Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 02 2024

Consensual review edit

File:Opel_Astra_ST_electric,_IAA_Summit_2023,_Munich_(P1120213).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Opel Astra ST electric at IAA Summit 2023, Munich --MB-one 12:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose That person right behind the car disturbs the composition IMO. --Plozessor 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for the review. Unfortunately there's not much, that can be done about this. But it's not that bad IMO. --MB-one 12:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support It looks good to me, let's discuss? --Mike Peel 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Bad composition. The man with the glasses above the roof could be easily retouched, but then it wouldn't be much better. The perspective isn't good either; the roof hangs to the left. Additionally, the image is cropped unfavorably closely. But let's hear other voices. -- Spurzem 11:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Spurzem. --Kritzolina 11:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

File:View_of_Mont_Blanc_from_Grand_Ballon.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of Mont Blanc from Grand Ballon over a distance of 231 km --Milseburg 15:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Could be a VI, but not QI IMO --Tagooty 03:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: Are there any quality issues to fix? --Milseburg 22:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lacks detail, not fixable IMO. --Tagooty 06:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: Mh. I uploaded a new version with less NR. I hope there is more detail. But notice, the resolution is rather high and the distances also. The air was clear in the high layers, but hazy in the low ones. There are often refractions in between. In my opinion, the far mountains can be recognized well. Good enough for QI. --Milseburg 22:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question I want to ask for further opinions. --Milseburg 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, but IMO this has too much noise and too little detail in the forest. Scaled down to 5 MP it's almost ok, but . almost. Given that it was taken with an α7R at ISO 100 and f/5 with 1/400 s exposure, it might be possible to improve the quality with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 06:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support New version is better! --Plozessor 07:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support. There is no visible noise if viewed in "normal" distance resp. enlargement. You need to zoom in or print the image two meters wide to find some LOW noise. Probably stopping down to f/8 could have achieved a minimal better sharpness in some nearby details, the little blur in the far distance is clearly caused by athmospheric effects, and the rather low detail contrast, which is unavoidable in such lighting. A well composed and well exposed landscape photo with realistic colours. --Smial 17:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Smial --GoldenArtists 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Only haze not noise.--Ermell 07:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality with some minor noise --Jakubhal 12:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)