Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2012

Consensual review edit

File:Düsseldorf, Kaiserswerth, Suitbertus-Stiftsplatz, 2011-10 CN-02.JPG edit

  • Nomination Degodehaus, house of the photographer Georg Wilhelm Degode, at the Suitbertus-Stiftsplatz in Düsseldorf-Kaiserswerth --Carschten 20:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 21:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Housefront in in the shades. suboptimal lightning. --NorbertNagel 23:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support It's not an easy task to make a good image of shadowed house. Yet we see it can be done, so I think this image is QI with its warm and tender colours. But I'd like to warn Carschten to use HDR technology for this case, because of very deep shadows around the car.--PereslavlFoto 00:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 07:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Iifar 11:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 10:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Füssen_-_Klosterkirche_St._Mang12.jpg edit

  • Nomination St. Mang Basilica Füssen, dome from inside --Taxiarchos228 10:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 21:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Needs more symmetry IMO--Jebulon 15:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 11:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 14:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 10:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Billerbeck, Rathaus, 2011-10 CN-01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Town hall of Billerbeck --Carschten 12:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice. A bit dark, but the weather is not always fine...--Jebulon 14:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And therefore it's not a QI IMO. QI criteria do not depend on the weather. --NorbertNagel 20:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I would put a little more contrast on the building... --Mbdortmund 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Image looks a bit gloomy, because the lighting conditions were not good. --Iifar 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good wheather for a photo and no hard shadows. I have a little problem with the right top corner in the composition. But still a QI for me. --Elektroschreiber 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 10:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Onymacris unguicularis MHNT.jpg edit

  • Nomination Beetle fog drinker from Namibia --Archaeodontosaurus 17:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose You either love pink backgrounds or have a problem with the whitle balance. --NorbertNagel 22:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This is matter of taste. The picture is technically good. Probably this kind of background is a choice and not a mistake...--Jebulon 01:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Jebulon --Andou 16:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Onymacris unguicularis lives in the sand. A white balance problem affects an entire image, which is not the case.--Archaeodontosaurus 19:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The (slightly) overexposed areas (white reflections from the bug and small foreground area) stay white of course, even with improper white balance. I loaded the image in Lightroom, played with the white balance and still believe, that the reddish background is due to the chosen white balance. --NorbertNagel 22:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Your judgment is wrong. The background is purely synthetic, the insect is fully clipped.--Archaeodontosaurus 06:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • So you painted the shadow of bug manually? --NorbertNagel 23:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes he did !--Jebulon 11:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please note, that the QI criteria state in round terms, that extensive image manipulations must be clearly described. Generation of an artifical background and painting of shadows is an extensive image manipulation IMO. --NorbertNagel 18:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral (tending to oppose) the quality is very, very good, but the background colour is really ugly. Maybe it make sense, but it doens't look good... --Carschten 14:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support. Technically good and background is OK for me. Artem Karimov 05:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 10:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Herbe givrée à Preignan.JPG edit

  • Nomination Frosted grass, Preignan, France --France64160 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I recommend to add also an English file description. Not only French. Wiki is an international project. --NorbertNagel 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --France64160 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it's underexposed and blurry. --Iifar 07:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nevertheless many thanks to France64160 for adding a valuable English file description! This is useful not only for QI. --NorbertNagel 12:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Givre sur un pont à Castelnau-Durban, vue 2.JPG edit

  • Nomination Frost on bridge, Castelnau-Durban, France --France64160 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I recommend to add also an English file description. Not only French. Wiki is an international project. --NorbertNagel 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --France64160 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it's mostly out of focus. --Iifar 07:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done New version. It's better ? --France64160 21:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Givre sur balustrade pont à Castelnau-Durban, vue 1.JPG edit

  • Nomination Frost on bridge, Castelnau-Durban, France --France64160 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I recommend to add also an English file description. Not only French. Wiki is an international project. --NorbertNagel 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --France64160 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it's mostly out of focus. --Iifar 07:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:2011-12-25 22-23-08-etamines-tulipe-33f.jpg edit

  • Nomination Stamens of a tulipa sp. flower. --ComputerHotline 11:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Yes. I don't understand the need of 33 pictures, but good.--Jebulon 13:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC). With one photo, the DoF is to short. The focus stacking can make a photo with extended DoF. --ComputerHotline 13:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Yes I know this, but 33 pictures ?--Jebulon 14:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, 33 pictures to make it. --ComputerHotline 18:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many gray areas. halo construction visible. poor lighting. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus, and poor composition. --Gidip 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Pergamon_-_02.jpg edit

  • Nomination Temple of Trajan at Pergamon, in modern-day Turkey. --Kadellar 17:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --WhiteWriter 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too much overexposed areas. --Berthold Werner 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm uploading a new version now. I've tried to correct overexposure (nothing is burnt). Thanks. --Kadellar 14:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO ok now. --Berthold Werner 17:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit noisy but good. Good work by Kadellar IMO.--Jebulon 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ebniter Straße 2.JPG edit

  • Nomination Ebniter Straße --Böhringer 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Hard to take, ok result. --kallerna 10:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose hard to take, yes, but I'm not satisfied with the result. The anterior tunnel part is so-so lit up by the falsh, the snow is very bluish and the rear part is underexposed. Let's discuss. --Carschten 12:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Carschten. --Iifar 18:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Glacial Pico Humboldt 4.JPG edit

  • Nomination Glacial Pico Humboldt --The Photographer 19:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC))
  • Decline
  •  Support Wonderful, good quality. --Haeferl 21:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice landscape, but quite unsharp and blurry due to artifacts (see the stones or the left border, for example). Let's discuss, sorry. --Kadellar 12:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. --Iifar 18:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sancho Panza - Monumento a Miguel de Cervantes.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sancho Panza in the monument to Cervantes, Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 17:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}

File:Atlas_Tyrolensis-small.jpg edit

  • Nomination Atlas Tyrolensis: old map of Tyrol, Austria - high resolution image (by User:Niabot) --Anachronista 11:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, useful picture. Trace 14:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO this does not qualify as not by Commons user. Niabot was uploader not creator. --Elekhh 10:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support it's a reproduction of two-dimensional works of art and licensed PD-old, so it can be a QI (I don't like this rule though) --Carschten 12:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Is not a reproduction, is a simple upload according to given author and source. You mean you disagree with the rules? --ELEKHHT 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:MRAH Statue d'empereur Rome 261211.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ancient Roman bronze statue, MRAH, Brussels.--Vassil 22:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportI wish there was more light on his face (could you improve that?), but still good. A bit risky at 1/6!! Kadellar 12:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. There wasn't so much light, i've already tried to improve the light on the face, this is the more I can do... --Vassil 14:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Light too unbalanced for QI IMO. --NorbertNagel 12:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Light on the body and thighs is good, probably improvable on his face and his hand. Maybe I can try to improve it later. --Kadellar 14:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I've tried to recover dark areas, but I'm not happy with what I get. Iifar, why don't you count my positive vote?? Kadellar 14:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Half of the face is too dark. --Iifar 18:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Leaves in the forest after the rain2.JPG edit

  • Nomination Leaves in the forest after the rain --Llorenzi 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Second nomination? Poor quality IMO, sorry. Blurry--Lmbuga 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not the same image as previously. Not bad IMO, but could improve if a higher F number were chosen. Gidip 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, this image is better. I'm not sure if it can be QI, sorry.--Lmbuga 23:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obvious trouble with sharpness due to f/2.8 used. The border parts of the image are strongly unsharp, and the DOF is too small for the subject. Yet the general theme and composition is very good, so we all ask you to repeat the shot with f/4, for example. Thank you very much, dear Luca!--PereslavlFoto 00:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Chateau de Chabenet (36) 2861.jpg edit

  • Nomination Château de Chabenet, France --Peyot 20:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good and beautiful image. --Haeferl 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice in lower resoultion, but bad quality in 100%: artifacts, blurry, no details --Carschten 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition and view, but I have to agree with Carschten. Please see the grass... (+ annotated CA)--Jebulon 14:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sadly, as Jebulon and Carschten, but nice image--Lmbuga 11:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten. --Iifar 18:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten, chromatic aberrations, artifacts.--Grondin 00:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Port of Tallinn - AIDAsol and MS Prinsendam.JPG edit

  • Nomination Port of Tallinn - AIDAsol and MS Prinsendam ships --Pudelek 18:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The pole is disturbing IMO.--ArildV 22:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. Perhaps the see is a bit unsharp, but the detail is good--Lmbuga 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry, ArildV, I have not seen your comment and I don't understand what is "pole", but I think that is the column, to me it's not disturbing, it is part of the image --Lmbuga 02:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO pic is a bit too dark and the spotlight pole spoils it. --Iifar 06:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the pole.--Jebulon 14:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad composition, per above. --Elekhh 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Coq 1900 socle lampadaire Pont Alexandre III.jpg edit

  • Nomination Relief of a cock, Alexandre III bridge, Paris.--Jebulon 18:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose In shade, unnatural colors to me--Lmbuga 21:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It is better than others think (perhaps I'm not right: It's not a bad image, the image is good IMO, but I dont like it)--Lmbuga 01:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 Comment (es) El problema que veo en la foto no es que esté en la sombra. El problema es el tratamiento de la imagen por estar en la sombra. La imagen es brusca y -en mi opinión- predominan los azules. No me gusta, pero quizás sea cuestión de gustos, porque la imagen no es mala, es buena--Lmbuga 02:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me there is no issue with the colors : the iron is brown, the sky is blue and the cloud white. I agree that the shadows are blue but the colors are natural IMO. --Vassil 09:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed (per Lmbuga) --Carschten 13:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Naturpark_Ötscher-Tormäuer_-_Erlaufstausee_Überlauf.jpg edit

  • Nomination Overflow of the artificial lake "Erlauf-Stausee" --Haeferl 12:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, perhaps I don't know, but the distortion is to me disturbing--Lmbuga 20:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Which distortion? --Haeferl 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
See the explanatory notes (you can delete them when you want)--Lmbuga 03:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Lmbuga, but I cannot do more against it. I have corrected it a little bit before posting, but I look down from above and this is due to the perspective. Last but not least, the picture is not wide enough to get it to straighten out even more. ;-) --Haeferl 14:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The distortion looks unavoidable in this case. It does not disturb me. I think it is a good picture.--Jebulon 14:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality to me. --NorbertNagel 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Mbdortmund 07:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --Iifar 11:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable --Grondin 00:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Naturpark_Ötscher-Tormäuer_-_Talsperre_Erlauf-Stausee.jpg edit

  • Nomination "Erlauf-Stausee" with arch dam, Austria --Haeferl 12:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed IMO--Lmbuga 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Dark trees and dark mountains make a dark sea. If I would make it lighter, the clouds will be overexposed. --Haeferl 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support New revision. You're right: good, QI--Lmbuga 03:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not impressed with the pic sharpness, the tree on right side is not helping and overall it's also a bit too dark for me. --Iifar 07:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it better now? ;-) --Haeferl 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A bit better, but still not QI for me. There is fairly strong noise on the water. --Iifar 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ile cité dôme institut.jpg edit

  • Nomination View of the Seine River in the center of Paris.--Jebulon 12:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Yes, the colours are not vivid but winter and clouds are part of our environment too. Good enough for me. Alvesgaspar 21:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry to say but, despite of the interesting and useful view, the technical quality is in extremely poor condition. I hardly see a healthy pixel here. Maybe the post processing ruined the photo.--MrPanyGoff 11:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Post processing was usual, I would say, and surely without the need of the "retouched" template... Despite this picture is far from perfection, maybe some words in comment are a bit excessive, aren't they ?--Jebulon 16:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus 17:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some clouds are overexposed. --Iifar 12:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support They aren't overexposed, they are white. For me it's good enough. --Kadellar 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:PodpeskoJezero-zima.JPG edit

  • Nomination Podpeč lake in winter, Slovenia --Sl-Ziga 21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportVery nice! --Lmbuga 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low saturation. Too grey. ANGELUS 02:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice winter mood.--Jebulon 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me the low saturation is very nice. Its typical winter. --Ralf Roletschek 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:L'Image_et_le_Pouvoir_-_Etude_d'après_un_buste_romain.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sanguine study of a roman bust by mademoiselle de Mondran --PierreSelim 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This image has several spots inside. --ANGELUS 02:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can you add notes to show me the sports ? --PierreSelim 09:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment How can I add the notes? ANGELUS 17:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment I went again to the exhibition today. What may appears as spots (I suppose dust spots) are in fact default of the sanguine. PierreSelim 18:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
      •  Support - Well, then I changed my mind. ANGELUS 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Archaeodontosaurus.--Jebulon 16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --ANGELUS 20:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:McLaren MP4-12C - detail.jpg edit

  • Nomination Close-up of McLaren MP4-12C. --Kadellar 14:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to over-saturation --ANGELUS 01:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp.--Jebulon 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per ANGELUS --Archaeodontosaurus 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lampinkoski 2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Lampinkoski rapid and Onnenkoski stone arch bridge. --kallerna 05:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --ANGELUS 01:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Zones overexposed and zones underexposed. I don't like the crop--Lmbuga 02:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Lmbuga. --Iifar 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the one half is too dark the other half of the picture is too brightened --A.Ceta 12:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,-Большой-каскад-1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Grand Cascade of Peterhof. --Aleks G 13:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Maybe some overexposed parts in the waters, and composition a bit random... hard to decide --Jebulon 14:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Not sure about the composition but I like the water play with the light and the row of people on top --Moroder 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Iifar 13:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Gemmula_kieneri_01.JPG edit

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 08:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al-mawazin_next_to_the_Dome_of_the_Rock,_Jerusalem4.jpg edit

  • Nomination Al-mawazin next to the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem --Poco a poco 21:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Sorry, it's very nice, but a CA on the left column, could be corrected I think. --Moonik 13:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that I could fix it, what do you think now? Poco a poco 15:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It's much better but not perfect yet, let's disscus --Moonik 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's OK now. QI for me.--Moonik 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but not at full resolution IMO: CAs (see the sundial), the sky is non-natural, itsn't blue; lack of detail or noisy (the door, the columns next to the door, the sky...). Sorry--Lmbuga 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC) To me all the image is too violet (violet color)--Lmbuga 14:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
¿Vale la pena que intente mejorarla o es una causa perdida? (is it worth working on it further?) Poco a poco 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hablamos en tu página de discusión, siempre podrás volver a proponer la imagen, tranquilo. Espero poder ayudarte a tener mejores resultados, pero yo soy solamente uno más--Lmbuga 20:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  CommentI would try to remove the ugly ads on the columns, they are very distracting to me. Gidip 09:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I had the intention to do so but realised that it is really tricky. The columns are not plain, and rather contain layers with different colors. I will not be able to fix that and leave it in a good shape. I give up with this nomination :( Poco a poco 16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not a QI to me --Iifar 13:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Porin ravirata 6.8.-11 - 32.jpg edit

  • Nomination Start number 7 in Pori harness racing track 6.8.2011. --kallerna 10:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Trace 21:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Greenish IMO. Let's discuss--Jebulon 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)...Opposition removed, Thanks to Carschten. But the uploader could maybe, one time, upload a not-too-greenish already corrected picture...--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per jebulon--Lmbuga 03:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition --A.Ceta 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon. --Iifar 08:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded a new version. Is it better? --Carschten 14:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
it looks better now. --Iifar 15:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Placa conmemorativa do 60 aniversario do peche da Prisión Central de Celanova - Galiza-1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Plaque commemorating the 60th anniversary of the closure of the Central Prisión of Celanova, Galicia (Spain)-1.--Lmbuga 18:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment 15,498 megapixels and I can work the image, I've the RAW file--Lmbuga 18:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
     Info The prison was active during the Spanish Civil War.--Lmbuga 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, very sharp text, as you can expect from 5D Mark II. Makele-90 00:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks (and thanks)--Lmbuga 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Dornach_-_Goetheanum_-_Nordtreppe1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Goetheanum: northern stairway --Taxiarchos228 12:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vassil 11:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some months after, it still needs a perspective correction, or bad composition with the tilted part at left (please see annotations)--Jebulon 23:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me it's not tilted, but the image needs a little perspective correction, As Jebulon--Lmbuga 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Exterior of the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem3.jpg edit

  • Nomination Exterior of the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem --Poco a poco 21:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Noisy! (Check the sky.) No geocode.--PereslavlFoto 22:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Geocode added, noise reduced, Poco a poco 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Support now.--PereslavlFoto 14:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The gate is noisy too, but good pic. Please notice that geocode is not a mandatory...even if pictures are better with a geolocalization, obviously--Jebulon 23:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good composition. Felix Koenig 11:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Porin ravirata 6.8.-11 - 65.jpg edit

  • Nomination Kari Venäläinen harnessing Celsius Ås in Pori harness racing track. --kallerna 10:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too green. --Iifar 08:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded an edit. --Vassil 10:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Vassil 21:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good for QI now, interesting good action shot. --PierreSelim 10:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Grempen_-_Schweizer_Jura_im_Nebel.jpg edit

  • Nomination Jura mountains, partial in fog, seen from Gempen hill --Taxiarchos228 20:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment At the left I would make the foreground is more light. Here a white fog in the center on the verge of absolutely white. --Aleks G 11:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose most of the landscape underexposed and the fog overexposed and blown out --Carschten 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
not comprehensible argument --Taxiarchos228 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me excellent Quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Regretfully because it's a wonderful composition and the mood is nice. But I can't ignore the extensive noisy area in the foreground and the overexposed fog. The first issue could perhaps be solved but not the second. -- Alvesgaspar 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On which daytime did you shoot this photo? --A.Ceta 15:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Pz-elections-2011-gok-4391.jpg edit

  • Nomination Legislative elections in Russia. --PereslavlFoto 01:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I miss the ballot boxes...--Jebulon 11:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's ask for someone's decision.--PereslavlFoto 00:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support ballot boxes would be nice, but it is wurscht (not relevant) for QI. Good quality. --Carschten 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Not sure it is not relevant for QI... (a picture showing elections without ballot boxes ? Is the description really good (QI criterium). Could be a long discussion...) Anyway, I do not oppose...--Jebulon 14:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, what has to be added to description? I will try. The ballot boxes were behind me, and here you may see the commission (to the right) and the voting cabin (to the left). I promise to prepare ballot boxes in Spring, but this time they illegally prevented me from shooting boxes :-(.--PereslavlFoto 15:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Sorry, but not without ballot boxes. Artem Karimov 12:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This picture is showing Election Commission, but some of them are motion blurred. Makele-90 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Makele-90 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

File:Eglise de Vielle-Adour de face.JPG edit

  • Nomination Vielle-Adour church, France --France64160 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very dull light. --NorbertNagel 23:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's dull light but I can't change the weather and the church is gray. --France64160 23:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but QI criteria don't depend on the weather. For QI, you need to wait for better light before taking the picture IMO. --NorbertNagel 23:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Eh? Hää? Also für ein Quality image ist das Wetter egal aber er soll auf besseres Wetter warten??? --Carschten 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Le temps n'a pas d'importance pour une QI, mais il faut un ciel bleu... Remembers me Henry Ford about the Ford T :“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black”...--Jebulon 23:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your different views. What do I need when the next time, if I am in the same situation? (without asking the sun to come:)) Thank you. --France64160 00:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Frankly speaking, the light wasn't worth shooting. And the roof is oversharped. Maybe you may add exposure and vibrance to this image, could you please try? This will not be an exact truth. But the exact truth of this weather cannot explain the vividness of the church.--PereslavlFoto 00:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version, update. It's better ? --France64160 (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
     Support Perfect, man! In future please avoid oversharped light glares. I may explain how to do that.--PereslavlFoto 00:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment We give a false impression of the weather in northern Europe if everything is presented in sunlight. But still this is not QI because of the lack of detail caused by the combination f4,5 / 1/400 Sek. Churches don't runaway. Composition is good.
  •  Oppose Lack of fine detail. --Iifar 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the picture, the wheather and the composition. For me this is a QI. --Elektroschreiber 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support First I thought "It's not in sunlight, it's not beautiful", but now I must say, that your answer about false Impressions is absolut correct. The picture is good enough for QI. --Haeferl 20:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but lack of fine detail. As Iifar--Lmbuga 00:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The new version looks indeed much better, but sorry, I don't change my vote for reasons mentioned by Iifar and Lmbuga. --NorbertNagel 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support i also like the weather. --Ralf Roletschek 15:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Glen_Canyon_Dam_-_generator_building.jpg edit

  • Nomination The generator building of Glen Canyon dam, Arizona. --High Contrast 01:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Haeferl 14:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very interesting, but also quite soft. --kallerna 15:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand the word "soft". Is it in the guidelines, please?--Lmbuga 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me and interesting motif. --NorbertNagel 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 13:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sella y Saslong dinviern.jpg edit

  • Nomination The Mont Seuc with the Sella and Langkofel goup in South Tyrol--Moroder 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good photo, but for QI I would correct colors and brightness of fur-trees in the foreground of a photo and sharpness. --Aleks G 13:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info Uploaded new image:I tried my best--Moroder 17:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Excuse, trees in the foreground hardly became better, but in the whole photo it is necessary to do more brightly and more sharply (the stock is). --Aleks G 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Sharpened and corrected the brightness-What I appreciate of the picture is the special light given by the clouds which is not the bright sunshine --Moroder 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The updated file with updatings is loaded. --Aleks G 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very beautiful picture. --Haeferl 01:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:2010 0515 rama 4 and sathorn 22a.JPG edit

  • Nomination Burning tire in Bangkok during the 2010 unrest. --Claritas 13:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Haeferl 18:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some details of the pictures are blurry. --ANGELUS 15:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure. To me the boys are underexposed, but the boys aren't important and I like the underexposition of the boys. But is the subject, the wheel, underexposed? It's a very difficult and in action image. Perhaps QI, but I would like to hear other users--Lmbuga 20:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you have time enough to find the best settings, you can certainly make the picture better. But I think that the situation called for more rapid action, and for that it is very well done. --Haeferl 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Exceptionally, QI to me--Lmbuga 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better nominate as Valuable Image. --NorbertNagel 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I agree with NorbertNagel. --ANGELUS 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Considering the circumstances in which it was taken, I think the technical quality is fine. Sure, there is some blurriness, but the burning tire is sharp at full resolution. I see no reason why it couldn't be a QI and a VI. --Claritas 08:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:MS Gabriella in Helsinki.JPG edit

  • Nomination MS Gabriella in Helsinki --Pudelek 12:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • QI to me. --Iifar 17:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is 3 white spots and sky is quite noisy. Makele-90 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my promotion. --Iifar 06:35, 4 January 2012
  • On the photo was one white spots - only in the sky, I removed it. --Pudelek 17:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
What are those two? Makele-90 17:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Chimney of Gabriella --Iifar 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes the sky is a bit noisy, but it can pas IMO.--Jebulon 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tight crop, but otherwise a good image. QI for me. -- MJJR 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry I dont like the appearance of the sky -- it seems that this photo was downscaled that`s why the sky is so noisy and pixels up --A.Ceta 12:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ribka2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Nude woman with tatoo --Lipedia 23:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Fine picture. --Vassil 10:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Not from a Commons user --PierreSelim 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • User:GrishaMaslov is a Commons user. --Lipedia 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Commentmy mistake, however i do think it's unclear in the description of the files. -- PierreSelim 23:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The skin of this pretty lady is very detailed and...attractive, the quality of photograph is fine technically, but I don't understand what is shown. Whe don't see the whole tatoo, and the wristwatch kills the atmosphere IMO.--Jebulon 10:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO. --kallerna 14:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Also the arm over the chest kills the composition imo ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Concur with Alvesgaspar. What does it say when you are showcasing body art but imply the body is something to hide. Moreover the tattoo is not featured with this pose. Saffron Blaze 14:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine to me--Lmbuga 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The german description says "Naked young woman with watch". Is this meant seriously or has a joker operated in the translation?
  •  Oppose I dont like the picture - no good quality, the background has more effect than the tattoo. --Haeferl 16:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per Jebulon. --ANGELUS 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Kokemäenjoen suistoa Meri-Porissa 3.jpg edit

  • Nomination The delta of Kokemäki river in Meri-Pori, Finland. --kallerna 16:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice impressionism.--Jebulon 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes! --Ralf Roletschek 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good, but very bad white balance (too blue and too green), improvable--Lmbuga 00:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info New version--Lmbuga 01:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose new version looks better to me. --Iifar 07:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Jebulon 17:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Parish church of Bula Gherdëina.jpg edit

  • Nomination Parish church of Bula in the Dolomites --Moroder 16:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice. --Iifar 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - areas of overexposure. Mattbuck 18:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice image compostion, good light and I don't find the relatively small overexposed (and underexposed) areas not disturbing. --NorbertNagel 20:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mattbuck. It's improvable--Lmbuga 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Done some correction with ... a little help from my friend--Moroder 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice pic and good quality. --Selbymay 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree.--Jebulon 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Watford Junction railway station MMB 14.jpg edit

  • Nomination A rainy Watford Junction station. Mattbuck 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. I like photos in rain. --Ralf Roletschek 13:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Let's discuss. I don't see nothing in focus, and underexposed to me--Lmbuga 02:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    It's not underexposed, it really was that dark. It was a really heavy downpour, and remarkably sudden too. Mattbuck 03:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    I believe you, but what in focus? Blurry?--Lmbuga 03:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say it's all out of focus, but if you say so I have no comment on the issue. Except this one. Mattbuck 12:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    It's not out of focus per se. The camera (or matt) has focussed on the first lampos, which is sharp, but there isn't enough DoF to get the rest of the pic in sharp/acceptable focus. --Fred the Oyster 13:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but mostly out of focus. --Iifar 17:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. One can hardly read the sign. --NorbertNagel 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB 92.jpg edit

  • Nomination University of Nottingham Jubilee Campus. Mattbuck 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support interesting light --Ralf Roletschek 13:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me it's almost completely out of focus--Moroder 15:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Moroder. --Iifar 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Getting it all in focus would have been pretty much impossible, the waterfall's about 10m wide and to get to this angle you have to be standing less than 1m away. I took a couple of photos with varying focal points, and decided this one was good. Yes, most of it is out of focus, but I think that probably improves the picture. Mattbuck 12:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
     Comment - Couldn't you have got it up to f16 just to get a bit more DoF? After all you were already at 1/750th so you had plenty of shutter speed headroom. --Fred the Oyster 13:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I knew about f-numbers back then. Mattbuck 15:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Steinen_-_Katholische_Kirche4.jpg edit

  • Nomination Steinen-Höllstein: Catholic Church (Church of the Immaculate Conception), baptismal font and cruzifix --Taxiarchos228 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support nice composition --Ralf Roletschek 14:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs a perspective correction IMO (the painting looks leaning)--Jebulon 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 03:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's on the piss and it could have benefited from the camera being lowered down a couple of feet or so. --Fred the Oyster 14:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Would be nice to know the name of the painter --Moroder 07:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Notocochlis_tigrina_02.JPG edit

  • Nomination Shell of a Tiger Moon Snail, Notocochlis tigrina --Llez 08:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose For me there is no clearness. --Aleks G 20:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems OK to me. Mattbuck 14:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is imo so-so. --Iifar 13:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:2011-ß5-19-flughafen-erfurt-by-RalfR-51.jpg edit

  • Nomination engine of Boeing 737 --Ralf Roletschek 18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Fine work! --Haeferl 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight and a bit noisy--Lmbuga 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - a bit tight, and the background is too bright for me. Mattbuck 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Cropped too tight and asymmetrically. A viewpoint from a 'taint angle. It 'taint one way or the other. --Fred the Oyster 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-01-10 23-26-47-nightscape.jpg edit

  • Nomination Nightscape under the moonlight. --ComputerHotline 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support For that long exposure it is a good quality. But what is the point of views like that? Do you want to show the earth rotation? --Haeferl 15:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not. --ComputerHotline 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting photo but IMO in several areas too blurry to become a QI. --NorbertNagel 23:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As NorbertNagel. Sorry, I don't like the quality of the image--Lmbuga 22:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-01-10 23-13-35-fort-salbert.jpg edit

  • Nomination Entry of the fort du Salbert under the moonlight. --ComputerHotline 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support That's moonlight? Sure fooled me. Mattbuck 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a subject taken under moonlight. --ComputerHotline 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting photo but IMO too blurry to become a QI. --NorbertNagel 23:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As NorbertNagel--Lmbuga 22:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Cerje1.JPG edit

  • Nomination Cerje tower, Slovenia --Sl-Ziga 21:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment It needs vertical perspective correction--Lmbuga 23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the perspective is fine, but there is a blur in the bottom left. I'm inclined to promote, but would like more opinions. Mattbuck 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose New review and the image needs a perspective correction: See the vertical lines of the door--Lmbuga 00:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Perspective correction tends to ruin images IMO. Mattbuck 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps you're right, Tomorrow I will review the image--Lmbuga 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The need of a perspective correction is not obvious in this case IMO, but the dustcart or whatever it is at left is disturbing--Jebulon 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Palmse mõis (by Pudelek).JPG edit

This version is nice, thanks :) --Pudelek 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:12-01-03-akt-lowkey-by-RalfR-06.jpg edit

  • Nomination Low-Key Photo --Ralf Roletschek 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC) But one can see some disturbing elements in background.--Jebulon 21:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ok, but first monday. --Ralf Roletschek 10:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • OK--Ralf Roletschek 09:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment You mean there is a background? Seriously though whatever you've done Ralf has introduced some really dodgy banding artefacts over on the left. Would it not be simpler just to do some masking and darken it by 3 or 4 stops? It's a shame that these background elements are causing problems as really it's a great image. --Fred the Oyster 10:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support now, thanks RalfR.--Jebulon 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Still that strange banding but it's subtle and not too distracting. It's such a nice image though, so what the hell. :). --Fred the Oyster 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--ArildV 17:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 21:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:David d'Angers - Bonchamps.jpg edit

  • Nomination Charles Artus de Bonchamps, sculpture by David d'Angers. -- Selbymay 10:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Let's discuss: Distortion and noise--Lmbuga 02:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga --Archaeodontosaurus 08:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Iso 400 causes slightly increased noise, which is only visible if one zooms in to maximun resolution and even at this scale is not very disturbing. Image composition and light is very nice and overcompensate this IMO. --NorbertNagel 10:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. ANGELUS 12:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is a sharp picture and I like the perspective with the hand in the window. But the point is: The hand looks like cutted out. Are you able to straighten the contours, so that they are more smooth? --Haeferl 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noise because of ISO 400 and sharpening. Photos like theese need ISO 100 and a tripod. I also agree with Haeferl. --Carschten 14:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nice because its no disortet. --Ralf Roletschek 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • sorry, but...!--Lmbuga 22:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info To distort or not, this is the question :) In fact, it is already distorted, but more it would make the hand too big. Speaking of the hand, I didn't cut around, it may be a light effect. So I just upload a new version with smoother contours. Thanks. --Selbymay 22:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Nice light, hand looks better now, noise level could be smaller. --Iifar 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info New version from today, a little denoised. --Selbymay 13:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Elektro tattoo.jpg edit

  • Nomination Nude woman with tatoo --Lipedia 23:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not from a Commons user. --PierreSelim 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    User:GrishaMaslov is a Commons user. --Lipedia 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)  Commentmy mistake, however i do think it's unclear in the description of the files. -- PierreSelim 23:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - is the tattoo design free of copyright restrictions ? --Claritas 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality IMO--Lmbuga 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I can't get past the asymmetry in her hip/waist area. Saffron Blaze 19:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Saffron Blaze--Jebulon 16:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. --ANGELUS 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Taxiarchos228 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the girl (I always was a butt man!), I like the tattoo, unfortunately I don't like the hip asymmetry and the fact it's not vertical. It looks like the camera and girl weren't perpendicular which gives a slightly disturbing effect, to me anyway. That effect isn't helped with the camera being slightly too low. --Fred the Oyster 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Personally I don't like this tatoo, but nevertheless image looks like QI to me. --Iifar 19:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I also dont like the Tatoo but the Photo is good. --Ralf Roletschek 20:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 19:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Steinen_-_Vogelpark2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Steinen-Weitenau: birdpark, entrance area --Taxiarchos228 14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice colors, but seems tilted ccw. The dark area of the corner can be disturbing, but is not sufficient reason for the image is not QI IMO--Lmbuga 15:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I can't see that this picture is tilted, please proof again. --Taxiarchos228 20:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I quite like it. Mattbuck 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it also. --Ralf Roletschek 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Earth Store Bodhisattva.jpg edit

  • Nomination Statue of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva, Taiwan --Bgag 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Jpeg artifacts--Lmbuga 17:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think that this image meets the criteria. ANGELUS 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose See above and please, there are other views and other people can think--Lmbuga 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Previously, you did not insert "Decline", for this reason I took the liberty of inserting "Promotion". --ANGELUS 21:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I don't know the procedures--Lmbuga 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC) The next time I must indicate clearly my opposition--Lmbuga 22:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I have imported a new version. --Bgag 12:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Shame it could have been a great pic. It needs a bit of zing! Vibrancy could do it wonders, as could cropping out that wotsit in front of the plinth. Standing a couple of feet to the right would have sorted out the slight distraction of the angled forest behind the head too. If you have Photoshop open the image in Camera Raw and add a few points of vibrancy and a touch of saturation just to liven it up. This sort of image should have strong, bold, vivid colours. Especially the greens. --Fred the Oyster 14:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Thanks for your comments, it will be useful in the future. However we are judging here for quality images not for featured pictures. In spite of these minor problems, I would have thought that this picture is a quality picture. --Bgag 12:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    Crop it to just above that thingamajig near the base, add a bit of vibrancy and/or a touch of saturation and you can have my vote. --Fred the Oyster 16:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    How about this one? --Bgag 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of messing myself. I far prefer this version, I hope that you agree. Although there is some jpg artifacting if you zoom in to 100%, I think the image is punchy enough to overcome that. It could be useful too I believe. Either way my vote is now  Support. --Fred the Oyster 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Better to me and QI to me--Lmbuga 00:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 14:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Narcissus tazetta 1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Narcissus tazetta. Image was previously declined due to low sharpness. I resized it. --Gidip 11:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Downsampled. See the file history--Lmbuga 21:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I said it was downsampled, you don't have to look at the history for this. What's the problem with the downsampling? Gidip 22:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, in Commons:Image guidelines, "downsampling" is a common problem of size--Lmbuga 11:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean "a common problem"? There should be some rationale behind this. Whoever wrote this rule probably meant that people should not upload file versions which were compressed for use in powerpoint presentations, emails, etc. It is absurd to prohibit downsampling which improves the quality of the image in full resolution, if this resolution is detailed enough and well above 2 mpx. Otherwise, how do you explain this guideline from Wikipedia 1?

If, when viewed at 100% (actual pixels), an image appears slightly blurred and/or there are visible JPEG compression artifacts, it could benefit from downsampling. Images from modern digital cameras which produce very large (6MP or 10MP) files can look much better when slightly reduced in size.

Surely the idea of a good image file cannot be that much different in Commons and Wikipedia. Gidip 12:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support - although I would prefer it if it was at 100%. Downsampling only causes loss of information, and does not improve an image in any way. However, as long as the resolution is adequate, I can't see downsampling as a sufficient problem for an image not to achieve QI status. --Claritas 11:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I can't say this in English: (es) (please, translation) Si la mejora de la imagen ha consistido unicamente o fundamentalmente en reducir el tamaño, voto en contra porque considero que se debe aprobar (la aprobaré yo) la imagen original.--Lmbuga 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation ---> If the improvement of the image has consisted only or primarily to reduce the size, I'll vote against because I think it should be approved (or at least I approve it) the original image. Angelus (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, ANGELUS--Lmbuga 22:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a pleasure! ;-) ANGELUS 23:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 07:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think that, if this image is QI, downsampling is valid in any case--Lmbuga 00:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Columns alley, Umaid Bhawan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.jpg edit

  • Nomination Columns alley, Umaid Bhawan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. Yann 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Barrel distortion has to be corrected to become a QI. --Elektroschreiber 20:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that. Could you help? Yann 07:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I've done a correction. --Vassil 21:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Yann 10:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good now --Archaeodontosaurus 09:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good now. --Jebulon 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me. It is not easy to take this photo and it's good--Lmbuga 19:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Gm-belltower-0708.jpg edit

  • Nomination Pereslavl museum, Epiphany church under bell-tower, from 1777 --PereslavlFoto 15:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Subject is rather bright and the trees make the composition seem messy. --Mattbuck 18:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The trees make a frame and show the view from the main alley. The exposure problem existed in previous version of the file and was fixed in November 2011. It was a very bright summer day, indeed.--PereslavlFoto 19:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there is not much to see, it's bright (maybe low contrast too) and I'm not very happy with the composition. --Iifar 11:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Could you please give me an advice about making the image better? How must I shoot to make better composition from this very place, to show the church walls between the green trees?--PereslavlFoto 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Columns, Umaid Bhawan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.jpg edit

  • Nomination Columns alley, Umaid Bhawan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. Yann 17:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --Aleks G 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: In my opinion the barrel distortion has to be corrected to become a QI. --Elektroschreiber 20:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I concur with Elektroschreiber, the distortion is apparent even in small thumbnail. Mattbuck 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that. Could you help? Yann 07:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
In Photoshop it's called Lens Correction. Mattbuck 23:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mattbuck. I use Gimp, and I found the plugin. Yann 10:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment If on fast can be somewhere so. --Aleks G 15:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Aleks. Is it OK now? Yann 10:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's good. --Vassil 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Jebulon 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it--Lmbuga 18:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Chemillé - Église Notre-Dame Neuve (1).jpg edit

File:Onni Yyterissä 9.jpg edit

  • Nomination Dark bay Finnhorse gelding with rider in Yyteri beach, Pori, Finland. --kallerna 14:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me, nice silhouette pic and composition. Kadellar 14:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it has visible lens flares (common problem, when shooting into the sun). --Iifar 16:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Iifar. --T137 21:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Ralf Roletschek 20:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose in general it's a nice photo, but QI are mostly technical in nature, so I agree with Iifar and T137 --J. Lunau 08:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lutheran Cathedral in Helsinki - dome.JPG edit

  • Nomination Lutheran Cathedral in Helsinki - dome --Pudelek 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose clearly underexposed --Taxiarchos228 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support sorry, in the North is the Light different. Let us discuss. --Ralf Roletschek 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure OK IMO. Yann 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks perfectly ok for Finnish light. Pitke 17:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. --Selbymay 21:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lufthansa A333 D-AIKJ-1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Lufthansa Airbus A330. --Fule33 03:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Yellow cast. --Yann 15:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's called early morning sunshine and I'm sure it's supposed to be that colour! --Fred the Oyster 15:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support morning sun, for me QI --Ralf Roletschek 22:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - magnificent photo --Katarighe 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Linderhof1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Linderhof Palace --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Excuse me, but we already have review for this picture. Decline per Carschten: noisy, overexposed building. --Iifar 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
sorry, I have forgotten to upload new version, now done --Taxiarchos228 15:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose still overexposed building --Carschten 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
here is nothing overexposed, maybe you open your eyes, could help or maybe not --Taxiarchos228 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Noisy sky is improved on new version, I withdraw my decline. --Iifar 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good enought for QI i think. --Ralf Roletschek 11:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO not overexposed, QI for me --Haneburger 11:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Overexposure is minor; 79 thousand saturated pixels in the red channel out of 18 million. --Wsiegmund 01:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Facade_of_the_Egyptian_Museum,_Tahrir_Square,_Cairo,_Egypt1.jpg edit

Old version New version

  • Nomination Facade of the Egyptian Museum, Tahrir Square, Cairo, Egypt --Poco a poco 16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • It needs a pespective correction and perhaps it's a bit unsharp--Lmbuga 22:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry for that, I forgot the perspective distortion. It is fixed now, about the second topic, I alredy worked on it and cannot get it much better, Poco a poco 23:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    Good work. It can be QI, bat I'm not sure because it's a bit unsharp. I'm thinking, let's discuss: Others can think and help--Lmbuga 23:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral New review and sorry, neutral, I'm not sure--Lmbuga 18:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Now I think that can be QI, I'm not sure--Lmbuga 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The photo looks overexposed. Is there a correction you need. --Katarighe 20:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I adjusted the curve and uploaded a new version, is it better? --Poco a poco (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Toronto_-_ON_-_Impression2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Toronto: CN Tower and Gardiner Expressway --Taxiarchos228 07:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very sharp, light on the CN Tower is also good, but light on the building causes overexposure and composition (probably point of view) could be better IMHO. Sorry! --Kadellar 22:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
can't see any overexposure here --Taxiarchos228 22:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's overexposed especially on the balconies, and sometimes between windows. --Kadellar 23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Tilt and/or perspective distortion? --NorbertNagel 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
We look from a close point to at a building that is more than a half kilometer tall, perspective distortions are inevitable, correcting this would look unnatural. --Taxiarchos228 11:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its QI. But only without distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 14:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose According to QI guidelines:The human brain is a sensitive detector capable of spotting even a small tilt. Falling trees, towers and inclined water surfaces rarely improve landscape photography. --Iifar 08:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    Then the guidelines are unusuable. --Ralf Roletschek 13:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Église de Chelle-Spou (Hautes-Pyrénées, France).JPG edit

  • Nomination Chelle-Spou Church,Hautes-Pyrénées, France --Florent Pécassou 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Some CA. could be sharper and I've rathe like wider crop on the top but good quality. --Sfu 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose beacuse of noise level and lack of fine detail (+CA). --Iifar 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For the same reasons, image could be improved. --Selbymay 21:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Church St-Jean-Baptiste au Beguinage, window detail.jpg edit

File:Möbel-Kraft-Gebäude in Berlin Schöneberg.jpg edit

  • Nomination Furniture store in Berlin-Schöneberg at sunset. --Avda 09:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose lower part is too dark IMO --Taxiarchos228 09:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I brightend the lower part up. Better now? --Avda 10:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • better, but IMO not good enough for QI --Taxiarchos228 09:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Basel_-_Bruderholz_Dinosaurier2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Basel: sculpture of a dinosaur (Diplodocus) --Taxiarchos228 07:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The red car kills the compo IMO.--Jebulon 18:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • your far-fetched arguments are boring more and more --Taxiarchos228 20:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Your arrogant tone is boring more and more.--Jebulon 23:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • come down and argue to the point: the car is not more or less disturbing than the cars in your picture of Ronde amours.jpg --Taxiarchos228 09:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Please don't give me orders, and please don't use again and again this arrogant (I repeat) tone. Come down and argue to the point: a RED car is very more disturbing behind a dinosaur statue than some not significantly colored cars in a normal urban environment. And as in the FPC page, please consider that comparing so different pictures is irrelevant and very close to bad faith. Maybe be could we close this sterile debate and let others be judges.--Jebulon 16:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
            • yeaa looks a bit like dino shit, why not just get rid of it with a little retouch and stop quarreling? :-)) --Moroder 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. --99of9 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • this pic we can discuss. --Ralf Roletschek 15:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head of the diplodocus it's not sharp enough IMO--Lmbuga 11:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:QC_-_Montmorency_Wasserfall2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Waterfall Montmorency --Taxiarchos228 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Image has remarkable level of noise, especially on sky and water. --Iifar 10:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    fixed now --Taxiarchos228 21:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Are you sure? Looks like you uploaded old version again. --Iifar 08:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • did you refreshed your cache? --Taxiarchos228 08:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, I did. File size in Commons hasn't changed. If you denoised image, then it should have different size. --Iifar 08:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info did now and removed dustspot --Taxiarchos228 21:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sky is ok now, but water is still pretty noisy. --Iifar 11:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • noise is IMO very low and does not disturb the impression --Taxiarchos228 20:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cornered noisy details at the carrying ropes and the bridge, very noisy at the water. --Carschten 14:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    not significant IMO --Taxiarchos228 14:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of the noise. --Iifar 16:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 26 Adam Rickitt.jpg edit

  • Nomination Adam Rickitt at Cardiff Mardi Gras. Mattbuck 16:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose It could be anyone you can hardly see the face! --Villy Fink Isaksen 16:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We do not see his face --Jony54 17:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • He's a singer, he's going to have a microphone, given it's a photo of him singing I'm not sure why that's an issue. Mattbuck 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support i think, we can discuss about this picture. For me its nice and typical for a singer. --Ralf Roletschek 11:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per others. Sorry. Yann 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The mike covers too much of his face. --Avenue 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I can see his face and I also see a hand, a micro, ... and good concert quality --Carschten 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Jebulon 13:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support To me is good enough to be QI. --Andou 16:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the best position, the microphone covers a big (too big) part of his face (per others). --Kadellar 18:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 13:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

File:Jantar Mantar Jaipur 2011.jpg edit

  • Nomination Jantar Mantar, Jaipur, India. --Sfu 16:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Looks ok. --Mattbuck 23:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadows make the lighting sub-par IMO. --99of9 03:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean by this below some standard/level. But I really don't understand exactly. --Sfu 10:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I just mean the lighting is not as good as it should be to become a QI.--99of9 10:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per 99of9--Jebulon 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:M-nikolsky-sergii-4974.jpg edit

  • Nomination Cell building with the church of Sergii of Radonezh, Nikolsky monastery in Pereslavl.--PereslavlFoto 12:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice informative and valuable photo but unfortunately the sky is gone. The same with the other image with the hotel.--MrPanyGoff 12:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is OK, but the tree in front of the building is not. --Yann 09:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
How can I remove the tree?--PereslavlFoto 16:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, find a better angle. Yann 14:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The tree is directly before the entrance. One tree to the right and other to the left from the entrance. If I step to the left from this place, I'll get the side wall, not the facade.--PereslavlFoto 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the image very much. For me this is a QI. The angle is good. --Elektroschreiber (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tree is ok with me, but I agree with MrPanyGoff, the sky is a bit too bright. --Iifar 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nothing to rework here. Very good photo. --Carschten 17:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Carschten.--Jebulon 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Carschten.--Lmbuga 11:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB 50 The Exchange and Djanogly LRC.jpg edit

  • Nomination Jubilee Campus at night. Mattbuck 13:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too dark. --Yann 07:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It was night, it was dark, furthermore the fact that it is dark is intentional. Mattbuck 19:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support in the night its dark. --Ralf Roletschek 09:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Yann --Archaeodontosaurus 09:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1) Noisy. 2) Yet the night is dark, but the human eye can see the buildings at night. In this photo my human eye cannot see them. My experience tells the best «night photos» are made in the evening when available light helps to catch the whole scene. Shooting at night one has to make 20-seconds shutter and to correct exposition in retouching. Please see the examples of night photos: 1 or 2. It is corrected to show human perception.--PereslavlFoto 13:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Orgun_nuef_dlieja_dedite_Urtijei.jpg edit

  • Nomination Parish church en:Urtijëi--Moroder 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
     Info Uploaded better lighted picture --Moroder 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • It is very nice, and I would love to promote it, but the shine on the right hand side is rather off-putting. Mattbuck 19:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I have put a note (is that the shine you mean?) imho it gives the image a more dinamic aspect with the light shining through the window on the left!?--Moroder 06:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the bit I meant, though more specifically the pulpit. It's pretty certainly, but I'd like a second opinion. Mattbuck 18:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment 102 thousand pixels are saturated in the red channel out of 10 megapixels. That is 1% and we've promoted images that are much more overexposed. Unfortunately, that percentage rises to near 100% on the left side of the pulpit, the illuminated portions of the aisle and the window at the front. Detail in those areas is unrecoverable. The image is tilted slightly to the right, I think. The camera is just to the left of the centerline of the aisle. I would have preferred it to be either on the centerline or well displaced from the centerline so that its location seemed more deliberately chosen. That said, it is a lovely image. I think it would have benefitted from high dynamic range techniques, but I don't think that should be a requirement for QI. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pity to say, tilt. Please re-edit, the scene is quite interesting!--PereslavlFoto 17:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
worked on the perspective --Moroder 22:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh no, «you know, the preacher likes the cold». Could you please return to the warm hue? Or you know a serious reason to keep cold?--PereslavlFoto 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • oops - the heat is back, but blue is more ... heavenly ;-) --Moroder 08:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      •  Support QI for me. If you care about overexposed moments, you'd better use HDR.--PereslavlFoto 13:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Yann 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Weighing_scale_BW_2012-01-14_16-27-08_12_18.jpg edit

  • Nomination Weighing scale --Berthold Werner 14:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Looks a bit like a dutch still-life, Berthold...Vermeer ? --Jebulon 16:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
--Berthold Werner 18:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The scales themselves have levelled out so why isn't the picture level? As it is it makes the apples look like they're weighing down the image on the right-hand side. --Fred the Oyster 10:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment starker Gelbstich --Carschten 16:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Die Wand im Hintergrund ist gelb. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • was, denke ich, (auch) zum Gelbstich im Bild geführt hat. --Carschten 12:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment--@Fred the Oyester--Look carefully at the pointer-the scale is NOT level. Check the portion of the scale under both pans. The apples ARE slightly heavier.
  •  Support The image is weighted and found good, the scale shows it's a QI. Maybe too yellow, but as a «dutch still-life» this suits.--PereslavlFoto 17:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Graffiti-IMG 5792.jpg edit

  • Nomination Graffiti in France -- Rama 13:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Rather photoshopped beyond recognition. It's good I guess, but not sure if it's eligible for QI. Mattbuck 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Normally I do not think about images in two dimensions, but the yellow is horrible, I don't like the comnposition--Lmbuga 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually quite like it. Though it could benefit from losing a bit of the blank space above the head. I'm surprised that this image isn't in vector form though. --Fred the Oyster 13:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Copyright of the artist? Yann 17:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    Policy is that we consider graffiti ineligible for copyright. Mattbuck 17:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    OK, fine. Yann (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose so as Lmbuga, i dont like it. --Ralf Roletschek 11:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't like the yellow, but that's irrelevant. Quality good enough IMO. --Avenue (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see quality problems, we should not judge the object but the photography. --Mbdortmund 19:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry Mbdortmund, to me the image is a composition--Lmbuga 01:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC) The background is not the real background, to me--Lmbuga 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The image has a composition and the photography has perhaps one, too, but we should not forget, that we only judge the object when it has absolutely no educational sense, but normaly we only judge the picture of it. --Mbdortmund 06:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)