Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 04 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Berlin_-_Funkturm11.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Funkturm Berlin, lookout level --Taxiarchos228 04:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Tilted clockwise. Mattbuck 10:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    you're right, corrected now --Taxiarchos228 20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Objection, Your Honour. See the horizon now, which was correct before. Vertical PC has to be applied, not rotation. --Kreuzschnabel 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
      Not done Mattbuck 11:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      Comment New version uploaded with tilt&perspective corrected. -- Smial 16:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
      Support I think it’s promotable now. I don’t like the reflections of the windows though. --Kreuzschnabel 12:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise. I don't like the reflections. See notes. --Lmbuga 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 08:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Evangelische_Akademie_Tutzing_-_Rotunde_-_WC_Hinweise_001.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Toilet sign at Evangelische Akademie Tutzing in Tutzing. --Mummelgrummel 08:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Comment Too dark IMHO and perspective distortion. New version uploaded. --Kreuzschnabel 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    the object of the bottom (see note, I don't know what is) is disturbing. Strong noise and not sharp IMO. --Lmbuga 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      DoneI have uploaded a version with new crop and noise reduction. I hope, that this one is o.K. The object of the bottom is a part of a light there. --Mummelgrummel 06:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      Comment, I'm not sure, discuss--Lmbuga 09:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough sharp. A bit of noise--Lmbuga 20:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 08:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Echium_rauwolfii_flowers_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Echium rauwolfii --Gidip 22:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose imo too blurry where it should have been focused --A.Savin 10:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support The first flower is in focus IMO (+ aperture is already f/18). --Jastrow 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too blurry. Skip to f29, iso 100, increase the flash to 0.7 or 1.0. You have a good camera: here should work.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    •   Comment f/29 at ISO 320 would mean a 1/10s shot. Even with more flash, that's very long for an outdoors shot. It would be even worse at ISO 100. And what about diffraction at f/29? --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Fully agree with Jastrow. Although macro lens are capable of such F values, I don't know any serious photographer who uses them. At such high values, sharpness is always compromised due to diffraction. Gidip 12:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Increases the power of the flash. Trial! See : Gonocerus acuteangulus MHNT Envol.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus 16:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Your proof-of-concept shot is good, but it's affected by diffraction: the D800E can produce much sharper pictures. It's a trade-off between sharpness and depth of field. --Jastrow 07:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 08:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)