Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 28 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha._Teatro_Teresa_Carreño_3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Don Quijote --The Photographer 16:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose The half cut person on the left side should be cropped out. In consequence the main actors get centered. Noise level is ok. I am not sure about copyright stuff, but my review is explicitly about photographic quality. --Cccefalon 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      Comment If you have questions regarding the copyright of this photo, please write to Laura Fiorucci, she is in charge of the decoration and scenery. thanks --The Photographer 18:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
      Support OK, though I'd personally prefer more noise and clarity rather than the blur we get instead. Mattbuck 12:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Mattbuck --Christian Ferrer 15:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-27_Groezrock_Crossfaith_Hiroki_Ikegawa_07.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bassist Hiroki Ikegawa of japanesse Crossfaith at Groezrock 2013, Belgium --Achim Raschka 10:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Unfortunately the slanted incident of light is destroying the photo; it makes it look like a failure of the footage and attracts to much attention. Furthermore the noise level of the dark parts is too much and is bearing artefacts when watching in full resolution. Finally I complain the bad crop of the right hand. Not resolvable, sorry. --Cccefalon 14:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree. With some careful noise reduction and somewhat tighter crop at teh top and the left side it's great. --Smial 10:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
      Not done Mattbuck 00:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Tarragona,_Pont_del_Diable_--_2006_--_4.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Pont del Diable, Tarragona, Spain --XRay 07:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose - Ruined due to the sky. Believe me, I know this problem of bright skies ruining nice pictures. The weather condidtions when I was in Camdobia were like this and it is imposible to have a well exposed picture with such a sky and areas in shadow, a shame --Poco a poco 11:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Pardon me but I checked the histogram and not a single pixel is burned out. Again, according to Image guidelines and the example, this photo is exposed well and according to me, a QI. --Urmas83 15:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    Pardon me, but the histogram is only one half of the truth. I can "fix" the histogram of each picture, do you wanna bet?. This doesn't mean that the exposure is right. You can reduce the overexposed areas locally so that "technically" the tool will tell you that there is no overexpsoure, but in cases like this one that is not possible anymore, because, even in the case of a RAW, the pixel information is just gone, and the result is just moving from #FFFFFF (white) to something like #F2F2F2 (grey). Please, slow down and stop questioning my judgements. What you do is called wikihounding Poco a poco 18:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - sky is dodgy, but there is little to no fine detail. Just look at the trees on the left. Mattbuck 23:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Museums_in_the_Vatican_City.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Museums in the Vatican City --Staselnik 00:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality and great annotations. --Stepro 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose very interesting view, high documentation level, great annotations indeed, but the top half is unsharp IMO, + strange distortion/correction of the pinnacle at right bottom, and distractive elements (main cuppola?) at left bottom (composition). I'd be happy to read other opinions, please.--Jebulon 19:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support acceptable for me --Christian Ferrer 20:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- I have to agree with Jebulon because some parts of the picture are too blurry. Not only the top half but also the foreground. A shame, because this is a quite interesting view. -- Alvesgaspar 14:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support I see Sharpness issues only at the edges. It's not disturbing in my opinion You could crop away from left and bottom a bit. But you have my support anyway. --Urmas83 20:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support - seems ok to me. Mattbuck 23:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Facade_of_Saint_Peter's_Basilica.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Facade of Saint Peter's Basilica --Staselnik 15:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 11:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose barrel distortion, white parts of the sky are overexposed, strange composition (dome not visible), light not optimum. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 13:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Annoying geometric distortion, crop too tight, unsharp, poor lighting. -- Alvesgaspar 14:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Mikulov_Park._Katzrin._Israel._04.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mikulov Park. Katzrin. Israel. --Staselnik 23:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   OpposeInsufficient quality. Blurred and composition --Moroder 09:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      Done Photo replaced by a new--Staselnik 22:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The greenish line across the sky is really disturbing. Plus, is there any special reason to keep a crop that is showing foliage in the upper right part of the photo? --Cccefalon 08:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:LighthouseKiipsaate.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sunset at Kiipsaare lighthouse --Urmas83 13:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Väga hea, maybe even FP. --Iifar 13:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
      Comment very nice pic (agree to FP nomination), but I don't believe that the lighthouse is leaning in that way to the left. Please apply perspective correction. --P e z i 21:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)  Comment It is leaning indeed.You can google "kiipsaare lighthouse" and you will see. --Urmas83 07:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support really amazing! --P e z i 08:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support - if it's leaning no problem for QI. -- Achim Raschka 09:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Good enough though I would like to see the silhouette of the lighthouse all black, with no visible detail. -- Alvesgaspar 14:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 12:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Round straw bales in Bavaria -02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Round hay bales in Lower Bavaria, Germany. --High Contrast 20:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Stepro 01:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Unsharp in 100% view --P e z i 18:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Lacks some crispyness in fine details, perhaps somewhat too strong noise reduction, but nice composition, lighting, and colours. Not high end, but acceptable. -- Smial 07:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- The main subject looks out of focus to me -- Alvesgaspar 14:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar, it’s unsharp. Nice composition though with the track circumscribing the bale on the left side. --Kreuzschnabel 14:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 12:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Vaade Toolse linnuse varemetele merelt.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ruins of medieval Toolse stronghold --Urmas83 13:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Blurry -- Alvesgaspar 23:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment don't think it's blurred, but it's tilted clockwise --P e z i 21:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   CommentThere is actually nothing in this picture that you can rely on when talking about the possible tilt. The walls are leaning. You can even see the metal construction attached to walls at right that should prevent it from falling apart. The coastline is not even, it is closer at right and more distant at left. When I captured this picture, I leveled my camera with the help of tripod leveler and I trust on this.--Urmas83 10:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support you are right, there's nothing to rely on for tilt; was just a feeling and therefore "comment" and not "oppose". --P e z i 10:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Question Is that sky for real? it looks odd to me. It goes from cyan to very dark Poco a poco 13:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with you, it looks odd. That's why I have nominated this photo. It is interesting, in my opinion. It is processed, to some degree. Weather conditions where interesting this moment. Few minutes after capturing this photo I turned my camera to the other direction and captured this photo. The last one is not processed.--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • OK I suppose. Mattbuck 22:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Mattbuck 22:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Braga December 2013-3a.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Azulejos in the exterior of the Igreja dos Terceiros. Braga, Portugal. Alvesgaspar 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposePerspective issues. Horizontal lines are not straight and vertical lines are also leaning. I encourage you to use higher ISO to get better exposure time. 1/80 is not the best when hand holding the camera. A little blurry and colors are disturbingly vibrant. --Urmas83 11:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I ask for antother opinion. No significant geometric distortion that I see -- Alvesgaspar 12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • weak   Support Slight barrel distortion, but not very disturbing. -- Smial 08:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - as Urmas noted, the colours are odd and there's blur. Mattbuck 22:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Fagus_sylvatica_bud.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bud of the european beech (Fagus sylvatica) --El Grafo 20:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is some green + red CA Poco a poco 14:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that the CA should be fixed --Poco a poco 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the tight crop and the direct and flat (flash?) lighting, which affects the detail of the subject with reflections. -- Alvesgaspar 14:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 12:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Ruins_at_Krk_island.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ruins at Krk island in Croatia --Urmas83 18:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy see and trunk of the tree, sorry. Is it HDR or lighting correction?) --Moroder 18:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment.Quality is sufficient enough. I don't see too much noise and the trunk looks pretty good!--Urmas83 22:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Moroder plus unnatural oversaturated colors. -- Alvesgaspar 14:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support I cannot see much noise in the pic. Trees at the shore on the left are blurred but that does not impair overall quality too much. Bit of CA near the edges. There has obviously some tone mapping been applied (bright halo around wall edge in front of the sky). --Kreuzschnabel 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Imho overprocessed -- Smial 16:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 12:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Heiko_Thomas_(Martin_Rulsch)_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Heiko Thomas, Berlin politician (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) and member of the Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin (as of 2013). --DerHexer 20:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline

  Support Good quality. --P e z i 00:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  Oppose The quality of the photo is ok, but I feel uneasy by the too tight crop at the top in relation to the wide space left and right. Could you try another crop or recover more space at the top? --Cccefalon 06:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Comment you are right. Crop should be changed --P e z i 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, I don't think that this disturbs in any way as nothing is cut off from the hair or even head. Furthermore, I like the position and shape better than in File:Heiko Thomas (Martin Rulsch) 2.jpg. Both are not cropped but original files, btw. Cheers, DerHexer 11:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with the opposers. The present crop transmits a feeling of claustrophobia as if the ceiling was falling down on your head! I believe that a smart cloning solves the problem -- Alvesgaspar 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Abeja_(Apis_cerana)_en_una_Sphagneticola_trilobata,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_02.JPG edit

  • Nomination Bee (Apis cerana) on a Sphagneticola trilobata, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 14:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose lacking sharpness to me --A.Savin 18:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support The insect is sharp. I don’t know if it’s possible to get the blossom sharp as well at that macro scale. --Kreuzschnabel 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The insect is too small and not very sharp when set against the present standards. -- Alvesgaspar 14:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Parque_Tao_Dan,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-15,_DD_09.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Tao Dan Park, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 10:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion It feels like it's falling over to the right, and DOF not great IMO. --Mattbuck 10:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
      Tilted, regarding DOF, please, let's discuss Poco a poco 20:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


  Support QI for me, but need   chromatic aberration correction. Well done --The Photographer 17:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Funkturm19.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Berlin: detail of Funkturm Berlin (elevator) --Taxiarchos228 05:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose - Camera shake at top/bottom. --Mattbuck 11:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    not comprehensible argument --Taxiarchos228 21:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    Let me rephrase - the grilles at top and bottom are clearly not crisp (for some unknown reason, which I attributed to camera shake, or possibly due to automatic shake reduction software locking on to a moving subject). Mattbuck 21:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad PoV and camera shake at the top and bottom. Camera shake would be not critical, but in combination with composition it makes this image not good enough, sorry. Possibly it was an attempt to take a photo with tracking of this moving subject, but then the motion blur is too short. --Shansov.net 03:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, nice view, but motion blur. -- Smial (talk)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 12:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Massener_Strasse_13_(Unna)_IMGP4239_wp.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Now abandoned house in Unna, Germany, former cultural heritage monument A 147. --Smial 18:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose - Bad composition, CA. --Mattbuck 10:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    CA, ok, it is not much, but if only perfect images can be QI, then so be it. But I do not understand the argument of composition. What should be altered? -- Smial 13:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    Move to CR to clarify the question --Smial 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    You have someone's heel (and something else) in on the left. If you crop it out, it will be too tight. Mattbuck 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Reworked. -- Smial 15:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    Better. Mattbuck 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Asnois_86_Église_Vierge&fleurs_de_lys_2013.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Statue of Virgin Mary with a fleurs-de-lys ornated mantel (18th century ?), church of Asnois, Vienne, France. --JLPC 17:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion IMO the face is out of focus --A.Savin 14:28, 14 December 2013
    Let's ask someone else... --JLPC 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (UTC)   Support QI (face is as sharp as rest of statue IMO) --P e z i 23:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad lighting, direct flash. Every portrait of a living person would be declined with such lighting, and this image is in some way also a portrait. --Smial 08:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment No problem with the "direct flash" IMO. No disturbing shadow nor agressive reflection, it is fine for me. I disagree with Smial's statement. But I think the whole picture is a bit underexposed (see whites, looking grey IMO).--Jebulon 17:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks, Jebulon : new file uploaded. --JLPC 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jebulon 18:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me now. --Cayambe 20:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Its ok IMHO --The Photographer 17:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Smial 09:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Eleventh_station_of_the_Cross_aghel_Arco.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The eleventh station of the Cross in Laghel Arco --Moroder 16:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose superb composotion but overexposed (sky) and Ca at right --Christian Ferrer 16:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree Did you look at the histogram?Where is the OE? I believe that CA is irrelevant --Moroder 19:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Have you open your file at full resolution? the clouds are normal? and CA irrelevant?!? --Christian Ferrer 19:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)  Comment Yes, and these is the map of lost highlights and the histogram. Do you believe I process my images on the iphone? --Moroder 21:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
      CommentGentlemen, gentlemen, calm down.--
    Famberhorst 07:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You can use the most powerful ordinarteur which you want and to spend so much time which you want, clouds burned and if the historigram says nothing it is because there is nothing of registered for zones concerned, all the details burned, it is exactly the problem. --Christian Ferrer 08:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC) There are many other photographers in this page, I said my opinion (clouds burned), maybe that somebody else will tell us his opinion --Christian Ferrer 08:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. There is some clipping in small areas of the clouds. Maybe this is a second layer of clouds in front of or lower than the others? I don't know if it is possible to reduce the contrast between the very white and the somewhat gray clouds to get a somewhat more natural-looking view? -- Smial 08:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support very good quality --P e z i 00:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough overall quality, but I expected to see a much sharper image from D800 --Shansov.net 03:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Smial 09:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)