Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 21 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Eyeries_Painted_Houese.jpg edit

  {{../Decline|Painted Houses in Eyeries / Beara Peninsula / County Cork / Ireland --Imehling 12:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)|[reply]

  • The old versions of the Canon Kit Zooms are not very famous for high image quality, just the opposite. Diffraction can hardly been detected, because these lenses need stepping down at least to f/8 to get somehow sharp images. I think there has not been applied too strong noise reduction. If the CA and the very slight perspective problems are repaired I would give a weak support, because the noise is despite ISO400 still acceptable and the photographer tried to get the best out of his box. -- Smial 10:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 23:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plakias_Cliff.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Beach of Plakias, Crete, Greece --Oltau 19:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 12:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMHO, too much coner unsharpness for a 4 Mpix image and jpeg artifacts. Please discuss. --C messier 18:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support not a FP but QI --Ralf Roletschek 21:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Palauenc05 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low resolution, should be more for this kind of image; too unsharp; looks like (minor) CAs at the rocks --XRay 18:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but not sharp enough given the rather low resolution. Easy to take landscape photography in bright sunshine should have 6 MPix or more nowadays. -- Smial 09:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support just but ok --Christian Ferrer 12:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strong   chromatic aberration on the rocks (despite the downscaling (?) visible). Sharpness is a problem (esp. in the upper right corner), too, but just ok to me. --Carschten 06:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 23:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Badia d'Alcúdia - Panorama.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Badia d'Alcúdia, Majorca, view from Urbanizació s’Estanyol --Llez 09:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. There are several stitching errors (see notes). And the horizon have to be straightened. No QI for me! --Milseburg 21:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done --Llez 15:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry,   Not done Better now, but there are still stitching problems (see notes). --Milseburg (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      •   Done Additional corrections --Llez 22:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      •   Not done One obvious stichting problem ist left I´m afraid (see note). --Milseburg 12:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
        •   Done Sorry, last time I found a small stichching error a bit more right, which I corrected, fot I thought you ment this (without further control of other parts of the picture). Now I re-examined the picture and I found the stitching error you meant obviously. I corrected it. Congratulations for your sharp eyes --Llez 22:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 20:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strong pixelation (esp. on the left side) and low details. --Carschten 06:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments and reviewing --Llez 11:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 23:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)