Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 03 2014

Consensual review edit

File:Grosmont railway station MMB 13 92214.jpg edit

 


Nice rainbow though. --Kreuzschnabel 10:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:University of East London MMB 03 Royal Albert Dock.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Royal Albert Dock. Mattbuck 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Non-existent subject, negligible EV. Yerpo 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not a reason to decline at quality images. --Mattbuck 23:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, see Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images. Even without this formality, the photo is extremely average, not sure what quality it's supposed to have. Sorry. --Yerpo 07:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment The subject here is water. I dont think the photograph shows water in a good way. Neither weather, choice of lens, or the choice of angle is adequate for the purpose. There are strong reflections, limited DOF and perspective distortion (partially because of the choice of angle, especially the upper right corner that is furthest away from the camera). I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be random snapshot. --ArildV 08:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with comments above. --Iifar 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per ArildV. --Lewis Hulbert 15:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no quality image for me --Atamari (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Hydrangea macrophylla 005.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Hydrangea macrophylla, with flattened umbels.
    Famberhorst 15:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Too processed (see note as example)--Lmbuga 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      Comment I think that the shadow of the large leaves.
    Famberhorst 04:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm not right: "Discuss" is better--Lmbuga 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose At first sight it is very good, but looking carefully at the full resolution I find the DOF inadequate, as only some parts of the pethals are sharp - IMO some of the centres should be sharp. --Stegop 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Adansonia digitata_arbre_MHNT.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination , arbre of Baobab - arbre de Baobab --Ercé 13:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment A little bit more contrast wouldn't hurt and that sky is kind of dull, but since I suspect that it is very realistic, maybe it is QI. --Stegop 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Done New version. --Ercé 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA, strange colours, blurry bottom. Mattbuck 16:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Done OK ! New new version. --Ercé 13:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok good now --Archaeodontosaurus 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Stegop 23:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me --Halavar 11:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Club_Alpino_Italiano_sign_at_the_Langkofelhütte.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Club Alpino Italiano sign at the Langkofelhütte in Val Gardena --Moroder 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Corners of the plaque are blurred. --Mattbuck 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    •   Comment I disagree, sensless review --Moroder 22:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      •   Comment Have a look at the rock above the eagle, around the rusty dots. There’s definitely motion blur visible, resulting either from earthquake or camera shake. (I reckon that’s the price of high resolution.) --Kreuzschnabel 11:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
        •   Comment It must be me with Parkinson's even at shutter speed 1/500 --Moroder 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
          •   Comment No need for Parkinson’s. Working with "only" 16 Mpix systems, I choose 1/2000 or even 1/4000 to get a real crisp sharp image (unless using a tripod of course). Natural hand movement is not too small to blur several pixels at 1/500. --Kreuzschnabel 10:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0011.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Prayer hall at Wat Chan, Vientiane, Laos -- DerFussi 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Heavy noise reduction caused much loss of details. There are also strange halos in the image. There may be perspective problems too. Wrongly processed, otherwise a very nice image. --Joydeep 16:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      CommentI should not work at night after a bottle of wine... It was the Smart Sharpen Filter in Photoshop, that apllied a heavy noise reduction partly, not the processing - unfortunately not at the spots I checked. Normally I am not a fan of heavy noise reduction. Do I have any chance with a re-upload? Are there perspective problems or not? Can you give me a hint where? I used some guide lines to check it. -- DerFussi 17:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    You can surely reupload another version of this file. Sharper version would be very good. There are minor perspective issues, I have made some annotations. --Joydeep 19:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've checked the perspective issues. Look at my screenshots [1],[2] and [3]. Thats very slighty. Maybe 1,5px on the left side, if you look at 300%. OK. I'll kick the smart sharpen filter and rework it tonight. Upload a new one anyway and will decide whether its good enough - and never work at late night. Thanks. -- DerFussi 04:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)<bɾ />  Done reworked -- DerFussi 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      Comment There are several optical illusions working against you here, the curved item over the central peak, the central columns get narrower as they go up, the wires crossing at an angle, and the left front wall's horizontal tilts, even though the vertical there is mostly vertical. Sharpness is improved, though. --Generic1139 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, it is a bit tricky. If I wanted to put it on my wall here, I would retouch it and remove all wires, but I lack in time. The QI is not a must have. I consider it as a part of a learning process, not as a contest. :) Thanks for the comments. -- DerFussi 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ascensor del Monte San Pedro.005 - A Coruña.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Elevator in San Pedro's Mount, in Corunna, Spain. --Drow male 13:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment See note: Red and cyan CAs. Overxposed areas? If you fix the CAs, it's good for me--Lmbuga 14:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      Comment If you can't fix the   chromatic aberrations, I can fix CAs, but I don't have the RAW file--Lmbuga 15:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    *  Done by me. New version: Discuss--Lmbuga 01:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI now imo --Lewis Hulbert 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)