Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 07 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Jean Michel Jarre B10-2016.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Jean-Michel Jarre, electronic music maker --A.Savin 16:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional oppose A.Savin I was scrutinizing this as I was considering to nominate it at FPC, but I think there is too much chroma noise in his black clothing. Otherwise very nice shot! -- Slaunger 22:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Some noise is perceivable, but at this resolution it's absolutely within the acceptable limits, IMO. --Basotxerri 09:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Das ist keine Studioaufnahme. Für eine Live-Situation deutlich überdurchschnittlich. Die Augen sind scharf, soweit das möglich war. Etwas irritiert mich der Weißabgleich. Der Reißverschluß ist mal neutral grau, mal grün. Das Weiße der Augen ist zu gelb. Unterm Strich aber für mich klar QI. (Google Translation:) This is not a studio shot. For a live situation clearly above-average. The eyes are sharp as far as that was possible. Something irritates me the white balance. The zipper is neutral gray, sometimes green. The whites of the eyes are too yellow. Bottom line but for me clear QI. --Ralf Roletschek 16:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Slaunger, I'm happy you appreciate this photo. I've made a new version (maybe some more neutral WB, pls. check). Considering the "greenish" shades on the jacket, i don't think it's chroma noise, but rather some inevitable effects due to artificial light. Thanks --A.Savin 17:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    •   Support Hi A.Savin. Thanks for the new edit. Actually, it was not the green tint in the jacket I had in mind but the faint alternating pattern of green and purple in his T-shirt. I have seen similar things with my (much worse) Canon EOS 600D sensor when lifting shadows and found that by increasing chroma noise reduction it helped. Ralf is probably correct that this is perfectly OK for QI, so I have striked my conditional oppose. For FP, since it is improvable, you may consider addressing it, and I am hesitant to nominate it there as is. -- Slaunger 18:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Auch für mich ist das ein FP. Der Gesichtsaudruck ist toll, die technische Umsetzung in meinen Augen perfekt, besser geht es nicht. Technisch nicht perfekt aber es ist nunmal keine Studioaufnahme. Auch wenn wir mal aneinandergeraten, diese Foto finde ich wirklich Spitze! --Ralf Roletschek 22:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Full   Support. Great shot under live conditions, I would also support it as FP candidate. If allowed. --Smial 00:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Ausgezeichnetes Bild. Um ein Farbrauschen zu erkennen, muss man schon mehr als genau hinschauen. -- Spurzem 16:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Ralf Roletschek, Smial, Spurzem I have nominated it at FPC here. -- Slaunger 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Poco a poco 20:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Wien-Innere_Stadt_-_Verfassungsgerichtshof_und_Kunstforum.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Austrian Constitutional Court --Haeferl 23:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Great architecture and good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now: it needs a bit of perspective correction --A.Savin 10:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks fine to me. I guess you don't like foreshortening, which is totally standard technique in painting. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, image is tilted and needs additional perspective correction. --Basotxerri 15:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me. Alvesgaspar 23:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 22:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Metro_de_São_Paulo,_Luz_Station,_Brazil.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Metro de São Paulo, --The Photographer 11:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 11:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. Excessive NR, nothing sharp. --A.Savin 10:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You can't Apply the same rule for any condition --The Photographer 11:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I realize the conditions are difficult, but the noise reduction is too heavy for me. I don't understand how this made FP.--Peulle 11:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice mood and nice photo. But not a QI -- Alvesgaspar 23:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Home_less_dog_sleeping,_São_Paulo_downtown,_Brazil.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Home less dog sleeping --The Photographer 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose The elephant is blurred. Charlesjsharp 14:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 16:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - The elephant isn't that important for the picture. The photo in general is not that sharp and the carriage looks more focused than the dog, but I think it's good enough for the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, poor quality IMO: Too tight at right! (not QI!). All vertical lines, except the vertical lines on the left, are tilted to the right. Noise and detail are poor IMO--Lmbuga 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per my colleagues, 1/ too small DoF 2/crop at right too tight --Christian Ferrer 18:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 22:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)