Last modified on 10 June 2014, at 21:12

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2010

Consensual reviewEdit

Image:Dioptasetsumeb4.jpgEdit

Dioptasetsumeb4.jpg

  • Nomination Dioptase and Calcite Tsumeb Namibia --Archaeodontosaurus 16:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Cayambe 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Intense artifacts, blown highlights, and CA. ZooFari 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination True to the artifacts but I can not translate "blown highlights, and CA." I'm going to redo the image, that's how we learn. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Bre Pettis 26C3 2.jpgEdit

Bre Pettis 26C3 2.jpg

  • Nomination Bre Pettis at the 26th Chaos Communication Congress. AlexanderKlink 19:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and crisp. ZooFari 20:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose over processed brightness, sharpen, saturation causing artifact shadows around the hand, purple edges to the hair. Gnangarra 03:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work. --Kolossos (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Gnangarra. The partially blue hair is particularly odd --Herbythyme 15:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Gnangarra and Herbythyme. --Cayambe (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Image:Jack-Russell cookie.jpgEdit

Jack-Russell cookie.jpg

  • Nomination A Jack-Russell Terrier guarding his cookie. --LouriePieterse 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit overxposed (some of the white is too white), but besides that it's just great. Airwolf 18:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A lovely image and nice composition, but too overexposed to me for a QI stamp. --MattiPaavola 13:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it is a nice image I think I am inclined to agree with Matti I'm afraid. --Herbythyme 13:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unrecoverable blown parts, unfortunately. Love the dog though :) ZooFari 07:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:NegbaHomaveMigdal001.JPGEdit

NegbaHomaveMigdal001.JPG

  • Nomination Homa ve-Migdal, Negba. --MathKnight 13:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK--Mbz1 18:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, this ist tilted, and distorted. Also seems to have (very slight) reddish tint. All issues can be corrected, but someone should do it. -- Smial 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose wie smial --Mbdortmund 00:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definite tilt I'm afraid --Herbythyme 13:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems tilt because it was taken with diagonal angle to the structure. This creates the diagonal lines of perspective in the picture. --MathKnight 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Logs in Yyteri.JPGEdit

Logs in Yyteri.JPG

  • Nomination Logs in Yyteri. --kallerna 10:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a little clipping but I guess not too bad, however the image is not particularly sharp (could be fixed) --Herbythyme 12:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you fix it (I didn't really understand :/ )? --kallerna 12:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    OK - some work done and re-uploaded, someone else should review now. Thanks --Herbythyme 10:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite some clippin, ok for me now. --Cayambe 11:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Yarl 14:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. --High Contrast 08:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't like the sunset, but good enough. ZooFari 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Musta heppa.JPGEdit

Musta heppa.JPG

  • Nomination Horse. --kallerna 10:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too dark main subject? --MattiPaavola 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with Matti --Herbythyme 17:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks good IMO. Those horses are really almost black. --kallerna 13:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Having processed the image (about half a stop additional exposure) the horse has a very dark head however the body varies from brown to dark chocolate to me). --Herbythyme 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment True, but the horse was like that. The colour varied a lot. --kallerna 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    To review - my point is that because it is underexposed we cannot see the true colours of this horse --Herbythyme 15:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject, the horse, too dark. --Cayambe 11:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Oppose Slightly underexposed. --MattiPaavola 17:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I added 0,5 exposure. Any better? --kallerna 12:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Better. Changed my vote to Neutral. --MattiPaavola 12:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fixed white balance by request of Herby. --ElHeineken 20:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Dresden-Albrechtsberg-Pfoertnerhaus.jpgEdit

Dresden-Albrechtsberg-Pfoertnerhaus.jpg

  • Nomination Schloss Albrechtsberg Dresden, Germany --Kolossos 21:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the perspective is overcorrected. --Eusebius 23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment undercorrected :-) The camera with wide angle lens pointed downward. -- Smial 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded, please reload/review. -- Smial 12:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The new version looks ok for me. --Kolossos 09:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me, although I would recommend to crop away the lower 1/3 of the image (but this can be done by anyone who uses the picture). --Cayambe 11:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another perspective. Good enough. --High Contrast 08:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. ZooFari 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Phocides_pigmalion_in_Secret_Woods.JPGEdit

Phocides pigmalion in Secret Woods.JPG

  • Nomination Mangrove Skipper --Korall 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur and out of focus, hence not crisp. ZooFari 01:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for in vivo --Archaeodontosaurus 10:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too unsharp. --Eusebius 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Trees from under.JPGEdit

Trees from under.JPG

  • Nomination Trees and branches. --kallerna 10:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Maybe a little underexposed but qi to me. --Herbythyme 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose About one stop underexposed, otherwise fine --ElHeineken 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Any better now? --kallerna 12:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tweeked exposure, sharpening and contrast (please revert if objecting). Unfortunately, I can't vote for it now as I made the changes :-( --ElHeineken 16:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Ianare 08:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Hevosen pää Yyteri.JPGEdit

Hevosen pää Yyteri.JPG

  • Nomination The head of horse. --kallerna 10:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bit dark to me --Herbythyme 17:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Same thing as in the other file. --kallerna 12:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    To review - my point is that because it is underexposed we cannot see the true colours of this horse --Herbythyme 15:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject too dark. --Cayambe 11:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Too dark, crop is unconvincing. Yarl 14:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oppose Underexposed. --MattiPaavola 17:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I added 0,76 exposure. Any better? --kallerna 12:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Better. Changed my vote to Support. --MattiPaavola 12:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Made a quick white balance correction (please revert if objecting). --ElHeineken (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Much better,thanks Symbol support vote.svg Support --Herbythyme 19:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark --Böhringer 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject too dark. --Eusebius 18:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Eudocimus albus, juvenile in a tree in Loxahatchee.JPGEdit

Eudocimus albus, juvenile in a tree in Loxahatchee.JPG

  • Nomination Young american white ibis in Loxahatchee National Wildlife refuge, Florida --Korall 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great job. --99of9 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, head out of focus. --Eusebius 22:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I cannot do much about the niose right now because I only have access to a very small surf laptop with no editing software, cant even crop. Sorry. --Korall 01:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I tried denoising the sky. please look at results.--Korall 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI after the modification : good for "in vivo" --Archaeodontosaurus 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very shallow DOF, almost out of focus. ZooFari 07:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as others --Ianare 08:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Australian_Pelican_Kioloa.jpgEdit

Australian Pelican Kioloa.jpg

  • Nomination An Australian Pelican. --99of9 13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Very interesting contrast. Exif says that the flash didn't fire, but bird is still really bright compared to the background. QI anyway IMO. --MattiPaavola 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your review. This was taken with a polarizing filter which dropped the reflections from the background, but I also adjusted the gamma to darken the darks and stretch the whites (to bring out the subject). Have I overdone it? This is easy to reduce. --99of9 20:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment White things are hard to expose. When I try exposing the background properly a white bird goes blown. In order to see any detail in a white bird I usually underexpose one step and hence need no filter for the background to be dark. --Korall 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, the original image was one stop underexposed. I used the filter because I wanted to see the rocks not reflected sky. So maybe I should have stopped there and left the gamma untouched. I've uploaded that version for comparison. --99of9 03:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll keep my support vote after this edit. It is even slightly better now I think. --MattiPaavola 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great animal, good image now.--Cayambe 15:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Yarl 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Chrysler Neon 2001 by a Norwegian fjord.JPGEdit

Chrysler Neon 2001 by a Norwegian fjord.JPG

  • Nomination Chrysler Neon by a Norwegian fjord --MattiPaavola 21:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of focus/not sharp. ZooFari 21:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSharp enough to see that the front tyre has to be replaced ;-) --Berthold Werner 15:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the notice Berthold! :-) I have actually replaced them already with winter tires and should buy new summer tires soon. :-) Regarding the image, I agree that it isn't razor sharp since it was taken with the kit lens. I didn't want to downsample just because of that. I thought that I nominate it anyway since I like the background and the colors of the arctic sunlight. --MattiPaavola 20:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems sharp enough to see the subject very clearly. --99of9 20:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At full resolution it is not sharp. Nice image/nice colours, not qi to me I'm afraid --Herbythyme 12:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg  Thanks for the feedback everyone! --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? Herbythyme 12:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Ysselsteyn War Cemetery.JPGEdit

Ysselsteyn War Cemetery.JPG

  • Nomination Ysselsteyn War Cemetery QICbot (talk)
  • Decline Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A nice artistic image, but I'm not sure if it is of high technical quality. Let's discuss it and see what others think. DOF seems to be rather narrow - I would expect all the crosses in the front row to be in focus. Also, there is something funny going on on the threes: did you quantizise heavily the graytones to make the branches on back grey? --MattiPaavola 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The large tilt is a bit distracting, and I'm not convinced of the educational value of desaturating. --99of9 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Heliconius charithonia in Secret Woods.JPGEdit

Heliconius charithonia in Secret Woods.JPG

  • Nomination: Zebra longwing --Korall 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject out of focus and hence not crisp. ZooFari 01:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for in vivo -- Archaeodontosaurus 10:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Eusebius 14:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Lepidoptera sp. (by) (11).jpgEdit

ComputerHotline - Lepidoptera sp. (by) (11).jpg

  • Nomination Caligo sp. --ComputerHotline 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Little noisy, but generally good. - Darius Baužys 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not identified --Korall 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Korall, ID need --George Chernilevsky 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

File:P1170085 Coenonympha glycerion.jpgEdit

P1170085 Coenonympha glycerion.jpg

  • Nomination Chestnut Heath - Darius Baužys 14:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely! --99of9 14:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a stunning photo. But it's not QI (very blurry, posterized). You are very talented photographer, I think you should just buy better camera. --kallerna 14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. The foreground is stunning. The blurriness I don't mind - for a Macro photo, I think it is OK. I would like a nicer background. BenAveling 22:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great subject, good use of the camera, love the blurred out background. Wish that I could take insect/butterfly photos this good - Peripitus 09:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful image --Archaeodontosaurus 11:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough IMO --George Chernilevsky 14:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 12:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Clothespin-0157e3.jpgEdit

Clothespin-0157e3.jpg

  • Nomination Wooden clothes pin. --Loadmaster 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Artefacts (caused probably by noise). --MattiPaavola 16:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unclear what artefacts you mean. If you're referring to the dark bands on the bottom piece, those are rough woodgrain lines. --Loadmaster 22:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can see those artefacts very clearly (see particularly the borderlines), although I suppose that they come from sharpening / contrasting, not from noise. -- H005 08:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, I enhanced the contrast, rescaled, and sharpened the image. --Loadmaster 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    That's basically good, just a bit over the top here. Maybe you can come up with a more gentle edit? -- H005 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Loadmaster, look at e.g. the shadow at bottom left. There's a lot of extra going on. I suspect it is noise enhanced by your sharpening. I suggest trying a reshoot with low ISO, small aperture, a tripod and not sharpening at all. I'm sorry but the resolution is on the limit already so I would expect really perfect quality with a subject that is going nowhere. :-) --MattiPaavola 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Jupiter-37a-5314.jpgEdit

Jupiter-37a-5314.jpg

  • Nomination Jupiter-37A photo lens.--PereslavlFoto 13:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting does not work well. Part of the front is completely blown and overall the image is too bright - Peripitus 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that it could benfit from more black, but nonetheless it's a very good image. -- H005 08:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good image yes, a quality image, not to me I'm afraid --Herbythyme 12:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically the picture is good, but the reflection in the lense really distracts from the subject, so not QI for me. --NormanB 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Smorodina-vetka.jpgEdit

Smorodina-vetka.jpg

  • Nomination Red currant.--PereslavlFoto 13:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice ! - Darius Baužys 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If you look at this on a wide gamut screen you will see that it is completely oversaturated. -- H005 08:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per H005 above. - Till.niermann 08:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Oberfallenberg 8.JPGEdit

Oberfallenberg 8.jpg

  • Nomination das Rheintal im Nebel --Böhringer 22:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. ZooFari 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry to disagree, but it's tilted. -- H005 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect --Archaeodontosaurus 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is a really good photograph. But, I have to agree with H005 that it is tilted clockwise. --MattiPaavola 20:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP. --kallerna 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted/distorted --Mbdortmund 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt should be corrected. Will support if it's done. --Bgag 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too bad it's tilted - would be perfect otherwise. - Till.niermann 08:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed as declined as there is a new better one --Herbythyme 08:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Thomas_Bresson_-_Anim_(by).OGGEdit

  • Nomination Lunar eclipse of 2009-12-31 (video) --ComputerHotline 16:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline *Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can a video be a Quality Image? --MattiPaavola 09:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sure if videos are covered by QI, we do have one existing video QI and a few animations, the problem is more that the criteria don't make much sense. However, I don't think this file is QI because only part of the eclipse is recorded, most of the first half is missing unfortunately. In addition there are distracting shadows in some frames and some subtle variations between frame in terms of rotation and size of the moon, but they aren't that big a deal.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Nilfanion, plus it's very small and running too quickly. Useful, yes, but but not of sufficient quality. -- H005 15:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Trier Dom BW 24.JPGEdit

Trier Dom BW 24.JPG

  • Nomination Trier cathedral --Berthold Werner 12:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Unfortunate chromatic aberration. ZooFari 16:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI now for me. -- Archaeodontosaurus 12:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice one. - Till.niermann 12:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --High Contrast 09:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Horner am Sonderdach.JPGEdit

Horner am Sonderdach.JPG

  • Nomination sledding --Böhringer 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. ZooFari 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the snow is not as white on the photo as it supposedly was in reality. -- H005 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me snow is white --Pudelek 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Depends on settings/monitors but to me this snow is grey/blue --Herbythyme 12:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We obviously don't want to blown the ground. ZooFari 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree it would be better with brighter snow. --99of9 11:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think you could make the snow (i.e. the whole picture) brighter without blowing the whites. Composition and sharpness are good, so I will support QI when light is fixed. - Till.niermann 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Zlin Żelazny Góraszka 1.JPGEdit

Zlin Żelazny Góraszka 1.JPG

  • Nomination A nice, red Zlin. --Airwolf 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me the subject is too small, and the resolution is not high enough to alter this by cropping. --99of9 12:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The resolution is 5,5 million pixels. I could crop off 1,5 million and it would still be double the minumum required here. Airwolf 12:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I was imagining a crop of much more than 1.5 million, but I'm happy to see your cropped result or take other opinions. --99of9 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Carcharodontosaurus saharicus DentIII.jpgEdit

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus DentIII.jpg

  • Nomination Carcharodontosaurus saharicus - tooth -- Archaeodontosaurus 15:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality --George Chernilevsky 15:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right object has shallow DOF and the left one has slight motion blur. Is that a stitch running down the middle? ZooFari 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that stitch is fixed, which overrides minor flaws. ZooFari 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 21:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Le Bono - pont Joseph Le Brix.jpgEdit

Le Bono - pont Joseph Le Brix.jpg

  • Nomination Bridge in Le Bono, Brittany. --Eusebius 23:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An error at the (foot) of the bridge, where the boat is behind it? --Snurre86 09:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not behind it. The image is not postprocessed in a way that could generate errors. --Eusebius 09:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a great image but to me it just looks weird with that boat. --Snurre86 11:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much chromatic aberration. ZooFari 03:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    Could you tell me where, please? --Eusebius 07:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'm sure there are many good reasons not to promote this picture (I don't have anything to answer to "I find it too dark"), but I also think we have promoted QIs with much more CA (I can hardly see it at 1:1, but it is true I have issues with colours), and farther from the picture edge. --Eusebius 08:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry i don't know what that means (or what you mean to say). --Snurre86 08:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is some fringing, sure. However for me the issues are that is is a little dark maybe. More importantly (at 1:1) the bridge - the subject of the image - is not particularly sharp. I would also suggest that the bridge being the subject of the image cropping some foreground of which there is a lot might make the bridge more prominent. --Herbythyme 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 13:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Hochälpelealpe 1 Panorama.jpgEdit

Hochälpelealpe 1 Panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Hochälpelealpe --Böhringer 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me, but I'll put this to discussion since others might not like the lens flare. --MattiPaavola 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I accept that some may see the presence of flare as an issue however to me this is a good image and I agree with Matti --Herbythyme 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, as if looking through very dark sunglasses. The lens flare is ok. -- H005 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. - Till.niermann 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Any brighter and the sun would have washed everything out. The contrast technique of the sun and the foreground makes it interesting. ZooFari 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i agree with ZooFari --George Chernilevsky 14:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark. Was a polarizer used? The sky is almost black. Unfortunately this is the case with a lot of Böhringer images I've seen lately :-(. --Dschwen 15:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
With the Polar filter you can take photographs better against the Sun. Less lens arise this spot. On the other hand, we the sky too dark. You are right.--Böhringer 21:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Bryzgiel - Wigry Lake.jpgEdit

Bryzgiel - Wigry Lake.jpg

  • Nomination Wigry Lake in Bryzgiel. Yarl 16:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. ZooFari 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Let's discuss this. This is a nice view, but I find the bottom crop quite radical: the boat is cut in middle. Also, one of the ropes magically levitates in air because of a stitching error. :-) --MattiPaavola 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me there is something odd about the boats/people in the foreground. Lack of sharpness/fringing? --Herbythyme 09:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass Flowers.pngEdit

StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass Flowers.png

  • Nomination Stained glass flowers --99of9 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No point in making a transparent cut-out and using PNG here. --Dschwen 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good idea and realisation IMO --George Chernilevsky 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The reason for the cutout is this. --99of9 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per George Chernilevsky --Pudelek 18:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me. --MattiPaavola 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass CoatsOfArms.pngEdit

StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass CoatsOfArms.png

  • Nomination Stained glass coats of arms --99of9 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No point in making a transparent cut-out and using PNG here. --Dschwen 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good idea and realisation IMO --George Chernilevsky 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThe reason for the cutout is this. --99of9 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek 18:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me. --MattiPaavola 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 16:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Chapel at Abbotsbury-6.jpgEdit

Chapel at Abbotsbury-6.jpg

  • Nomination St Catherine's Chapel, Abbotsbury in Dorset, UK. It was probably built in the first half of the 15th century. --Herbythyme 08:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks ccw tilted. --Berthold Werner 08:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Correct and - hopefully - corrected, thanks --Herbythyme 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems to be one of the photographs that looks always tilted. I also tried to correct it. Perhaps someone other should decide wich is the best.--Berthold Werner 13:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me the most recent version looks the least tilted. --Leuo 08:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI now imo. --Cayambe 16:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --George Chernilevsky 16:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely a QI. --Dein Freund der Baum 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schlurcher 10:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:HDR - CH-53E Super Stallion at RAR09.jpgEdit

HDR - CH-53E Super Stallion at RAR09.jpg

  • Nomination: A CH-53E Super Stallion --ShakataGaNai 23:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very good quality, but crop too frustrating, sorry. --Eusebius 16:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind the crop, I think it's quite understandable that the rotor is cut. Airwolf 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is something strange going on at and close to the tip of the rotor blade at bottom left. Do you guys see it as well? (Otherwise, it is a fine image IMO.) --MattiPaavola 12:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me. Matti: what do you see precisely there? --Cayambe 10:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, I see a bad artifact along the edge of that blade. It's almost like a dotted black and white line along the edge. --99of9 11:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --99of9 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I'll duck out until Matti finishes finding them :). --99of9 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for confirming 99of9. (Probably that particular blade moved between the HDR shots then or the HDR software wasn't perfect...) --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Please sign your vote. --Eusebius 13:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. ✓ Done now. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Awesome catch. Thanks. I've overwritten with a new (fixed) version for that rotor issue. --ShakataGaNai 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, that's better now, but unfortunately I just found similar issues with the blade pointing almost towards the camera and with the blade pointing directly towards right. Could you take a look on those as well? --MattiPaavola 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --99of9 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Belgian F-16 Radom 3.JPGEdit

Belgian F-16 Radom 3.JPG

  • Nomination A Belgian F-16. Airwolf 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. --MattiPaavola 16:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've corrected levels, now it's imo good enough. Yarl 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now the noise jumps in (compared to somewhat low resolution of the subject). Lets ask for a second opinion. --MattiPaavola 10:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, and still partly too dark --Pjt56 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've uploaded an edit which addresses the noise issue satisfactorily. Aircraft brightened somewhat also. Maedin 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, better now. I'm not opposing anymore.--MattiPaavola 10:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support after correction very good --George Chernilevsky 12:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Archaeodontosaurus 19:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the aircraft (the central subject of this file) too dark. --High Contrast 11:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per High Contrast --Pjt56 20:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Running Nova Scotia Duck-Tolling Retriever 2.JPGEdit

Running Nova Scotia Duck-Tolling Retriever 2.JPG

  • Nomination Running Nova Scotia Duck-Tolling Retriever. --kallerna 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNot razor sharp but hard to do better under light conditions in finnish winter.--Korall 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to discuss this, as for me it's just an unsharp dog on a dark background, even though the pose would be good. More a VI? --Leuo 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Actually, I oppose it, too for reasons stated above. --Leuo 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice image but not really sharp per Leuo --Herbythyme 16:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 17:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:TokyoMetropolitanGovernmentOffice.jpgEdit

TokyoMetropolitanGovernmentOffice.jpg

  • Nomination Tokyo Metropolitan Government Office, Japan --Leuo 12:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, I find it good. --High Contrast 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very distorted. ZooFari 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think in this case the distortion gives a good impression of height. --Leuo 07:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be misleading. ZooFari 20:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive wide angel quality image, in my opinion. --Dein Freund der Baum 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Blackbird rowan berries 2010-01-01 filtered.jpgEdit

Blackbird rowan berries 2010-01-01 filtered.jpg

  • Nomination Turdus merula protecting berries of Sorbus aucuparia from a flock of Turdus pilaris. --Slaunger 20:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not quite sharp at 1:1 but a well composed image with good DOF, qi to me --Herbythyme 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I kinnda of agree with your sharpness observation, and I really think you should oppose its nomination if you think it is borderline wrt QI criteria. QIs should be QIs Smile --Slaunger 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK - I think the full sized image is fine, at 1:1 it is not so good. I see some that pass and some that fail on that. The composition is good. Let's try "Discuss" (it is not an oppose to me) then :) --Herbythyme 15:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you. It was not really fair of me as nominator to ask to change your opinion, and asking for a second opinion this way seems the way to go.:) --Slaunger 19:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent composition, excellent light, but not really sharp. This is a borderline case and it was hard to oppose, but if we think that QIs are examples of good technical quality for novice photographers to learn from, the decision becomes easier. --MattiPaavola 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I certainly understand that viewpoint. I am glad to hear the appraisals concerning the light and composition, which I also really like myself. But QI should be QI all the way through as you say. --Slaunger 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, desturbing sharpness/noise/noise reduction; but good composition! --Dein Freund der Baum 18:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It really is a pitty, because it is a very nice shot, but I have to agree that the bird is not sharp enough for QI. --NormanB 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Unterer Argenstein 1.JPGEdit

Unterer Argenstein 1.JPG

  • Nomination -12°Grad --Böhringer 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportvery good --George Chernilevsky 09:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you zoom onto the small village, the image seems heavily tilted. Would support this lovely image if corrected. --Leuo 14:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
      • ✓ Done -3°! Thanks--Böhringer 18:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great now! --Leuo 13:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Herbythyme 13:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and composition! --Dein Freund der Baum 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Herbythyme 13:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:P1170102 Viksvine hesperija Heteropterus morpheus.jpgEdit

P1170102 Viksvine hesperija Heteropterus morpheus.jpg

  • Nomination Large Chequered Skipper (Heteropterus morpheus). Darius Baužys 09:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 11:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterized, unsharp, noisy, overburnt yellow. --kallerna 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can't help from loving this image. --Cayambe 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I certainly like the image but at 1:1 it isn't really qi for me I'm afraid. --Herbythyme 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support imo QI, although there are little problems with noise --Dein Freund der Baum 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Tuolit.JPGEdit

Tuolit.JPG

  • Nomination Chairs in Hansakortteli, Turku. --kallerna 12:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately crop and focussing really. The chair you can see most of is out of focus, the one you see less of is in focus. Not qi to me I'm afraid. --Herbythyme 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's because it thought it would be interesting composion. But I'm sorry if you don't like it. --kallerna 12:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    Changed to discuss then. Not that I do not like it I assure you, I have quite a few images that are similar in some respects (though not on Commons). However this is not my personal understanding of a quality image. Let's see what others think. --Herbythyme 13:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeDisturbing out-of-focus element on the foreground. --Stephanemartin 11:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. This was really difficult to decide - therefore "weak". This is definitely not a VI of a chair. The composition is artistic and as such ok IMO - I find that out-of-focus chair in front balancing the bottom right corner. I want to believe that the focusing in general follows the artist's intentions - the left chair is in focus the back chair is not and this creates interesting tension in the image. Kallerna, please comment if that was not your intention. (I perfectly understand Herby's and Stephane's view points as well. It is not clear to me either if an artistic image in general can be a QI if it breaks (intentionally) the traditional QI rules. Therefore, I'd like to see much more votes for this image. ) --MattiPaavola 10:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a cropped part of some large & interesting image. The composition doesn't fit QI, it's a disorder.--PereslavlFoto 12:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) - view from CT1.jpgEdit

Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) - view from CT1.jpg

  • Nomination Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) - view from Clock Tower --Pudelek 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Violet CA on edges --George Chernilevsky 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmmm... I don't see.... --Pudelek 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    5 image notes and others. --George Chernilevsky 16:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I see, but I can't corrected this photo :( --Pudelek 10:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Railway station Puchenau-West (DFdB).JPGEdit

Railway station Puchenau-West (DFdB).JPG

  • Nomination Railway station Puchenau-West, Austria --Dein Freund der Baum 15:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The white balance is quite extreme, but I guess correcting it would have destroyed the WB of the sky. Also, slightly soft because of small aperture. But, I think these small errors can be tolerated for a night shot, since the composition is nice. --MattiPaavola 09:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo much yellow, the light colours must be fixed.--PereslavlFoto 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but the lights are very yellow/orange there, I didn't change the colors. How could I fix that? --Dein Freund der Baum 13:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, I have never seen such yellow lights, that's the reason. Maybe we can use another form of this thought: your picture is too saturated in yellow and arange parts.--PereslavlFoto 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
        • You are right, I intensified the colors a little bit by raising the saturation. I just tried how it looks like if I reduced the saturation again, but I wasn't really pleased with the results: it seemed to be too sallow :-/ --Dein Freund der Baum 09:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know that the lighning conditions have been extreme, but there's still too many problems. The colours, partly overexposed and underexposed. --kallerna 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Image:Abbey of Montserrat 02.jpgEdit

Abbey of Montserrat 02.jpg

  • Nomination Abbey Santa Maria de Montserrat, Spain --Bgag 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Image de Qualité! -- MJJR 10:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the image but at 1:1 it is quite unsharp I think. --Herbythyme 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that a bit sharpning would make it even better, but IMO it is already good enough for QI --NormanB 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with NormanB. -- H005 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image. --Loadmaster 19:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Loadmaster 19:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Zaltbommel - Oenselsestraat 17 - 5497 medium.jpgEdit

Zaltbommel - Oenselsestraat 17 - 5497 medium.jpg

  • Nomination Monumental building from the early 17th century --NormanB 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too much perspective correction was applied, making the top of the building wider than the bottom. Judging by the distorted windows this is not the case in reality. Can you fix that? --Leuo 09:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you count the stones, you will see that the building actually is wider at the top. This is not due to perspective correction, as I didn't do any perspective correction. --NormanB 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment True. Hm, but it still feels as having too much pincushion distortion to me. Others oppinions? --Leuo 13:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAn interesting building, but the sky is overexposed. (I don't have an opinion about the perspective issue.) --MattiPaavola 10:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Matti - however the exposure is fixable with 100 recovery - looks ok too so could be done? --Herbythyme 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sterna_maxima_with_fishing_gear.JPGEdit

Sterna maxima with fishing gear.JPG

  • Nomination Tern that probably swallowed a hook.--Korall 23:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Could be sharpened a bit. A little too dark maybe. --Stephanemartin 12:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI have long viewed this photo, the dark side reinforces the dramatic subject.--Archaeodontosaurus 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very nice light and good composition. The lack of details bothers a little. Therefore, neutral. (If the details would be sharp I would support this for FP. Very well done!) --MattiPaavola 10:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I lost some detail in the shadow areas due to denoising. If you think the original file is better, I could crop that one. I took more images of this bird, but from the right side. This is the only onw that actually shows the line protuding from the mouth.--Korall 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Difficult one - it is a good and valuable image. I just took a look at the original. It can stand a little more exposure (maybe 0.3) which lightens it quite a bit. The detail on the right hand side is pretty good but the left of the bird is fairly noisy. I think it would be worth some work but it might not be that much better in the end? --Herbythyme 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • A double check in the records from this day showed me some more files that could be nice to work with. One was more exposed but Im afraid some whites were blown then. Ill upload and link from this file as other versions.--Korall 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem with the details might be more caused by the DOF, not so much by the denoising. --MattiPaavola 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Thor's Hammer-Bryce Canyon.jpgEdit

Thor's Hammer-Bryce Canyon.jpg

  • Nomination Thor's Hammer in Bryce Canyon NP --Tobi 87 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Lovely image, not quite sure if there is not a very slight CCW tilt, however if so that is sortable. --Herbythyme 15:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support but take a look at Commons:Image_guidelines: Images should not be downsampled --Berthold Werner 16:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Pano-fl.jpgEdit

Pano-fl.jpg

  • Nomination Fort Lachaux panoramic. --ComputerHotline 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Cayambe 20:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think there is a stitching error in the grass about a third of the way across from the bottom right? Other views maybe --Herbythyme 09:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Herbythyme, can you add an annotation to the picture to indicate where you think the stitching error is? --NormanB 23:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've marked roughly the area (you need to view at 1:1). There are rather unnatural lines in the grass. There is also another one just to the right of that but that might be a path in the grass. --Herbythyme 11:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ComputerHotline, QI images have to be from Wikipedia Commons users. It is not entire clear whether this is a picture you took yourself. If it is by yourself, why do you mention Flickr as the source? Please clarify. --NormanB 23:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Because I upload all my image on Flickr and, after, I upload some of these on Wikicommons (with a link to the source : the flickr image page). --ComputerHotline 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)