Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 13 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Ford_A_ver_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ford A --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Corrected --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      Comment Too yellow and a bit green; but sharp, with good detail and good composition IMO--Lmbuga 23:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      Comment Sorry, but I have used a Gray Board for White Balance, and no color adjustment, I see the color as okay and as on the spot.--Villy Fink Isaksen 12:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    {{o}} Bad white balance, but others users can like it because it's a good image--Lmbuga 20:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    New proposal File:Ford A ver 1-retouched.jpg--Lmbuga 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    : too bleached --Villy Fink Isaksen 21:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      Support I find WB acceptable and can support this one. I wouldn't say I the new version is much better - for example, the bottom left corner with grass lost its greens in the new version... Heuschrecke 09:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    New proposal/version added and not so bleached as Lmbuga's picture File:Ford A ver 1 just ones more.jpg, but may be to dark. --Villy Fink Isaksen 21:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      Support Adjusting the white balance (as an option). The file was updated .. --Aleks G 00:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
      SupportThe version by Aleks G looks good to me - at least wrt light and color of the grass. Wrt the car I (obviously) do not know. --Slaunger 06:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to me, the white balance seems ok. Given that the car is beige and the grass is dry, I think you cannot do better --Gzzz 21:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better. Very good IMO--Lmbuga 01:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Neos_Marmaras_Bay_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The bay of Neos Marmaras, Greece --Heuschrecke 19:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice golden evening light. Probably you could apply masked sharpening to reduce the noise on the sky. Nonetheless QI for me. --Tuxyso 21:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    {{o}} I'd like to hear more reviews because perhaps I'm wrong. In my opinion, too much oversaturated (it seems unnatural IMO), noise at sky, underexposed areas (observed with Lightroom), a part of the wall is blown out (see note), CAs (see note), but... --Lmbuga 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      Comment I can say something good of the picture: It's sharp--Lmbuga 01:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's not oversatuared, it is nice golden evening lightning. --Tuxyso 06:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Ok. Sorry, I have not the truth, I say what I think I should say--Lmbuga 06:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks both of you for the comments. I redeveloped the picture with a different WB and tried to fix all problems pointed out. Heuschrecke 22:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      Support I think it’s OK in the new version. --Kreuzschnabel 06:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      Support OK as it was before. --Tuxyso 06:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version is much better. Why did the proportions change so much? -- Smial 11:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Both times, I developed the picture from a raw file and then corrected perspective in photoshop. Two perspective corrections I made slightly differ from each other. Heuschrecke 15:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Same words than the words of the other image--Lmbuga 01:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 08:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Charbonnage de Sauwartan 02.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Coal mine of Sauwartan Bourgeois.A 20:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline At the top right corner, there's overexposed sky and underexposed tree branch. I'm afraid this could not be fixed. Heuschrecke 20:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Not schot in RAW, you abuse !!!! Compare with that... Bourgeois.A 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC) If you don't agree with me, let's put it to discussion. Your picture is definitely much better than the one you linked, but still not a QI in my opinion. Heuschrecke 23:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 08:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:De Alde Feanen 11.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: The Alde Feanen. View from tower 'Romsicht' about Headam sleat to the bridge Ie sicht.--
    Famberhorst 05:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Strong cw tilt.--ArildV 06:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      Done Undo tilt.--
    Famberhorst 15:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Tilt corrected, im not sure about the image otherwise. Happy for a second opinion.--ArildV 22:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    I'm also not sure, I miss sharpness in the middle distance. Lets better discuss... --Dirtsc 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    Unfortunate white balance, the pic is very blueish. --Kreuzschnabel 20:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      Done Correctie witbalans. --
    Famberhorst 16:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 23:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Castle Combe Circuit MMB B4.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Castle Combe. Mattbuck 06:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Much too dark. --Kreuzschnabel 07:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    It was raining. Believe me, the light is correct. Mattbuck 18:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Define correct – do you want to depict the weather or the castle? --Kreuzschnabel 07:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    Light and contrast seems correct, Qi for me   Support --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    I’d like to have some more opinions on that one --Kreuzschnabel 06:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} As Kreuzschnabel, sorry, dark to be at 14:22h. --Lmbuga 22:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Light and brightness are realistic. As you can see it was a f*** rainy day at late spring in western europe. Not quite the standard conditions for a "postcard-shot". I like the mood in this image, but I'm not sure, if it is QI. --Dirtsc 04:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Glad someone knows what rain looks like. Mattbuck 19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Alas I'm quite familiar with this type of weather. ;-) --Dirtsc 19:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral New review: Opposing seems excessive because the difference is only a bit of exposition and my monitor is not the best to review this image (my monitor is a bit dark)--Lmbuga 09:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)~
  •   Oppose 1. Unbalanced composition: left half of image almost empty and right half is full with objects, some of which (the tree) are half-cut at the right margin. 2. The main object of the shot is the track, but half of visible track is covered by a fence. The description says "Old Paddock Bend", but the turn looks almost flat on the picture, so it is not well-represented too. I'm sorry. Heuschrecke 09:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    It was the start of a bank of trees, it had to get cut somewhere. Yes, there are fences around motorracing circuits, we don't live in the days of hay bales marking the track anymore, and your view on what is or is not a turn is quite irrelevant because that is what it is called. It's not much of a bend, no, but it is still a bend. Mattbuck 19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


Well, even if I was too picky about the turn, the composition is still unbalanced. Heuschrecke 20:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  •   Oppose You haven't chosen the weather, that's a clear fact... unfortunately, the picture doesn't show much : you can't see much of the circuit ; the car, the people, the big sign are partly hidden... what is this picture supposed to show us ? --Gzzz 21:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 23:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Marylebone station MMB 21.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Marylebone station. Mattbuck 10:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Neutral I don't know anything about long exposure and if it's QI or not, sorry Christian Ferrer 18:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The only encyclopaedical use I could think of is showing the blur of long exposure. Therefore: Lacks content IMO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    That is not a relevant criteria for QI. Mattbuck 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    If it wasn’t, I could nominate a motion-blurred pic of the wall behind my monitor and expect it to be promoted ;-) --Kreuzschnabel 06:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Kreuzschnabel, I can't see the content of the image. If it should show an "escalator", I can recognize none. At least not in "good quality". --Dirtsc 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    I have amended the description to give more detail. Mattbuck 20:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 08:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Motacilla_flava_thunbergi_LC0302.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Male Western Yellow Wagtail (Dark-headed Wagtail, Motacilla flava thunbergi), Grimsdalen, Rondane National Park, Norway --LC-de 09:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Comment nice, but not 2 megapixels (1600x1200 is 1,92 mp). Can you upload a larger version? It's a bit dark and it has IMO overexposed areas (backlighting) --Lmbuga 15:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for the critics. Could you plese point out the overexposed areas a bit more precisly? It was a cloudy day, so you see the the grey sky in the background... --LC-de 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You're right, not overexposed, the problem is a lach of clarity due to the exposure and backlighting: see notes as example; but the problem with the clarity is not important. The head and the eyes are too dark, sorry--Lmbuga 19:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    hmmm, I'm not fully convinced with this juatification. The small guy is named Dark-headed Wagtail for a reason. I'd like to put this to discussion, if you don't mind. --LC-de 22:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    No problem, it's only my opinion--Lmbuga 00:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good shot of the bird, I think it could be a VI. But it is slightly unsharp and the backlight causes CA around the beak of the bird. --Dirtsc 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong CAs as already mentioned. The camera has a resolution of ca. 12MP, so why is this version so small, only 3MP? --Manuela 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Because this is living wild bird, which didn't let me come that close, even if I have a 12MP camera. The original image shows a small bird before a big background, so I cropped it to enhance the composition. On the other hand this question is completely irrelvant if the picture meets the QI resolution requirements at all, no offense meant. --LC-de 09:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 08:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Kirchhaslach_panorama_2013_07_31_18_51.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The german village Kirchaslach viewed from east. Photographed by Tobias Maier.--GMLSX (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Why is this one in CR? I don’t see any review yet.   Support QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, several dust spots in the sky, please remove --A.Savin 18:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Done Removed spots caused by dust on the lens rear and three one pixel wide stitching errors.--GMLSX (talk)
  •   Support Second version is fine for me. Heuschrecke 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now --A.Savin 22:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 08:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Heimerdingen Hotel Jägerheim.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination former guesthouse in Heimerdingen, Germany --Harke 16:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      Comment QI for me, but (and in spite of ) it needs a little perspective correction IMO--Lmbuga 17:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)   Comment I tried my best for perspective, please have a look to the windows, IMO they are all OK. Where do you see problems? Thanks. --Harke 18:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{o}} See notes, sorry. Improvable--Lmbuga 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Done I upload a new version. In my opinion is better. If you want you can revert it. Now it's good for me, but I don't know if I can vote--Lmbuga 10:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  Comment Looks very good, thank you --Harke (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  •   Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 12:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 13:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good. --Dirtsc 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 08:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)