Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 24 2014

Consensual review edit

File:Balaton Lake - small boat.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Balaton, Hungary - boat --Pudelek 10:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    *   Comment WB-Problem. Everything is just blue... --Hubertl 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor color balance. To bluish. Have a look on the sail and the boat. There is no white to see. --Steindy 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 22:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    With all due respect, asking for clearing the white balance is not just a matter of taste, it´s something really basic and essential! --Hubertl 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Its really easy to fix it. I tried it with LR and its getting really better! --Hubertl 23:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Hubertl.--Jebulon 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment what is the Problem, Pudelek, if you don´t have the program to fix it, send me a mail, we can make it together! Its not a bad picture! --Hubertl 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment If you want, you can try fix this photo :) --Pudelek 11:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can not fix jpgs, especially not with this form of communication.--Hubertl 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    I have only JPG, not RAW --Pudelek 19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Livioandronico2013 08:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 2nd price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Carlos Perez Couto) –Be..anyone 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Though it is a stunning motif, it does not comply with QI criterions: Notable magenta fringes (fixable) and blown out sky (not fixable). --Cccefalon 06:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support blown out sky dont disturb. --Ralf Roletschek 16:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment The overexposure is marginal and therefore acceptable IMHO but the CA shall be fixed and there is lack of sharpness, Poco a poco 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Yes, there is a strong CA, but the photo still impressed me with his great composition and beautiful colors. --Steindy 20:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cccefalon --Livioandronico2013 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support With all due respect, but sometimes we should give an extraordinary impression the primacy adverse to some (almost not avoidable) technical lapses.--Hubertl 00:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Hubertl. The sky is fine. This is an example of a blown sky that's correct exposure. Ram-Man 02:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I really do not understand, why a stunning motif is justifying chromatic aberrations which are easy to fix. And I noticed that for some of the reviewers it is anyway, if the descriptions is bullshit. " 2nd price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014" is an effrontery which wants to insinuate, that this motif must be QI because it got awarded in WLE. More cheeky is, that Be..anyone did this despite the fact, that I already gave this hint before in previous reviews. --Cccefalon 06:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's not that complicated: I don't normally consider CAs to be important at all. Perhaps you could fix the CAs? The exposure is fine and the only issue is the blurry foreground element which isn't that distracting. -- Ram-Man 12:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's actually trivial, I just nominated all WLE 2014 winners that did not already have some QI or better tag with a hint what it's about. That was in the first batch of five, and reviewers such as Cccefalon are supposed to check the description on the page, the minimal note of the nominator is irrelevant. As it happens I actually like this one as is. Modifying winners after the fact is ingenious. –Be..anyone 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is no way that we lower the bar of QI requirements because it is a stunning shot. That can be done in FP, but not here. CA and the sharpness problem issues make me regretly oppose Poco a poco 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support CA fixed --The Photographer 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  Comment -The Photographer, when you upload a new version, you cannot vote any more. --Cccefalon 09:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I considered that this was an automated fix minor (one click lightroom). However, you're right, my vote is invalid, thank you very much for the warning. --The Photographer 11:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Penalizing someone for helping out? The vote should still be valid, especially in CR where everyone's opinions matter. If the person who modified it loses a vote, then the original nominator should gain the vote. Ram-Man 12:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Repairing some technical problems has nothing to do with the original, creative work. In my opinion. --Hubertl 03:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers. --P e z i 12:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support The author is not participating here;may not good enough in editing too. So someone should fix if issues are minor (as already done now). Jkadavoor 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Yann 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 08:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)