Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 22 2016

Consensual review edit

File:2012-07-17_-_Landtagsprojekt_München_-_Dianetempel_-_7398.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dianatempel (Hofgartentempel) in München. --Steschke 21:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality --Nordenfan 10:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree sorry Very much of chroma noise, and the pavilion is tilted --A.Savin 20:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Savin.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate lighting, slight tilt, chroma noise in the shadows. --Hendric Stattmann 12:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 07:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Paisaje_en_Cerro_Brujo,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_114.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination View of Cerro Brujo, San Cristobal Island, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador --Poco a poco 19:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose overexposed + tilted and blur at the left --A.Savin 23:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   New version should be ok now Poco a poco 19:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment OK, better perhaps, but still I'm not sure about QI, further opinion appreciated --A.Savin 21:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's good for QI. Archi38 15:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Enormous resolution of ~36MPix, still sufficiently sharp at 100% - The 5DSR would deliver a better sharpness at f/5.6 or 8.0, though.. Exposure, composition ok, nice colors. QI for me! Hendric Stattmann 12:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 07:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Reliefs_by_A_Felici_Palazzo_Cavalli_Franchetti_Venice_5.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Palazzo Franchetti in Venice - Allegory by Augusto Felici --Moroder 06:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, noise, low quality --A.Savin 23:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  Done I denoised the image and reduced the image size. The image was cropped initially keeping the same original image size (4,912 × 7,360 pixels) which resulted in higher noise --Moroder 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I really don't know what you done, but the overall quality does not satisfy me - not before the latest edit, and not after. A sculpture will not runaway and may be focused more carefully, so I may request similar quality I apply myself for sculptures... --A.Savin 20:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose subject isn't centered Archi38 15:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but for a close up it is not sharp enough. --Hubertl 03:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate composition, lack of sharpness & contrast. Hendric Stattmann 12:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 18:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)