 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted, jpeg artifacts. --Kadellar 20:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise reduction, sharp halos. Artifacts at plane and up side of dome. --Nino Verde 08:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low jpeg compression, artefacts.--Grondin 14:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor JPEG quality, heavy noise reduction applied, the trees all green mud. Nice shot but technical quality insufficient. Phone camera? --Kreuzschnabel 12:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Adds value to the article.Triggers curiosity -- Tervlugt 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    • This is QIC, not VI. It’s about image quality in the first place. --Kreuzschnabel 17:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, as others: Tilted, jpeg artifacts, too much noise reduction, sharp halos...--Lmbuga 17:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pérignac_16_Fumure_2008.jpg edit

  • Nomination Fertilizer in a field, Winter, near Pérignac, Charente, France. --JLPC 16:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Noise reduction software overuse + oversharping --Nino Verde 17:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    New file uploaded. --JLPC 21:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 Support Ok for me now --Nino Verde 07:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 12:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 Support Good for me. --Moonik 15:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 19:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Clock_in_the_bell_tower_of_the_basilica_of_chiquinquira.jpg edit

  • Nomination Clock --The Photographer 22:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 06:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it's too dark. --Berthold Werner 17:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Foreground too dark, needs brightening up a bit to show the pic was taken from inside. --Kreuzschnabel 12:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus too close, on the dark foreground. V-wolf 19:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Fontaine de Médicis Paris 6th 001.jpg edit

  • Nomination Fontaine de Médicis at Jardin du Luxembourg, Paris. --Moonik 13:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Overexposed. --Mattbuck 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Overexposure fixed. --Moonik 12:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
     Support --Grondin 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 02:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support A little sharp can be appllied, but anyway quality is good. --Nino Verde 09:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, better but could do with sharpening. Mattbuck 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Sharpeness improved. Is it better now? --Moonik 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 19:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB I0 Melton Hall.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Melton Hall. Mattbuck 10:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support QI for me but I need more advises.--Grondin 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Not for me. The subject and composition are indeed interesting but image quality is poor: little detail, extensive noise. -- Alvesgaspar 11:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 19:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-01-Spindlerův_Mlýn_v_noci_(RalfR)-11.jpg edit

  • Nomination Špindlerův Mlýn, giant mountain --Ralf Roletschek 10:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good Quality --Rjcastillo 17:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, but in my opinion the composition is not adequate for QI. --Frank Schulenburg 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Was stört dich? --Ralf Roletschek 22:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The framing is bad and the tree branches are distracting. --Frank Schulenburg 00:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You happened to capture a ghost van ;-) I like the pic as such, but there has been heavy noise reduction and therefore loss of detail, parts of it looking rather like painted. --Kreuzschnabel 05:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Jardín_Botánico_Jerry_E._Clegg,_Lafayette,_Indiana,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-15,_DD_08.jpg edit

  • Nomination Jerry E. Clegg Botanical Garden, Lafayette, Indiana, USA --Poco a poco 13:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, nice picture but a lot of foliage is overexposed. --Christian Ferrer 08:34, 13 April 2013(UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded, reducing the highlights among other improvements. FYI according to the histogramm there was no overexposure Poco a poco 11:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe there was no overexposure but there is a problem on the foliage. --Christian Ferrer 14:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss, I don't see any problems --Poco a poco 08:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sorry Diego, it has nice composition, but also it's partly overexposed (burned out elements), notes added. Some leafs have unnatural edges due to recovering effort. --Iifar 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:TWT_2012_20_K_2319_k5_3964_vor_Hst_Johann-Nepomuk-Berger-Platz.JPG edit

  • Nomination Historical tram at the Tramwaytag 2012 event in Vienna --Darkweasel94 21:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Nino Verde 13:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC))
    Nice composition but there's CA and overexposed parts. --Kadellar 14:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    Overexposition is nt a problem here, the windows are white so no any critical detail loss. But i was really missed some CA's. --Nino Verde 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Sorry to object, IMHO is overexposition a problem here, since the white parts of the tramway show no detail at all. Furthermore, the second coach shows strong CA. This is not a QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 17:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_Nuestra_Señora_de_la_Candelaria,_Candelaria,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-12,_DD_07.jpg edit

  • Nomination Basilica of Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria and statue of a mencey, work of José Abad, Candelaria, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 07:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. I've seen you worked on the noise already. Good enough for QI since the composition and subject are most appalling --Moroder 09:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it's not QI to me. Strange composition (main subject is the ass of the statue), overprocessed sky is leaving unnatural line between the statue and sky, notable noise on the statue. --Iifar 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not QI, the composition is weird. If you take picture of basilica - you should photo it as a main subject. --Nino Verde 12:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pelecanus_crispus_(Dalmatian_Pelican_-_Krauskopfpelikan)_-_Weltvogelpark_Walsrode_2012-01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Dalmatian Pelican at Weltvogelpark Walsrode. --Fiorellino 00:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 05:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strong vignetting. --Kadellar 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems for me not so strong vignetting but rather flash effect. Good enought. --Moonik 07:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 12:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Idem.--Grondin 18:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Steinsplitter 20:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 19:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Stoke-on-Trent railway station MMB 14 323239.jpg edit

  • Nomination 323239 at Stoke-on-Trent (hey, my script picked 2 of the same place in a row!) Mattbuck 02:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Weak oppose Train is blurred, not sure is it focus miss or motion blur. --Nino Verde 09:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see blur. Mattbuck 12:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I see only one sharp part - the right side of window of cabin. Other image is not in focus, i.e. blurry. --Nino Verde 10:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    Let's ask others --Nino Verde 12:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry Matt, I am with Nino Verde here. The sign on the left shows a motion blur between 8 and 2 o’clock positions, and so do the figures on the train. Try to hold your camera more steady, or else avoid to shoot while an earthquake is on. --Kreuzschnabel 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    I see. Mattbuck 18:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Sain-Jean-de-Luz_Reflet_passerelle_2012.jpg edit

File:Calycobolus africanus MHNT.BOT.2007.40.44.jpg edit

  • Nomination Fruit of Calycobolus africanus--Ercé 05:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Poor masking, as most of the others. Biopics 22:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info New version --Ercé
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Kornelkirsche (Cornus mas) mit Blumen-121-Nürnberg 2013 MG 4287.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Yellow flowers on a tree in Nürnberger Burg. --Ximeg 22:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 08:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but it is noisy and unsharp for me. --Hockei 19:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, it cannot be noise since the image was taken at ISO 100. What you have thought to be noise is the result of a slight oversharpening. I am going to correct it soon. --Ximeg 06:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done A new less sharpened image was uploaded --Ximeg 00:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, the picture ist not that bad, but not QI for me because of the lack of sharpnes. Particulary the blossoms. Maybe because of DOF. Perhaps f/5,6 is not enough. With 135 mm it must be a bit sharper IMO --Hockei (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 Weak opposeTaxonomic specification would be nice as well. DoF too shallow IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 12:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose The image quality is inseparable from the caption. Must be the name of the plant.--Archaeodontosaurus 16:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea how this plant is called and how to figure it out... --Ximeg 00:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely Cornus mas, Kruczy89 23:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done in description.--Grondin 12:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I renamed the file and added more descriptions. --Ximeg 06:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Grondin 18:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 16:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ex_chiesa_San_Vidal_ingresso_con_divinita.JPG edit

  • Nomination Lateral door of San Vidal church in Venice --Moroder 13:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Weak oppose Need to rotate a bit left IMO. --Nino Verde 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)  Comment I have rechecked all the vertical and horizontal lines there is only one turned CW (I put a note) and I don't think I should fix that only one!? Thanks for the comment. --Moroder 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I've added some straight lines to uploaded image. The result you can check here --Nino Verde 10:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)  Comment I don't think those 800 years old doorways were designed by computer ;-) --Moroder 13:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)  Comment Of course no, but take a look on image with lines: horizontal lines at the upper part shows the same angle of rotation (plus or minus) and after rotating by this angle, you will have left side of door straightened and right a bit inclined inside, and then small vertical perspective correction may fix overall image. :) It is my point of view and may be you are right. --Nino Verde 10:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    Let's ask others, i have no strong oppose about this image --Nino Verde 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB F8 395005.jpg edit

  • Nomination 395005 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 10:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Weak opposeIt's train part, not a station. I vote for decline, but want to listen for other mentions --Nino Verde 11:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    It's a train at a station, and the file name is "(station) (stuff) (train)". What is the problem there? Mattbuck 21:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment The blurry part of background can not provide any information about station, thus the station name is not needed from my point of view. My fault, that i did not understand MMB F8 395005 as a train name, sorry about that. But on the other hand the train is blurry too, only cabin part is sharp enough and it is not give any valuable information about train. Thus, my mention is still the same: decline, but may be others have another opinion and think that it is quality image. --Nino Verde 11:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    I use my naming convention on the grounds that then all photos of a place are grouped together, which is probably more important than grouping trains together. 395005 is the train's #, the F8 is just my identifying number for that photo series (of St Pancras). Mattbuck 08:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    Let's ask others, i have no strong oppose about this image --Nino Verde 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Entrée_sud_de_l'église_Saint-Malo,_Dinan,_France.jpg edit

  • Nomination: South gate (in the transept) of the church of Saint Malo in Dinan (France) --EdouardHue 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review It seems to be leaning out. Mattbuck 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Difficult perspective correction. I feel like the left upper outside wall does bend outside. --EdouardHue 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    Reality is a problem. Mattbuck 19:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Steinbruch Ilsfeld 2013.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ilsfeld stone quarry, a part of the village and grainfields. -- Felix Koenig 16:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  OpposeThe clouds overexposed, noise on sky, grass partially oversharped. --Nino Verde 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
     Support I diagree. Overexposure is not visible on histogramm or visibly on the photo. All in all a nice shot. I guess that the very good overall sharpness (no oversharpening at all) results from stitching multiple shots. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 22:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hm, the clouds have extremely overexposed places (noted) and moreof, the overexposition produced yellowish artifacts there. And you tell that they are not visible?? Nice joke! --Nino Verde 11:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Also noted the grass with oversharp. The front of the image is perfect, but the pointed place should not have such extreme sharpness. May be it is the problems with contrast, causing the sharpening effect. --Nino Verde 11:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not joke (on QIC). The issues raised by you are for me neglectiable (at the most an FP issue). The marked sharpenig problem is imho just a darker area on the grass (probably from clouds). Let's wait for other opinions. --Tuxyso 11:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's wait. --Nino Verde 15:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 Weak oppose FP issue? You’re joking again. FP looks rather for the "whow" effect of an image, forgiving tiny lacks of technical quality. Here on QIC, overexposured clouds are a certain "Decline". IMHO the entire image is a bit too bright, not really bad, but far from perfect as well. Then, the composition is somewhat pointless. I see small pieces of fields, of the quarry, of the village, but nothing to catch the eye, no central subject, leaving the question "whats the pic about?". Well, after all, that is rather an FP issue. --Kreuzschnabel 18:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Some oversharpening is visible, but not really distracting. But the clouds are poor. -- Smial 10:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Colombo April 2013-1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Buildings in the Colombo shopping mall, Lisbon, Portugal. Alvesgaspar 18:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Nice photo, but have you tried to remove the Moiré pattern on the roof of the samll building on the left? --Tuxyso 19:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hallelujah! Remove the moiré pattern? Never! It is a kind of throphy to prove how much better my wonderful camera is than the lousy D800! -- Alvesgaspar 21:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, the D800E ist a nice camera. Nonetheless a strong moiré pattern is not quality characteristic and can be often removed via software. --Tuxyso 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Green cast --A.Savin 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Alvesgaspar, in my personal experience the D800E isn't much more affected by moiré than my old D300s. Just because there's no anti-aliasing filter doesn't mean the camera produces moiré. Here the pattern only appears at 100% and in a small portion of the picture; the only solution is to apply blur and lose detail, so I'm not sure it's a critical issue. --Jastrow 07:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Lightroom has a selective moiré correcture. --Tuxyso 07:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • DxO too, but large moiré patterns in the luminance channel can't be removed in post-processing except by going Photoshop. If it can be reduced by all means it should be done. --Jastrow 07:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "If it can be reduced by all means it should be done" - exactly that was my point, thanks for the clarification. --Tuxyso 08:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it is absolutely ridiculous and absurd that people are buying expensive cameras with this low resolution. My 1978 camera cost me less than $ 50 and have 38 megapixels! I agree about the green cast. --ArildV 10:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I was joking of course! Yes, it should be removed but I don't have the tools to do it. Some help?... Alvesgaspar 10:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Frankly, it's far from significant but I did give it a try and upload a new version. Please feel free to revert. QI imo anyway. --Selbymay 13:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Selbymay for the nice job! -- Alvesgaspar 22:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Better take it to CR, two long this stripe already! Alvesgaspar 21:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Chaunochiton kappleri MHNT.BOT.2009.16.7.jpg edit

  • Nomination fruit and seed of Chaunochiton kappleri - Fruit et graine --Ercé 05:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportVery good quality. --Selbymay 08:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad masking. Biopics 20:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info New version --Ercé 20:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now --Archaeodontosaurus 05:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now--Grondin 18:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Steinsplitter 20:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Snow Paradise Veľká Rača Oščadnica - chapel.JPG edit

  • Nomination Snow Paradise Veľká Rača Oščadnica - chapel --Pudelek 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Tuxyso 21:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color low frequency noise on the sky, chromatic abberations at lower left part of building. --Nino Verde 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Nino Verde. --Julian Herzog 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Clusia grandiflora MHNT.BOT.2009.16.3.jpg edit

  • Nomination: fruits of Clusia - --Ercé 05:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 09:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposePoor quality (masking). Biopics 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info New version --Ercé (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficient quality to QI despite missing a proximal photography to the stack.--Archaeodontosaurus 05:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ouch! A QI is not sufficient. It is quality or it is not. Here it is unfortunately the latter (masking harsh and leaving floating pixels). Biopics 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Aspidosperma sp. MHNT.BOT.2004.0.257.jpg edit

  • Nomination fruits and seeds of Quebracho - Fruits et graines de Quebracho --Ercé 05:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Nino Verde 09:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sufficiently identified (especially for a museum specimen!). Biopics 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think so --Archaeodontosaurus 05:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Manicaria saccifera MHNT.BOT.2009.16.2.jpg edit

  • Nomination fruits and seeds of Yolillo palm --Ercé 05:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 09:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and poor masking. Biopics 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info New version --Ercé (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now --Archaeodontosaurus 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not really good yet. I do wonder how many of those poorly masked images have slipped through already without scrutinizing... Biopics 06:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Grondin 18:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Lophodytes_cucullatus_(Hooded_Merganser_-_Kappensäger)_-_Weltvogelpark_Walsrode_2012-04.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Hooded_Merganser at Weltvogelpark Walsrode. -- Fiorellino 15:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality.--ArildV 09:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown whites and a little soft. Biopics 13:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 17:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Theobroma cacao MHNT.BOT.2004.0.204.jpg edit

  • Nomination Fruits and seeds of cacao tree - Fruits et graines de cacaoyer --Ercé 05:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposePoor masking on the right image. Don't use fill tools for masking but edit at high (800%-1000%) magnification with a 1 or 2 pixel feathering. Biopics 13:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info New version --Ercé (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now --Archaeodontosaurus 05:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Grondin 19:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Steinsplitter 10:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Fillaeopsis discophora MHNT.BOT.2009.16.13.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Fruit and seeds - Fruit et graines de l'Arbre à semelle --Ercé 05:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  SupportGood Quality --Rjcastillo 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs remasking (see above). Biopics 13:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info New version --Ercé (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Biopics, I do not see any difference --Archaeodontosaurus 05:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very minor defects (see notes) but QI for me.--Grondin 19:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • WT*??? An image is QI or it is not. It can't be a bit QI. What's the point in having an assessment process if it is constantly watered down by likes à la facebook??? Biopics 15:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, needs remasking IMO (see notes, now six)--Lmbuga 14:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version --Ercé 06:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 17:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Tetradium daniellii MHNT.BOT.2007.52.44.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Fruits and seeds of Bee bee tree - Fruits et graines de l'Arbre aux Abeilles --Ercé 05:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  SupportGood quality. --JLPC 17:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs remasking (see above). Biopics 13:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info New version --Ercé (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is better but much error masking --Archaeodontosaurus 05:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 17:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Rosa_-_Alipore_-_Kolkata_2013-02-10_4837.JPG edit

  • Nomination: a Rosa cultivar by Biswarup Ganguly --Anna reg 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment No latin name of flower, a bit unsharp. --Nino Verde 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    In the file description? I changed that (the file name is Rosa...)Anna reg 10:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for naming. But what about sharpening? The DoF is acceptable from my point of view, but the overall sharpness is not good. --Nino Verde 10:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Seems ok to me. Mattbuck 10:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 17:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pagny-le-Château_2013_04_07_01_IR.jpg edit

  • Nomination Carretera de Montagny-lès-Seurre, Pagny-le-Château (Côte d'Or, Borgoña, Francia) fotografiada con un filtro infrarrojo 760 nm. --Grondin 16:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion OK. --Mattbuck 10:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Very noisy and unsharp. Biopics 13:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment IR light is longer in wavelength than visible light and focuses differently and we need to adjust this focus manually. In fact, an infrared photography is almost never sharp. It is an utopia. To realize a photography strictly sharp is exceptional or even impossible. Moreover, the photocamera lenses are not designed for the IR light, that is why they tend to show much stronger dispersion in the near-IR, which in turn leads to CA and blurring. Even the focus adjustment would not help.--Grondin 14:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • All the explanation doesn't make the image QI. It is the result that counts, not the reason why the image is of poor quality. Biopics 06:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • With all the great respect that I owe you, you forget the most important thing, this is an infrared photography which will not be strictly sharp or focused to perfection as the visible light photographies. Such sharpness is impossible to realize, Perhaps one in a billion if you'are very lucky.--Grondin 14:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • So if IR can't produce a sharp image, why do you submit if to QI? If I make an image with my telelens from a distance of 1 m, I can't focus. It is technically not possible (as with your IR). Then I don't submit such image for QI. ??? Biopics 15:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I myself believe that the best infrared photographies take all their place among the quality images.--Grondin 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support good enouth for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 13:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pagny-le-Château_2013_04_07_03_IR.jpg edit

  • Nomination Árboles del puente del ferrocarril, Pagny-le-Château (Côte d'Or, Borgoña, Francia) fotografiada con un filtro infrarrojo 760 nm. --Grondin 16:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Not sure I like the composition here. The thing bottom left should definitely be removed. Mattbuck 10:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Grondin 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    I don't know, I think we need more opinions. Mattbuck 16:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OOF. Biopics 06:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • With all the great respect that I owe you, you forget the most important thing, this is an infrared photography which will not be strictly sharp or focused to perfection as the visible light photographies. Such sharpness is impossible to realize, Perhaps one in a billion if you'are very lucky.--Grondin 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment IR light is longer in wavelength than visible light and focuses differently and we need to adjust this focus manually. In fact, an infrared photography is almost never sharp. It is an utopia. To realize a photography strictly sharp is exceptional or even impossible. Moreover, the photocamera lenses are not designed for the IR light, that is why they tend to show much stronger dispersion in the near-IR, which in turn leads to CA and blurring. Even the focus adjustment would not help.--Grondin 08:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pitrus (Juncus effusus) 01.JPG edit

  • Nomination: Oppers cut pitrus (Juncus effusus) are ready to be discharged.--Famberhorst 05:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Out of focus on the right. Can you fix it?.--Grondin 11:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Comment Sorry, I do not know what you mean.--Famberhorst 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)✓ DoneCropped.--Famberhorst 07:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    Just about ok, though the background is marginal at best. Mattbuck 01:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Marginal doesn't cut it for the background. Biopics 13:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Comment Background should be trimmed?--Famberhorst 17:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Veel te veel ruis in de achtergrond. Biopics 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 17:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Stockport railway station MMB 15.jpg edit

  • Nomination Stockport railway station. Mattbuck 01:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality, too dark, very noisy, and not enough contrast.--Earth100 05:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, a bit dull light but the overall quality is OK to me, and where do you see any noise? --A.Savin 10:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • People always complain when my photos have a reasonable amount of contrast... Mattbuck 11:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral No any visble noise, but the color balance is not good. White line and asphalt is shifted to cyan. Probably you need to take reference gray from the shadowed building at right --Nino Verde 12:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • But it is pretty dim and not sharp enough.--Earth100 13:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I have redone this from the original photo. Better? Mattbuck 22:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Nino Verde 09:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:BMW_Welt,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2013-02-11,_DD_01.JPG edit

  • Nomination BMW Welt, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 18:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Check image notes, there is the strange artifact on the sky. --Nino Verde 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, I like the picture due to that "strange artifact", it is a shadow Poco a poco 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    A shadow in the sky? Never seen that before. Mattbuck 10:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Same effect like a limelight focusing to the radio tower, you'd also see such a thing. It was not a normal sun but rather a ray of sun. I saw that real and it is also visible in the picture Poco a poco 19:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Let's discus. I change my mind to neutral. --Nino Verde 04:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    Shadows like this can easily be observed by viewing objects against the sun in hazy air. --Kreuzschnabel 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its good to QI --Ralf Roletschek 13:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Santiaguiño_do_Monte._Monte_San_Gregorio._Padrón._Galiza.jpg edit

  • Nomination Santiaguiño do Monte. San Gregorio mountain. Padrón, Galicia (Spain) --Lmbuga 14:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sky is overexposed. If you have the RAW you can probably fix it. --Tuxyso 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks, new version, but I'm not agree--Lmbuga 19:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 20:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I am still not convinced. The top left part is overexposed (note the peak in the histogram due to massive highlight correction (shadows became gray) and the burnt out leafs) --Tuxyso 20:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support But only for the original version. Rework has reddish tint. For histogram: If you have a uniform grey sky, you will get a peak in histogram, this is inevitable. The peak is between RGB(247,247,248) and RGB(248,249,252), so there are no burnt out areas - it's simply a very light grey. Don't overrate Histograms - if I make an image of an black&white checkerboard I will get two peaks at probably RGB(8) and RGB(250) and it will pe perfect. -- Smial 10:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I cannot figure out how you can decline this photo and support the one here. IMHO artefacts from overexposure and hightlight reduction are clearly visible here (at the tree's leafs). But seems to be that I am the only one with that opinion :( --Tuxyso 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Easy: The blown clouds in that photo change colour. Given a colour gradient of the photographed object with constant hue as in this image, part "A". If these colours are overexposed the result looks like "B". In the right part near to transparent RGB(255,255,255) hue changes to a greenish (turquoise?) tint, because the single colour channels of the simulated camera sensor saturate one after the other. If I now reduce the luminance again, this change in hue remains permanent as can be seen in "C". So you have wrong and ugly colours regardless of luminance corrections. This is the case in this image. I have a much uglier example here. -- Smial 16:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Mausoleen Hoefele, Puttkamer-Heymann und Ortlepp-Froböse (Friedhof Hamburg-Ohlsdorf).ajb.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Mausoleums at Ohlsdorf cemetery in Hamburg, Germany. --Ajepbah 07:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    It needs a CW tilt and some perspective correction, sharpness just ok --Poco a poco 07:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    Why tilting? The right edge of left building is vertical, the cupola in the background horizontal - for perspective correction I need a hint, too ;-) --Ajepbah 07:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    Note added Poco a poco 08:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thx for review --Ajepbah 09:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    I see no change. Btw, the sky is also a problem, it is overexposed, --Poco a poco 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
     CommentThere is a slight change, but the edge at right is not completely upright (1, 2) - btw. the sky is not the most significant part of the picture, isn't it ;-) --Ajepbah 14:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    I accept the perspective (although the left side is not perfect either), but the sky has to be fixed. It is not the main subject, but it is on your picture, this applies to everybody, sorry Poco a poco 06:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review After I edited it, I guess we need a third opinion Poco a poco 17:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Rathaus-Oberhausen-Tafel-Steine-2013.jpg edit

  • Nomination Stone tablet with information about old stones of town hall Oberhausen --Tuxyso 22:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - Oversharpened subject, focus more on the background. --Mattbuck 17:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    This time I disagree. Focus is on the stones. I've integrated the background into the composition (framing). Front shows stones from old town hall BG is new town hall. --Tuxyso 21:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment For me it's a nice picture, but need an horizontal transformation (+10 with lightroom), I'll send you a test. --Christian Ferrer 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective corrected ( I stood not exactly in fron of the tablet, but thnaks to Christian). I've slightly modified the crop and applied selective sharpening.  Question Mattbuck, could you take a second look on the sharpening issue and give an opinion if it is better now? Thanks. --Tuxyso 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough quality for me. --Christian Ferrer 04:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - I'm still not sold, but won't oppose. Mattbuck 18:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Steve_P._Wieters_-_Paul_Botter's_Blues_Project_(Little_Mississippi_Bar_2011)-02.jpg edit

  • Nomination German blues musician. -- Fiorellino 19:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Sharpness and noise are fine but the upper crop is too tight and centered composition doesn't work here imo. --Kadellar 22:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
     Weak support Thanks to the inscription on the wall, the composition works for me. Crop a bit too tight though. Let’s discuss. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Tight crop is acceptable. I'd suggest to reduce colour saturation, so the musician does not look like a drunken sailor. Yes I know the problems with coloured stage lighting very well... -- Smial 10:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition.--Grondin 18:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Gorgona_in_Didyma_(2).JPG edit

  • Nomination A Gorgon's head in Didyma, Turkey.JPG --Jbribeiro1 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    CA --Poco a poco 07:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 13:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but CA is too noticeable, see note. Let's discuss --Poco a poco 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA. If corrected i'd change to support. Good view. -- Smial 10:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 06:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Semitic Poppy 01.jpg edit

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 06:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Focus_stacked_spider.jpg edit

  • Nomination Focus stacked Tegenaria atrica spider --Uberprutser 11:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Noisy and weird shadows. Also needs info on the stacking and size. Biopics 13:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
     Support QI for me. The defects are negligible.--Grondin 10:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
     Weak support The spider itself is clearly depicted, excusing for the unnatural shadows and a considerable amount of noise (& traces of noise reduction). --Kreuzschnabel 08:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
     Weak support imho ok--Steinsplitter 14:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pagny-le-Château_2013_04_07_04_IR.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Carretera de Montagny-lès-Seurre, Pagny-le-Château (Côte d'Or, Borgoña, Francia) fotografiada con un filtro infrarrojo 760 nm. --Grondin 16:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Few dustspots. Mattbuck 10:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC
    ✓ Done--Grondin 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    OK. Mattbuck 16:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    OOF. Biopics 10:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment IR light is longer in wavelength than visible light and focuses differently and we need to adjust this focus manually. In fact, an infrared photography is almost never sharp. It is an utopia. To realize a photography strictly sharp is exceptional or even impossible. Moreover, the photocamera lenses are not designed for the IR light, that is why they tend to show much stronger dispersion in the near-IR, which in turn leads to CA and blurring. Even the focus adjustment would not help.--Grondin 08:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pagny-le-Château_2013_04_07_05_IR.jpg edit

  • Nomination Vista del pueblo des de el camino de En Nérolle y La Platière, Pagny-le-Château (Côte d'Or, Borgoña, Francia) fotografiada con un filtro infrarrojo 760 nm. --Grondin 16:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Few dustspots. Mattbuck 10:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed--Grondin 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. Mattbuck 16:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OOF. Biopics 10:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment IR light is longer in wavelength than visible light and focuses differently and we need to adjust this focus manually. In fact, an infrared photography is almost never sharp. It is an utopia. To realize a photography strictly sharp is exceptional or even impossible. Moreover, the photocamera lenses are not designed for the IR light, that is why they tend to show much stronger dispersion in the near-IR, which in turn leads to CA and blurring. Even the focus adjustment would not help.--Grondin 08:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it should be ease to reduce colour noise because the image is pretty much black and white only. --Julian Herzog 08:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed --Grondin 10:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
     Support Much better, I think it's ok then. --Julian Herzog 08:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)