Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 16 2014

Consensual review edit

File:NDT 2014-07-05 Ben Rowland.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Ben Rowland with his M3-engined "Mpact" at last light, Norfolk Arena, 2014-07-05. --Lewis Collard 13:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Interesting action photo, but although the size of the photo is already comparatively small, the sharpness of the car is not sufficient (see e.g. the fonts on the car stickers) --Cccefalon 07:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    This is a hard shot to make and in my opinion the sharpness is more then enough. --Baykedevries 09:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  Support IMHO it's good enough. The car is not only driving, sliding and spinning as well, the it's normal that you lose some sharpness towards the back of the car. I agree Baykedevries. Enough sharpness. -- DerFussi 06:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Oppose "Das Bild hing schief."(tm) -- Smial 12:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Aus meiner Sicht erzeugt gerade der vermeintlich schiefe Horizont mehr Dynamik - besser als ein langweilig gerades gerücktes Bild... -- DerFussi 19:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Whats with everyones obsession with strait horizons and perspective correctness? This looks great! --Uberprutser 21:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Great action shot. Tilt is obviously part of composition here --Kreuzschnabel 19:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Kadellar 14:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 07:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Kotor,_Bahía_de_Kotor,_Montenegro,_2014-04-19,_DD_25.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination View of Kotor, Bay of Kotor, Montenegro --Poco a poco 16:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Verticals are leaning out. Magenta CA and considerable drop of sharpness at the left and right last 10%, especially on the left side. Two blurry bird spots. Sorry, to much photographic issues. --Cccefalon 05:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    New version uploaded addressing those issues, I think that it is acceptable now, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 21:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Still perspective issues. I made annotations. --Cccefalon 10:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   New version Poco a poco 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. -- Smial 11:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support My concerns were adressed sufficiently. --Cccefalon 07:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 07:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Malaysia_Traffic-signs_Warning-sign-04a.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Traffic signs in Malaysia: Warning sign "Falling rocks" --Cccefalon 04:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose - Too much out of focus. --Mattbuck 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thats a ridiculous review for a pinsharp focussed photo of a traffic sign. And as the title and the categorization and the description tells: It is a photo of a traffic sign. The whole series of malaysian traffic sign deals with that DoF. --Cccefalon 04:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    By "too much out of focus" I mean that most of the image is out of focus, although I accept the subject is sharp. But the subject is tiny by comparison to the size of the picture, and the rest of the photo is not blurred enough for it to not be distracting. Mattbuck 14:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support since the sign is the main subject. However, I would prefer more bokeh on background, i.e. shallower DoF, for this kind of shot. (Und das Wort „Schutzrechtsberühmung“ kannte ich auch noch nicht.) --Kreuzschnabel 19:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Mattbuck and too tight at bottom (sign)--Lmbuga 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 07:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)