Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 24 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Doors_and_Statues,_Bruges.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Entrance and Statues of St. Peter and St. Paul, Bruges --Jsamwrites 07:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 08:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, not sharp enough IMO. --Tournasol7 16:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Tournasol7. --Tagooty 11:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support The image sharpness is sufficient for an A4-size printout. In any case, I can see enough details. One should not be deceived by relatively low contrasts in the brickwork. If someone wants to re-sharpen, he can do it with two mouse clicks. On the other hand, a photo that has been uploaded over-sharpened once is hardly repairable. --Smial 12:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Enough quality for QI. Vincent Vega 10:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Morena_gigante_(Gymnothorax_javanicus),_parque_nacional_Ras_Muhammad,_Egipto,_2022-03-27,_DD_48.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Giant moray (Gymnothorax javanicus), Ras Muhammad National Park, Egypt --Poco a poco 09:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Small, hazy. --Kallerna 12:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me. --Ermell 12:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support For me too. --Palauenc05 15:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Image resolution just below my preferred 6 MPixels, but that's not set in stone when shooting wildlife. I would have preferred a slightly less bluish white balance. --Smial 15:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Smial: I've updated a new version with an improved WB Poco a poco 21:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thx! I can't really judge whether the colours now correspond exactly to the real conditions, but I think the new version looks much better. --Smial 22:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Enough quality. Vincent Vega 07:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Austin-Healey_3000_Mk_III_sports_convertible_(1962)_Solitude_Revival_2022_1X7A0112.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III sports convertible from 1962 at Solitude Revival 2022.--Alexander-93 17:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, blurry, and noisy background --Ezarate 17:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me. --Ermell 20:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Somewhat noisy, somewhat low DOF, but acceptable for an action shot, where short exposure time needs high ISO. Good lighting and composition. --Smial 08:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too blurry, imo, especially the front.--Peulle 09:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. Good composition, good lighting, but the front of the car looks oversharpened. It's a pity. -- Spurzem 11:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Good enough for QI of a moving car. --Tagooty 03:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Blurred but it’s an action shot. Weak support. Vincent Vega 05:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Good enough for a moving target. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)