Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 18 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Testudo hermanni in the grass.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Testudo hermanni in the grass, Aude, France --Rorolinus 10:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose oversharpend --Berthold Werner 10:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO it's good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 08:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DoF too shallow, leaving parts of the animal unsharp. Too much sharpening, leading to sharpening artefacts. All in all, I would say: wrong camera settings for a slow moving, nearly static object. Unfortunately no possibility of being more specific, because no EXIF provided. --Cccefalon 07:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 15:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Palacio_de_Nymphenburg,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2015-07-03,_DD_01-18_HDR_PAN.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Nymphenburg Palace, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 10:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support GQ --Palauenc05 11:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   I like this mood :) --Laitche 11:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    FP-worthy? Poco a poco 14:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)*   Comment
  • {{o}} I don´t think that may be FP, there are too many blurred objects, due to the long exposure time. I´m even not sure, if this is even QI. We should discuss it. BTW: as Laitche, the mood is exceptional! --Hubertl 20:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I don't know how this picture can be moved to CR due to "motion blur". It has 117 megapixels, and the issue brought up is maybe covering and area of 0,5% of it, this is to me negligible, since those animals are not the main subject of the picture. To solve your concern I should have taken 10 long exposure photographs of each frame to get rid of everything moving, but the light would be changing, not a real option. I am really curious about what others say here. Poco a poco 08:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer: I am fully aware of the complexity making panoramas like this. Maybe it was 20 minutes too late to have enough light (without loosing the colors), if there is a "static" motion blur with wind in the trees, it would be ok IMO. Please don´t take it personal, the image is in the same deciding position as it was befor Palaunc give his pro. And there are a lot of other collegues who can decide. This picture (and the making) is worth, to talk about. --Hubertl 11:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Poco a poco: I am not sure this pano is FP-worthy or not but in my opinion, this photo should be discussed on FPC not here, if needs discussion. --Laitche 19:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 15:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   New version with, among other improvements, less ghosting Poco a poco 20:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support for QI it´s ok.--Hubertl 13:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good Quality —Vengolis 02:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 21:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)