Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 09 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Base_clocher_ancienne_eglise_Notre-Dame_Rungis.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Remains of the bell tower of the former church of Our Lady in Rungis, France. --Myrabella 21:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment I don't like the DOF. Why 1/500 sec? --Lmbuga 22:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)-
    Main subject is in focus and then isolated. --Myrabella 22:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    {{o}} You do not answer. Random image? The unsharpened tree of the left is disturbing IMO. Poor DOF (1/500 sec). --Lmbuga 22:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    The f-number is f/8 to have the remains of the church tower sharp and in focus. These 13th-century remains are almost hidden in the vegetation, which I tried to interpret with this tree on the left side, to give a sense of depth. --Myrabella 22:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, perhaps you're right. Other users can think. Sorry, I don't like the picture (Your photos I tend to like). --Lmbuga 22:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review anyway. --Myrabella 23:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


  Support Very nice and good quality --Christian Ferrer 19:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  Support left side is disturbing, but, main subject is in focus. Acceptable imho. --Rjcastillo 22:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  Comment L'effet de profondeur me semble de très bon gout et à mon avis parfaitement maitrisé, peut-etre l'image pourrait-elle etre améliorée avec un crop de 250 ou 300px de la partie gauche car je pense que ce qui peut gèner réellement dans cette image (consciement ou inconsciement), c'est plus la proportion de la végétation que l'effet en lui-meme, ou alors un cadrage plus large aurait rendu mois prédominante cette végétation qui semble tant géner les autres --Christian Ferrer 06:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done As suggested, new version uploaded with a crop on the left side. Merci du commentaire ; comme suggéré, nouvelle version chargée avec un crop du côté gauche. --Myrabella 09:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Better for me,   Support, now the tree is not perceived as an important part--Lmbuga 20:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support --JLPC 21:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. --Moonik 09:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Iifar 17:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Donauinselfest Vienna 2013 FM4-planet.tt-Insel.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination People at Donauinselfest Vienna 2013 --Tsui 23:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Too many people blurred--Lmbuga 23:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      Comment On purpose, focus is on the booth+flag, the blur was meant to give the picture depth --Tsui 01:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    Therefore, insufficient depth of field. Also, the two people completely blurred of the foreground are disturbing. Sorry, it seems (although it is not) a random picture--Lmbuga 11:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Like Lmbuga. --Steindy 23:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Iifar 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ursynalia_2013,_Dead_by_April_05.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Zandro Santiago, vocalist of Dead by April band. Ursynalia 2013 Warsaw Student Festival, Poland. --CLI 13:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose It would look better if it wasn't tilted. --Kadellar 18:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's QI as is. Mattbuck 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    Although it may be common for concerts, I think in this case there's no need for it to be tilted. --Kadellar 14:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • weak   Support. I'm somewhat surprised about the fact, that no one critisizes the small amount of blur and noise, which are of course nearly inevitable. -- Smial 09:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Improvable. Tilted, like Kadellar--Lmbuga 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 18:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Beeston MMB 91.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sunset in Beeston. Mattbuck 06:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support QI imo. --ArildV 08:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose sorry, why is it QI? Nothing in focus. Unnatural light IMO. Too noise (sky and there is only sky). Sorry, not QI for me --Lmbuga 20:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC).
      Oppose And red CA on the branchs --Christian Ferrer 10:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, blurry. May be artistic, but not QI. --Nino Verde 12:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support weak support; the blur is passable. --High Contrast 20:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Iifar 18:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Johanniskloster gr kragstein (MHG).dt.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination corbel from the former cloister of St. John in Hamburg --Dirtsc 20:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Comment The quality does not seems good. There seems to be jpg artifacts (see note) and the definition (detail) is poor--Lmbuga 00:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC).
    Please take a look at the new version. Maybe it is better. --Dirtsc 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Sorry, not QI for me: poor detail--Lmbuga 21:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Iifar 18:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pikk_Hermann,_Tallin,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Pikk Hermann, Toompea castle, Tallinn, Estonia --Poco a poco 18:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   SupportGood quality--Lmbuga 19:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Comment Posterized flowers on the foreground. --Iifar 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is some posterization, and I could crop them out but the flowers are not the subject of the picture Poco a poco 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good quality for me in spite of posterization--Lmbuga 21:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Those flowers are really negligible. -- Smial 09:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The flowers do not look nice. I personally would crop mich tighter an the top - there is no interesting sky formation. --Tuxyso 21:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. --Steindy (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Iifar 18:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Lucca_San_Michele_5.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination San Michele in Foro, Lucca --Aconcagua 09:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sharpening halos, not acceptable the way it is but fixable Poco a poco 17:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support I don’t see any sharpening halos worth mentioning. The whole pic is a bit soft in contrast, otherwise it’s fine to me. --Kreuzschnabel 04:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sharpening halos are on the superior part of the roof and on archangel Michael in more of its aureola --Christian Ferrer 18:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. --Steindy (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support --High Contrast 16:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support No issues at 100% view. By pixelpeeping there can be found some minor artifacts. -- Smial 17:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Iifar 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Manuel_Ángel_Fernández_Mateo.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Manuel Ángel Fernández Mateo, mayor of San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain (2007-) --Kadellar 00:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Technically quality (sharpness, focus) is good. But the person does not look into the camera and the head is cropped. --Tuxyso 07:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but "the head is cropped" doesn't mean anything bad to me talking about a close portrait, it is one of the most common practices in portrait photography. He's being interviewed, that's why he's not looking at me, I don't think that's too bad either. Not for the ID card, but why not QI? --Kadellar 09:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      Support Not looking at the camera is definitively no reason to decliine, IMO good overall --Poco a poco 14:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Not looking into the camera with such a portrayal is the same as converging lines on building :) It was the wrong moment of shutter release. It is definitely a QI issue. --Tuxyso 20:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Converging lines are primarily a technical issue, not looking into the camera only a matter of taste or composition. The guidelines say "The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed." Nothing about "persons must look into the camera". Such a rule would make it nearly impossible to nominate any photos of artists on stage. -- Smial 15:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Overseen the ":)" It was an alusion to Poco's very precise view on converging lines. To the photo: When I review a photo I do not cite guideline X but look at the whole photo. In the case here it was just the wrong time of shutter release and therefore it is not QI for me. --Tuxyso 21:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Iifar 18:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Landscape_Panorama_at_Hergiswil_near_Willisau_-_Lucerne_-_Switzerland_-_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Landscape panorama at Hergiswil near Willisau, canton Lucerne, Switzerland. --NorbertNagel 14:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Needs a crop on the left to remove overexposure. Mattbuck 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Not done --Mattbuck 17:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
      Done Crop is done now, no more overexposure --PJDespa 16:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      Support QI for me now; --PJDespa 16:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    *  Support QI for me -- Arcalino 19:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Iifar 18:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Strömsbergs_bruk_Juni_2013_08.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Tour Guide showing Strömsberg for some Swedish Wikipedians. Strömsberg is a old iron mill and village in Tierp Municipality, Sweden. --ArildV 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  • {{s}} Good quality--Lmbuga 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   OpposeBuilding cropped. Not necessary, since it reaches not much higher. --Ikar.us 13:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The building is not the main object, the guide and the people are. The composition is strong and all buildings and ruins are cropped (and serves as a striking backdrop to the people in the center of the image). You may have a different taste, but it has nothing to do with image quality.--ArildV 13:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • QI is not just about technical merit. Composition is an equal criterion, and is always a matter of taste. The other buildings dont matter for me, but the guide points to the top of the center building, which is cropped unnecessarily. --Ikar.us 18:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • QI is not about the perfect picture, it is not about the best possible picture. Its about a picture good enough. FP is different, you can vote against a high quality picture just because you do not like the composition, or because you think that it could have been done better. You vote against an image of high quality with a well thought out composition, for one simple reason: you wanted a completely different image. I think we must admit that, for each motif there are several different possibilities and choices (and we must respect that different photographers choose different solutions). In the end of the day, QI is all about quality, and you have not explained from a photographic perspective why this picture (and the choices the photographer made ​​is bad) is bad. The only thing you say is "based on my personal taste, it would have been possible to make a completely different picture suited to my taste". It is ok for FP, but for QI I think we must admit that there are several possible solutions for each motif. Best regards, --ArildV 18:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • How long have you been following QIC assessments? In my recent File:Neckar-Quelle.jpg I deliberately placed the blue backpack to enliven it. Someone judged that it spoils the composition and declined. But I'm not whining. Now yours is in consensual review. So relax and wait for more votes. --Ikar.us 22:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not whining, and I have followed QI for years. I just question your reasons for oppose here. And it is not unnecessary to crop the building, it is actually necessary to be able take this picture and this composition with the people (not the sky or roof of the building) in focus. You ask about a completely different photo, with the building, the sky and the small people in the foreground. Maybe it's the picture you had taken, but on QI I still think we need to recognize that two different photographers can take two different images (with two different compositions) of a subject (and that both images can be QI). --ArildV (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support The technical quality of the picture is good. I would only suggest a slight perspective correction, because the walls of the upper tower are widening to the top. The scenery with the guide and the guests is very lively. I like it. --Dirtsc 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The quality is very good but the Tour Guide is showing with his arm the crop part of Strömsberg, it's a bit disturbing, sorry --Christian Ferrer 20:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Christian Ferrer has convinced me, sorry, I'm neutral, not support--Lmbuga 17:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support ok. -- Smial 09:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 18:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Panorama of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Panorama of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Kruusamägi 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Dust spot, needs brightening at the lower levels? Mattbuck 17:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Not done Mattbuck 16:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Done, spot is removed and brightness adjusted --Hic et nunc 07:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The picture is difficult to understand. Is the water in reality straight? Needs at least geocoding IMO. --Ikar.us 10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    •   Oppose for this. --Ikar.us 20:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not QI. It is too dark, blurry in shadows (thus i suppose it is too dark), also unnatural colors. And (probably) need perspective corrections --Nino Verde 12:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Iifar 18:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Aysgarth Falls MMB 58.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Aysgarth Falls. Mattbuck 06:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Review   Oppose I don't really see a subject. --Moroder 13:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    Does spume not count? Mattbuck 15:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)   Comment It counts certaily less than the ruins of castel Schenkenberg covered by vegetation --Moroder 16:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    If you disagreed with those declines, take it to discussion. Mattbuck 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
      Support Personally I prefear more larger centring, but main subjet is seen. Is Aysgarth Falls the main subject of this discussion? --Christian Ferrer 05:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    Aysgarth Falls goes on for about a mile, this is spume near the middle falls. Mattbuck 09:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support It is QI of water and spume. Why not? --Nino Verde 12:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad control of movement IMO--Lmbuga 01:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Same advise as Nino Verde? --Grondin 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Motion blur. To be really "frozen" the exposure time is way to long. To show "floating" intentionally exposure is way to short. -- Smial 09:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Ps. I removed category "high speed photography" as this is in no way high speed.
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Ikar.us 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)