Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 05 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Bibra_Burg-20080806-RM-113448.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bibra castle --Ermell 09:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose CA and lacking sharpness. Camera shake? --Peulle 10:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I don´t agree. Let´s see was others think.--Ermell 21:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    I don't agree though there's something red on the leaves on the right , is it fixable ? --Fabian Roudra Baroi 04:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Fabian Roudra Baroi: New version uploaded.--Ermell 13:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unless my 'cache' has not cleared properly this good image has apparently been spoiled by a 'dark band' in the sky adjacent to the roof which presumably is a processing manifestation (as presumably are CAs around leaves)? --Scotch Mist 10:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness is ok, nice colors, good handling of the light situation, not easy to take motif. Overall above the QI-bar. --Milseburg 18:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. --Rjcastillo 01:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Scotch Mist - there are odd processing artifacts, both around the leaves and the roof, sorry. Mike Peel 18:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Galería_Uffizi,_Florencia,_Italia,_2022-09-18,_DD_27.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ognissanti polyptych by Giovanni da Milano, Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy --Poco a poco 12:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too little detail on top, and I doubt missing details can be recovered. -- Ikan Kekek 08:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I do believe that there is enough detail here for a big resolution, please, let's talk --Poco a poco 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree that there's an issue with sharpness in the top part, especially as you get farther away from the middle.--Peulle 11:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support The blur at the top of the image could be an effect of perspective correction. However, due to the high resolution, the image is still good enough to be printed flawlessly in A4 size. Image noise could be a bit lower, but is also just within the limits. The difficult lighting situation was compensated very well. --Smial 14:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Smial --Scotch Mist 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment   New version with -I believe- some improvements Poco a poco 17:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment The lunettes still look very unsharp to me at full size. -- Ikan Kekek 18:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek: I've uploaded another version with all I can do. The file is pretty big I agree, borderline. If you are not convinced now I'll withdraw it --Poco a poco 13:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The lunettes are still too unsharp for me. Yes, the file is big, but the lunettes are small and are discrete parts of the work. Maybe I've been spoiled by the super-sharp huge-resolution reproductions we've been getting, but this is my reaction. -- Ikan Kekek 18:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO, within the limits. OK for me. --Rjcastillo 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment If it was my photo I would retract the photo. Really not sharp at the top.--Famberhorst 18:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I could have done it but I believe that the correct thing now is to let the process finish and accept the result. Stopping now would be IMHO unrespectful for those wo have participated so far. Poco a poco 19:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for your explanation.--Famberhorst 05:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)