Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 16 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Woodland, Nadgigomar Nature Reserve.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Woodland, Nadgigomar Nature Reserve, NSW -- Thennicke 11:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Undefined category links, at least one dust spot, partially overexposed and the image suggests that the perspective should be corrected. I would say that unfortunately this isn't good enough for a QI but I would like to hear some other opinion. Meanwhile perhaps you could correct what's fixable, please. --Basotxerri 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Basotxerri: I've reworked the image and removed the dust spots. Cats are now fixed too. The perspective is not a problem in this case because I am using it for framing, in the same way that an image such as this shouldn't be perspective corrected (Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant.) Thank you for the review also, I hadn't noticed the dust. -- Thennicke 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hi Thennicke, I've checked the image again and for me personally the overexposure on the trees is too strong. However this is my opinion and if you think that it isn't strong enough to decline it, put this in CR, please, so we'll get other opinions. Sorry and thank you for the fixes you've made. --Basotxerri 16:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Basotxerri: I have moved it to CR because I disagree with your review: there is zero clipping on both the RAW histogram and my editing program's zebra function. These trees are white, which is why it might look strange, but I assure you they are exposed appropriately. I don't know how to prove this to you without sending you a RAW, but if you download the image and open it in PS or GIMP I'm sure you'll see the levels are fine. Regards -- Thennicke (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Support Hello Thennicke, I'm looking at it with my notebook now, the image is OK now. Thanks again for the changes. --Basotxerri 16:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good quality, but add a geotag please. --Alchemist-hp 10:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Alchemist-hp: Thanks and   Done -- Thennicke 11:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I accept your argument for the perspective non-correction, and once I've accepted that, the photo looks fine to me. -- Ikan Kekek 16:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I really like it. And perspective correction is not necessary here. -- DerFussi 21:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --DerFussi 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:St._Andreas_in_Antlas_Ritten_vier_Heilige.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Four saints in the Saint Andrew chapel in Antlas Ritten South Tyrol --Moroder 15:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose I fully acknowledge the difficult conditions in taking this picture; still there is a strong contrast between the upper (dark) and the lower (light) part, and as a result neither is shown well. I also see that you wanted to include the fresco (?) on the right side but this spoils the symmetry of the picture. Useful picture but not QI in my opinion. Sorry. -- Renardo la vulpo 22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I disagree --Moroder 23:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I am changing my oppose to a comment. Still, a histogram of the picture shows that it uses only about 70% of the brightness scale and that means that the dark/bright parts each for itself use even less of it. To my (artistically inexperienced) eye the picture looks much better when brightness is spread to the full scale, even without doing anything about the contrast between the dark and the bright parts (which might be difficult).
We seem to have extremely high standards about things such as sharpness, aberration, and composition (the latter, btw, is addressed by my remark about symmetry). So why would we be less demanding about lighting? It is not necessary that every object permit quality images (with absolute criteria); we have featured images for such cases. -- Renardo la vulpo 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. Just as on FPC, we sometimes observe that some motifs can't be FPs, it's also quite possible that some motifs can't be QIs. Ikan Kekek 15:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't care about symmetry or asymmetry and doubt it as a reason to oppose promotion, but I think Renardo has a point otherwise. -- Ikan Kekek 23:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. In regard to the comment about lighting problems I'd like to point out that this is not a studio photography but reproduces the real interior lighting of the chapel still keeping both parts upper and lower well legible. I agree with Ikan for the simmetry --Moroder 11:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I take your point and have struck my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support O.k. for me--Ermell 19:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose simply bad light situation and the crop ... --Alchemist-hp 12:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Contrast could be better, but ok2go --A.Savin 17:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with the aforementioned comments about the lighting problems, but in total I vote to promote this image on the basis that it has good sharpness despite high resolution.--Peulle 07:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alchemist-hp--Lmbuga 16:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 19:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)