Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 22 2014

Consensual review edit

File:Hanoi_Vietnam_Waiting-at-the-red-lights-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hanoi, Vietnam: Motorbiker, waiting at an intersection for the green lights. --Cccefalon 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The helmet is cut above. Also left the trim is too low. The forehead and nose are blurred. --Steindy 20:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a "face shot"; not "head shot", so composition is OK. But what happened to his eyebrow? (I noticed he is less hairy.) Jkadavoor 07:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  Comment Jkadavoor, it is as it is. Nothing retouched at his eyebrow. --Cccefalon 09:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So   Support Jkadavoor 10:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI. --P e z i 12:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Widok_ze_szczytu_Góry_Iwerskiej_(02).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: View from the Iverian Mountain to the city and New Athos Monastery. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. I like the motif and the composition, but there is really too much noise and IMO too less contrast. --XRay 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 12:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      Comment Yes, there is less noise. But: Sorry, IMO it looks posterized now.--XRay 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 13:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment because Poco a poco asked, I like (04), (05) and (07) better for the monastery, and (06) for the overview. –Be..anyone 22:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I got lost Be..anyone, where did I ask what? Poco a poco 12:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: , I misunderstood the template, it ended with your signature and "more opinions?" while the time was still running. –Be..anyone 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Widok_ze_szczytu_Góry_Iwerskiej_(01).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: View from the peak of Iverian Mountain. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Same here. Insufficient quality. Sorry. I like the motif and the composition, but there is really too much noise and IMO too less contrast. --XRay 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 11:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      Neutral It's better now but IMO details are missing now.--XRay 16:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 10:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Baños_Romanos,_Bath,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_18.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Roman Baths, Bath, England --Poco a poco 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO it's overprocessed/oversharpened. --XRay 17:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    I do not see any parts granular. I see only motion blur in people and that is normal in available light. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support despite the critical situation, were there are no lights at the visitors by design, its QI for me.--Hubertl 13:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Steindy 10:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per XRay --Livioandronico2013 10:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 10:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2011_Dubrownik,_Widok_na_morze_z_tarasu_widokowego_(03).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sea view from the observation deck in the district of Boninovo. Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik-Neretva County, Croatia. --Halavar 09:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Not sure I can see anything in focus. Mattbuck 21:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing in focus? You can see detail in the tiny boats at 100%. This is f/9 @ 28mm. There is tons of depth of field here. --Ram-Man 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    And yet there is nothing which is sharp. Mattbuck 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Matt on this one. The camera settings look okay but probably the denoising was too strong and the detail is gone Poco a poco 09:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Matt, yet I think it’s not a focus problem but post-processing (for me it’s the typical denoising smear). Lack of detail anyway. Horizon is curved btw. --Kreuzschnabel 10:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Livioandronico2013 09:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Park_nadmorski_(02).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Seaside park. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. I'm really sorry. Nice image but nothing is sharp and too much noise. Please check your camera and your image processing. With ISO 200 it's nearly impossible to produce noisy pictures like this. And if the lens work's fine it should be sharp. --XRay 17:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 02:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      Comment Yes, there is no noise. But IMO there is too much noise reduction so the details has gone. There is nothing sharp. Sorry.--XRay 16:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Livioandronico2013 09:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (03).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View from the Iverian Mountain to the New Athos Monastery. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 10:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. ISO 200 should be good enough, but it's soft and moisy and contrast is missing. --XRay 17:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      Done New development from RAW using a different software. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      Neutral It's better, but it looks posterized. Looking for another opinion ...--XRay 16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice view but oversharpened and posterized. The main subject looks unnatural, rather like a waterpainting. --Kreuzschnabel 10:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Livioandronico2013 09:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Plaża_i_Góra_Anakopia_(02).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: The beach and Iverian Mountain. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO too unsharp. --XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
      Done New development from RAW using a different software. I think that new version of the image is better. --Halavar 02:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      Neutral It's much better. I would choose another crop with less water and less sky.--XRay 17:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Done OK. I uploaded new version with proposed crop. --Halavar 12:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 09:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Park_nadmorski_(06).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Café "Swan". Seaside park. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia, Georgia. --Halavar 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Comment Soft. Pleclown 11:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    •   Done New version upoloaded with more contrast and sharpness mask. --Halavar 13:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Still soft IMO, albeity now a bit noisier. Mattbuck 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
        •   Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better. --Halavar 01:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 09:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-12-helsinki-RalfR-N3S_0825-405.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Helsinki, Katajanokkanluoto --Ralf Roletschek 17:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 17:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong magenta CA on the building. Also, there is a problem with sharpness level. --Halavar 17:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some CA, and motion blur in vertical direction. Very nice composition, though. -- Smial 10:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial. Ram-Man 13:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Category "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)