Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2013

Consensual review

edit

File:Luxembourg_City_rue_des_Glacis_37.jpg

edit

  • Nomination House in Luxembourg City. --Cayambe 07:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose It's lacking sharpness, the perspective correction seems to have gone too far --A.Savin 10:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 Info Every detail is recognizable here, from the single slates to the flowers at the base of the house. Please, be aware that the garage door is uniformly dark in reality. Only very minimal perspective correction was applied. Regards, --Cayambe 14:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support : A. Savin's reviews are usually very relevant imho, but I don't understand this one. --JLPC 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --VT98Fan 21:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bonnes_16_Habitat_rural_2013.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Traditional house being renewed in a rural village. Bonnes, Charente, France. --JLPC 17:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is noisy --Nino Verde 18:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO it's neglectable --Christian Ferrer 20:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Moonik 05:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 07:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any problems. --Steindy 07:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Florstein 16:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Blässhuhn Family9.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Blässhuhn --Böhringer 19:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline QI --Arcalino 06:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing really sharp and a tad noisy. Biopics 15:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is not noise, looks like lens bokeh. Anyway - unsharp. --Nino Verde 10:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Crystalization_with_different_levels_of_nucleation.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Scheme of three different nucleation stages of crystals within a solution, the number of crystals depends of saturation degree and this depends of variables such as temperature, salinity or pressure. For the giant gypsum crystals of the Naica mine temperature was the main control.3D infographic diagram, by Albert Vila --Poco a poco 16:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Undersized. Biopics 21:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Does the 2MP threshold apply also to illustrations like this one? Poco a poco 21:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think so. --Kadellar 22:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it does. Exceptions are only for vector and animated GIF. Renderings as these can be done at any size. Biopics 06:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Etnografiska_museet_May_2013_02.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Open storage at the Museum of Ethnography in Stockholm. --ArildV 09:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion See notes --A.Savin 10:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)✓ Done. Thanks.--ArildV 14:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Not done, see notes --A.Savin 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC) I cant see you notes (just read), i had tried with 4 browsers. You are talking about too much of retouche but no retouche is done, and I dont understand the crop suggestion? I cant see the reflection you're talking about, but I'm normally extremely careful and restrictive with respect to manipulate and retouch photos I upload to Commons. But like I said, I cant see your notes so can you describe in words what you suggest? --ArildV 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment A.Savin had made syntax errors with notes that I have corrected, now you can see it --Christian Ferrer 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    No errors I made, I think it was because of upload of new version ;) Yes, the reflection is unpleasant to me, it is imo easy to clone it out. I also mean strange spots and stripes on the parquetry, not sure where it comes from, looks a bit like it was copied & pasted from somewhere else, but maybe some retouche work would help here as well. --A.Savin 19:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC) I couldnt see the notes before I uploaded the picture either (unlike the other image) but never mind. Thank you for your review but I will not retouch the image, the left note is likely a combination of the floor has another material just where (probably an opening in the floor) and reflections (replacing it would give a false picture of the subject). For me, educational value and accuracy is more important than aesthetics when uploading to Wikimedia Commons. The third note (the crope) is done. --ArildV 20:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support Lets take it to CR, because the image overall has IMO a good quality. The thing you marked as "too much retouch" is clearly a real part of the floor, and the bright reflection fits well in the lighting conditions. So QI for me. --Dirtsc 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Derby railway station MMB 38.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Derby railway station. Mattbuck 07:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 10:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    I've had a go at sharpening it, would you care to comment? Mattbuck 16:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
     Weak support OK now --A.Savin 11:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Lachmöwe, Chroicocephalus ridibundus 3.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Lachmöwe, Chroicocephalus ridibundus --Böhringer 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --PJDespa 08:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really sharp, isn't-it? Biopics 17:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose only beak looks sharp. This is not QI. --Nino Verde 07:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics and Nino Verde --SuperJew 19:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Megaloceros giganteus Paris 25 05 2013 01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Fossil skeleton of Megaloceros giganteus. --Vassil 09:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Very dark, the left half hardly showing any detail --Kreuzschnabel 09:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Seems ok to me. Mattbuck 20:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Too dark. Checked histogram - 90% of image data in the dark quarter, probably better to add some light. --Nino Verde 07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done I think Vassil hasn't been online for a few days : new file uploaded. --JLPC 09:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks like you uploaded original image, i opened old and new full size in separate tabs in browser and saw no any difference --Nino Verde 11:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I uploaded the good one, according to my browser. Even the thumbnails are different. Maybe you should clean your browser cache (?) : I often have such a problem. --JLPC 12:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Hm, really helped. Sorry. --Nino Verde 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 Support It's ok for me --Nino Verde 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 Support New version is good. Only one curious question: you labeled the image as "retouched". Did you change the background? I suppose so, when I look at other pictures of this skeleton in Paris. ;-) --Dirtsc 16:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Cossacks graves1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Cossacks graves in Ukrainian stepp. --Ykvach 07:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion The horizon is tilted, please change. --Dirtsc 07:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Corrected! --Ykvach 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    I like the composition and the mood of the image. But why didn't you cut the da*** plant in front of the right grave? --Dirtsc 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Because I like this plant! I donot think it makes the picture worse, it makes the picture more natural. --Ykvach 19:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Without this plant in front of the right grave, I would promote it as once. I'd like to hear some other opinions. --Dirtsc 12:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
     Support IMO this plant is a good eccentricity for the composition and the plant is safe --Christian Ferrer 10:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB «04 National College.jpg

edit

  • Nomination National College for Leadership something something dark side (they keep changing their name). Mattbuck 07:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Lighting in right side pretty disturbing --Poco a poco 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support Overall the image is sharp and lighting is good. The "disturbing" lights at right are the reality, they're usually known as light pollution. ;-) --Dirtsc 20:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 Comment I don't agree, what I see is blooming. The lights look bigger than what they are in reality, and, as said, on top the composition problem with that disturbing element. The argument that something is real, does not really count when it is not a help for the composition Poco a poco 15:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 Support I don't find the lights disturbing. A QI for me. --Hic et nunc 06:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Kennedy's tower in Liege.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A skyscrape in Liege late in the afternoon (Wallonia, Belgium) --PJDespa 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Would it be possible to correct the perspective? Also the CA while you're at it. Mattbuck 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 19:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I uploaded a new version. --Hic et nunc 14:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support : QI now. --JLPC 17:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Martin_Kirche_in_Ums_Völs_am_Schlern_Eingang.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Völs am Schlern --Moroder 07:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality Arcalino 12:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose No, sorry, there is a mistake an the window of the tower. --Steindy 22:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)After the corrections QI now. --Steindy 13:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose As Steindy. Not a QI in this version. --Dirtsc 05:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Uploaded a new version. The cloning tool must have gone wild. Thanks for the hint!--Moroder 06:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. On the window you can see still stiching errors and at the edge of the tower is a disturbing corner. Why do you have the image stitching? It is not so big. One can also photograph the whole at once. --Steindy (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 Info The window is fixed. It's a problem with the system now, on the full resolution and thumbnail files. If you look at smaller resolutions the window is clean. The edge of the tower is a problem of the building. I did not stitch te picture, it's a single shot with perspective correction. Otherwise please put a note where you believe it'a wrong. Thanks --Moroder 11:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 Comment The main fault is fixed and the edge just below the window of the tower seems to be real. But the roof of the tower is slightly tilted to the right. Can you try a correction or is it real too? --Dirtsc 20:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It's real, but scuse me, what comes after the roof?--Moroder 07:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Then  Support for the new version. --Dirtsc 08:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Now the perspective is skewed. Biopics 13:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Biopics 11:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
If you refer to the wall on the right, it is naturally overhanging, otherwise could you please put a note on the wrong lines? Thanks --Moroder 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Fixed horizontal perspective --Moroder 09:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:NeTube.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Gas discharge tube shaped as the atomic symbol for Neon --PSlawinski
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, below 2 MP guideline. -- Felix Koenig 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Now 2.002225MP exactly --PSlawinski
  • Dust on tubes. Better to remove. --Nino Verde 08:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New photo - less dust (can't get rid of it all), more resolution Pslawinski 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Nino Verde 08:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:ArTube.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Gas discharge tube shaped as the atomic symbol for Argon --PSlawinski
  • Promotion Sorry, below 2 MP guideline. -- Felix Koenig 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Now 2.002225MP exactly --PSlawinski
  •  Oppose Unsharp. --Nino Verde 08:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Nino Verde 08:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New photo - less dust (can't get rid of it all), more resolution, improved sharpness Pslawinski 03:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 05:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:KrTube.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Gas discharge tube shaped as the atomic symbol for Krypton --PSlawinski
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, below 2 MP guideline. -- Felix Koenig 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Now 2.002225MP exactly --PSlawinski
  • Can you remove the dust and, not sure what is it, like water on tubes? --Nino Verde 08:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New photo - less dust (can't get rid of it all), more resolution (there was no water on the tubes, it's a reflection) Pslawinski 03:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Nino Verde 08:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 05:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:XeTube.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Gas discharge tube shaped as the atomic symbol for Xenon --PSlawinski
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, below 2 MP guideline. -- Felix Koenig 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Now 2.002225MP exactly --PSlawinski
  • Check image notes, you have dust spots. --Nino Verde 08:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New photo - less dust (can't get rid of it all), more resolution Pslawinski 03:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Nino Verde 08:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 05:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination Church of the Holy Cross, Hamburg-Ottensen, western main window --Dirtsc 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Not really sharp, blown highlights, perspective --Smial 10:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please check new version again. --Dirtsc 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed in the center, lack of details. --Selbymay 17:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Eucera_furfurea_male_1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Eucera furfurea --Gidip 05:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    Wrong WB due to the flash Poco a poco 08:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support --Rjcastillo 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As said, the colors are not natural and the shadows very harsh, not a QI as it is to me Poco a poco 10:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Poco a poco. Biopics 07:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 22:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Spow_innenraum_altar.jpg

edit

  • Nomination church St.Pankratius, Hamburg-Ochsenwerder, view of the altar --Dirtsc 20:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noisy, unsharp, bad crop on the left, distortions (vertical and barrel), CA, not a QI, sorry --Poco a poco 09:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Please check new version again. --Dirtsc 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support For the available light its okay for me. The use of a flash would not reflect so well the mood. --Steindy 07:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco --Carschten 11:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info I promised a new version two days ago, but somehow I missed to transfer it to commons. Please take a look at the new version thats now available. --Dirtsc 19:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Much better, esp. the distortion correction. But the image is missing contrast now, the general quality (details, sharpness) isn't good enough and there are CA. Sorry! --Carschten 15:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 22:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Castelul Linderhof26.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Linderhof Castle, Germany. --Cezarika1 15:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Dirtsc 06:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposePerspective correction would be fine here, and geodata would be too. --Kreuzschnabel 22:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I added geodata. --Cezarika1 05:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion, CA, artifacts --Carschten 11:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 22:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:BMW_Welt,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2013-02-24,_DD_24.JPG

edit

File:BMW Welt, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-24, DD 24.JPG

  • Nomination BMW Welt, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 13:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose the footer is distracting, maybe a cut version --The Photographer 01:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
     SupportSeems ok to me. Mattbuck 19:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support --Moroder 13:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 22:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Höckerschwan mit Nest, Cygnus olor, nests with eggs 08.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Cygnus olor, nests with eggs --Böhringer 19:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good Quality --Rjcastillo 20:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"  Oppose Head not sharp. Biopics 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support – good quality and very high resolution. -- Felix Koenig 13:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ok -- Smial 09:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 22:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg Restaurant Juegdschlass.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Well known Restaurant in Luxembourg --VT98Fan 20:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good Quality --3uclides64 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Partly overexposed sky. --Iifar 05:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --VT98Fan 07:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image was processed broken. This is especially seen at the sign and the roof. Sorry! --Steindy 13:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition, many technical flaws. -- Smial 09:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 22:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Bonner Münster.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Bonn Minster. -- Der Wolf im Wald 00:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 08:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown sky. Biopics 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --VT98Fan 06:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Biopics. OE is too extensive and conspicuous. --Carschten 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • much better, but still not sure if the clouds are too bright. Mögen die anderen entscheiden --Carschten 11:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 17:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • New version online! I made a correction of the sky. -- Der Wolf im Wald 00:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support for the new version. --Dirtsc 20:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support for the new version. --Christian Ferrer 07:21, 01 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 22:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Wiener Stadtpark01 2013-02-16.jpg

edit

File:Christmas Cactus flower.jpg

edit

  • Nomination: Christmas Cactus flower (Schlumbergera truncata cultivar). --MrPanyGoff 10:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Not enough DOF --Nino Verde 15:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Hey, this is not FPC. The sharpness covers the essential parts of the flower and this makes it a QI to me. --Cayambe 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is not FPC, thus the image must correspond to quality image guide: "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image.". Here the mail subject is unsharp and only some of petals are in focus. Cunclusion: this is not QI. --Nino Verde 08:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The unsharp leaf in front of the flower is a little bit disturbing. But it adds a sense of depth and the subject itself looks very good. --Dirtsc 08:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is not FPC, but QI, so quality takes priority. This image is far too soft. Biopics 15:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Biopics 05:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Wraxall 2012 MMB 64.jpg

edit

  • Nomination: A Christmas tree. Mattbuck 11:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose The lights are too bright and outshines. --Steindy 18:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    I don't understand your objection. Mattbuck 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --3uclides64 21:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colourful lamps are too bright for the rest of the room.--Hic et nunc 05:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    That was intentional, I thought it looked better that way. Mattbuck 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality is OK for me. Maybe overall a little too dark, but I think you wanted to show the colours of the lights. --Dirtsc 20:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Left side  Underexposed --The Photographer 12:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cayambe 05:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

File:HeTube.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Gas discharge tube shaped as the atomic symbol for Helium --PSlawinski
  • Promotion Sorry, below 2 MP guideline. -- Felix Koenig 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Now 2.002225MP exactly --PSlawinski
  •  Support It is QI from my point of view. --Nino Verde 08:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Resizing to exactly 2 Mpx is gaming the system. Why not submitting the original size? Biopics 12:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not reason to decline. QI guide do not force submitting original size images. There is rule "not less than 2 MP", the rule is not violated. --Nino Verde 16:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Biopics. --Tuxyso 12:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New photo - less dust (can't get rid of it all), more resolution Pslawinski (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info Photo is now 4MP not 2MP as before. Pslawinski 11:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 19:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Biopics 05:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Liebfrauenkirche, Tier (by Pudelek).jpg

edit

  • Nomination: Church of Our Lady, Trier, Germany --Pudelek 20:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment tilt. imho. --Rjcastillo 20:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Its not tilted, it just looks like this, because all verticals have been set as parallels, what destroys the natural look. --Dirtsc 09:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good quality to me. Though I am not a friend of straightening the verticals to the max, I don’t see any natural look destroyed here. --Kreuzschnabel 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose then. All verticals are exactly parallel, but at least the right edge of the front wall should not be parallel to the rest of the edges. So it looks as if the right part leans to the right and as if it is wider at the roof than at the bottom. --Dirtsc 21:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I do hope you don’t decline a good image because it complies with general guidelines you don’t personally agree with. Better discuss the guidelines in the proper place then. Straightening to the max can cause severe distortion but I don’t see that happened in this very image. --Kreuzschnabel 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I make a test and uploaded it, if you don't like revert --Christian Ferrer 07:18, 01 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Biopics 05:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Slåen_sø_set_fra_øst.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Slåensø seen from the east --Villy Fink Isaksen 09:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed sky. The tree at the right third spoils the composition (but no reason for decline). If you can do better on the overexposure I will nonetheless support. --Tuxyso 10:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    Corrected --Villy Fink Isaksen 13:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    I would suggest to revert. You've added gray fog with your last edit. IMHO this image is not correctable. Nonetheless is has nice reflections on the water. Feel free to put in on CR. --Tuxyso 13:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    reverted --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    The reflections are pretty, but the overexposure means this is not QI. For future reference, unless you have RAW files, overexposure is not correctable - remapping white to grey isn't really an acceptable change. Mattbuck 21:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)  Oppose sky is hardly overburnt. This can't be QI. --Nino Verde 07:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined Biopics 18:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Viking Forseti (ship, 2013) 001.JPG

edit

  • Nomination River cruise ship Viking Forseti in cologne --Rolf H. 09:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
Same noise on the sky. --Nino Verde 15:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise is neglectable here. IMHO QI. --Tuxyso 19:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose QI must have no visible noise on the sky. It can be removed without any problems. Let ask others. --Nino Verde 08:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support "must have no visible noise on the sky" is completely nonsense as long as we use jpg with 8 bits per channel. You need in many cases some noise to avoid colour banding. -- Smial 09:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  •  Strong oppose Sharpening haloes, CA, blurry, etc. Nobody sees the poor quality of this image... Biopics 18:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted B.p. 18:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Michael_in_Brixen_Bressanone.JPG

edit

  • Nomination The Saint Michael Parish church in Brixen --Moroder 10:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion The perspective correction just makes this look really wrong. Mattbuck 19:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)  Comment I uploaded an uncorrected version, if you prefer it I will nominate it. Thanks for the review --Moroder 11:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe it's just an odd angle. Either way, I cannot promote this, shall leave for someone else to decide. Mattbuck 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Comment Are you sure that this is the way to review someone's hard work?--Moroder 19:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support I looked at both versions, this one looks much better. Very good quality and worth QI -- Arcalino 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Moroder, would you prefer I decline or leave no response to your reply? I cannot promote this because it just feels wrong to me, and I'd hope that if anyone else had images they felt similarly about that they would not promote them. Mattbuck 21:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)  Comment Mattbuck, I understand that you "let someone else" decide and Arcalino promoted the image. I don't understand therefore your final reasoning --Moroder 06:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose The tower looks vertically stretchted. Would be fine, if you can change this as you did before. ;-) --Dirtsc 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Reduced the longitudinal stretch of the top --Moroder 17:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 Support Better now. Thank you! --Dirtsc 20:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Skewed perspective. Biopics 13:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 Request Could you please be more specific and maybe indicate with a note where in your opinion the perspective is wrong. It is very difficult to find real vertical lines in buildings may centuries old --Moroder 21:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The spherical structures on the building result round imo. Consequently I don't see where the problem with the perspective lyes --Moroder 10:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Biopics 18:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Храм Воскресения Христова 2007 06.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Resurrection Church and the Well, Voskresensky (Resurrection) Skete, Valaam Island --Anna Anichkova 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support --Christian Ferrer 06:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Harsh contrast, chromatic aberration on the trees --A.Savin 09:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose per A.Savin – nice composition but too soft for me given the small size --Kreuzschnabel 10:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done
    sharpness+, contrast-, аберрации не убрать - снято в контражуре. Thanks for help! --Anna Anichkova 16:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Lightness and contrast is good now, but masonry and roofs still very soft. This is certainly a Valued Image, but not a QI for me due to sharpness issues, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 19:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Final of the 2011–12 Austrian Cup (129).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ibrahim Sekagya with the trophy of the ÖFB-Cup (2012). --Steindy 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposure. --Mattbuck 17:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Looks like with you because of bare silver in the bright sunlight and headlights? --Steindy 23:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality, QI. --Ralf Roletschek 07:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose All the cup has cyan chromatic aberrations. Overexposure--Lmbuga 08:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA should be reduced. Overexposure of the reflections is tolerable. Already under studio conditions it is difficult to photograph such glossy objects. -- Smial 08:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Persian Buttercup 03.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A Persian Buttercup (Ranunculus asiaticus) in Nataf --SuperJew 09:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline But you need to buy a better camera --The Photographer 18:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
     Question could you expand on your meaning please? --SuperJew 18:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Unnatural colors (leaves) --Kor!An 08:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose burst red chanel --Moonik 09:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Please compare to other images in the same category. There are flowers of this species, that are extremely red. Is there some botanical specialist around? --Dirtsc 04:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, but the burst red chanel on the photo doesn't mean that flower are too red, but that the red color on the picture is overexposed and loses all the details. You can see it viewing the histogram : the red histo is glued on the right side which confirms overexposure already visible to the eye. Other photos of the same flower does not have this default for example this one: Vered Hagalil3242.JPG --Moonik 05:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation.  Oppose then. --Dirtsc 06:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Bad Kreuznach by night.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Churches in Bad Krezunach by night --Pudelek 14:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Left side needs perspective corretion, it is leaning out Poco a poco 09:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    I think it's ok actually. Hard to tell. Mattbuck 23:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support For me it's OK, IMO the impression of leaning out is due to the begening of the slope at left at the base --Christian Ferrer 05:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Jacobo,_Núremberg,_Alemania,_2013-03-16,_DD_04.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Church of St. Jacob, Nuremberg, Germany --Poco a poco 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion IMHO no need to photograph in that extrem perspective. There is enough free space in front of the church, see here. --Tuxyso 05:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    *  Support I do not understand that argument. It is a different view in good quality, and nice composition. Why decline for matters of taste? -- Smial 09:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
     Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I see your points. IMHO I was too fast with my assessment, image can be promoted. --Tuxyso 08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Excessive and unnecessary perspective correction (see the ball above all). I don't like the picture and for me it's don't QI--Lmbuga 22:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Rhododendron 02.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Rhododendron.--
    Famberhorst 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support --Christian Ferrer 11:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    Specifieke soort is benodigd voor promotie, ook in de categorie. Biopics 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done
    Category:Rhododendron catawbiense--
    Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:View from Balaruc-les-Bains, Hérault 01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The Étang de Thau and part of Balaruc-les-Bains, Hérault, France. --Christian Ferrer 11:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Question I'm not used to the conditions in southern france, so please don't mind the question. Did you enhance the colors? --Dirtsc 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    It's original colors, only blacks, whites, dark and bright tints are changed. IMO it's due to the fact that the RAW file is very contrasted (sky a bit overexposed and the low part underexposed). --Christian Ferrer 16:39, 5 june 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for the answer. Looked a bit unfamiliar to me, but should be QI then. --Dirtsc 18:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    In need of sharpning, CA removal and perspective correction. Biopics 05:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sharpened, perspectives corrected but I don't see CA --Christian Ferrer 11:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Once more  Support just for the records. ;-) --Dirtsc 04:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI now. --NorbertNagel 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Mini Snowman.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A mini Snowman in Jerusalem, Winter 2013. --SuperJew 19:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose CAs, motive with regard to file size too small. --Tuxyso 20:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 Question Why is file size too small? It is just over 3 megapixels. --SuperJew 06:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I wrote: "with regard to the crop" too small. Feel free to put it into CR, imho der IQ is not sufficient for QI. --Tuxyso 09:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There’s CA in the upper part of the subject which could be minor but is severe due to small object size in the pic. Taking the pic from a much smaller distance would have done good. Middle part of snowman overexposed. Not a QI to me, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 08:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:DGT 2010 digital chess clock.ajb.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Digital chess clock DGT 2010. --Ajepbah 18:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose The top is a bit out of focus, and the top button is white against a white background. --SuperJew 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
     Comment IMO the relevant part (front) of the object is sharp and the colours of button and backgound are sufficient discriminable. I would suggest a CR ... --Ajepbah 18:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me -- Smial 10:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too --PJDespa 18:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Contrast between button and background is high enough. If the top is really out of focus then it's insignificant. --Dirtsc 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is studio photo. Digital clocks don't run. No need for the DOF to be so shallow as to have the rear rendered unsharp. The image moreover suffers from quite a bit of noise. As it is certainly not a QI! Biopics 05:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 Comment also, as it is a studio photo, it would be quite easier to find a more suitable background, for example a dark gray. --SuperJew (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 22:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Erigeron 'Azure Beauty' 02.jpg

edit

  • Nomination: Erigeron 'Azure Beauty'. Moscow Botanical Garden of Academy of Sciences. --Kor!An 16:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Support good --A.Savin 20:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In need of some noise reduction. Biopics 06:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some noise in background is not disturbing. Main object good. -- Smial 08:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
This QI, it is not a matter of disturbing, it is a matter of quality. It is fairly easy to remove the noise and upload a quality image. Biopics 11:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
If minor flaws are not disturbing, an image can be QI. This has never been questionable. Maybe the level of noise is too high for you, for me it is acceptable. There are no hard or objective limits in this case. -- Smial 13:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics. grainy noise. --SuperJew 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very slight noise. Not critical for QI. --Florstein 07:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ... and flower on the left is not whole (composition)--Lmbuga 22:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy, f4 is not a good choice. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support noise is not disturbing. --Ralf Roletschek 15:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Torneo_de_clasificación_WRWC_2014_-_Italia_vs_España_-_19.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Game of the 2013 Women's European Qualification Tournament between Italy and Spain 7-38(b). --Kadellar 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not great composition due to the half-player on the left. Mattbuck 20:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, slightly out of focus. The other pictures were much better. --Steindy 13:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    Out of focus??????? Have you seen her hair? I'll do a 3:4 crop for Mattbuck. --Kadellar 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done now. --Kadellar 22:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
     Support --Christian Ferrer 17:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. -- Smial 10:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Höllwand_in_Großarl,_2013-01.JPG

edit

  • Nomination The mountain Höllwand (2287 m ü. A.) in Großarl, Austria. --High Contrast 20:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Contrast seems low, and a bit unsharp. Mattbuck 20:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Lets take it to CR. You're right, contrast is low and it seems to be unsharp, but I think it's due to the weather conditions. --Dirtsc 20:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose the conditions doesn't matter, the question is about the contrast/sharpness. If my hand shakes, is blurriness excusable? --SuperJew 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Weak oppose now. First I thought, the low contrast was due to hazy weather. But the image is really not sharp enough. --Dirtsc 07:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB U4 Melton Hall.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Melton Hall. Mattbuck 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)IMHO
  •  Oppose Dark parts are too much dark: pull down levels of black and dark tones. After that to keep some balance pull down a bit expo, more contrast and less vibrance of colors --Christian Ferrer 07:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It was quite a vibrant day, but I've done my best to raise the low levels. Mattbuck 20:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, not enough for me, another opinion is needed. --Christian Ferrer 16:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe the photo as is is fairly natural - the leaves were not backlit at all, I was undercover. Mattbuck 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 Comment I make a test and uploaded it, if you don't like delete it --Christian Ferrer 05:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 Question If you like it, have I the right to promote it? --Christian Ferrer 07:50, 01 June 2013 (UTC)
You can't promote an image you edited. Mattbuck 16:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Weak oppose CA on the leaves, hard to see main subject, sorry. --Iifar 19:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The framing was a deliberate choice. I don't see the CA either. Mattbuck 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, indeed there is CA at top left, but i'm no agree with Iifar, the subject at the center is perfectly visible and in focus. IMO the framing is done to embellish the composition and this is not a good reason to decline --Christian Ferrer 11:31, 04 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done CAs suppressed, I don't understand, a lot of images show only a window or a door and are promoted, here we can't see clearly a big part of the façade and of the garden. --Christian Ferrer 16:43, 04 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Poor composition IMO--Lmbuga 22:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)



 Comment For information, I never oppose --Christian Ferrer 20:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)



Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ernest_Gabmann_1.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Ernest Gabmann, Member of the Federal Parliament of Lower Austria in St. Pölten (I like partial darker lightning) --AleXXw 23:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Poor lighting for an studio portrait --Poco a poco 10:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
     Support I see no "poor lightning" in contrary: it is nice. One side of the face is remarkable darker than the other - standard in portrayal lightning. Overall brightness could be slightly increased. --Tuxyso 06:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Poco -- Smial 14:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    •  Question Can you be more specific? What is "poor" in this case? --Tuxyso 14:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It is a portrait where the right half of the face is dark, probably because only one light source was used Poco a poco 23:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Nope, three. One softbox from persons right/front, one umbrella from left and a beautydish behind the photographer. You can see our setup on the bottom, may be a little different at that moment. The light was intended, we also did some brighter ones (see second pic) Best --AleXXw 05:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • More specific: Many of those photographs are very good, but some are suffering from the same problem: the skin is reflective like roasted beacon. An absolute no-go for a high quaility portrait. A photographer with studio equipement must see that. -- Smial 18:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I cannot understand your assesments. We are talking about portrayal photography not about repro photography where is a necessity of 100% homogeneous lightning from left and right. The ratio between main light and fill light is an individual decision of the photographer and should be choosen with regard to the subject (for an interactive example for this realtion see Cambridgeincolour). For me especially in the case of male portrayals I prefer stronger shadows (ratio ~ 1:4) as choosen here. The second photo shown here is flattened and has lost any plasticity. --Tuxyso 08:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Support The second pic is a bad pic IMO. It's not QI. QI it's not FP. QI for me: nice light--Lmbuga 22:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support it must'nt be everyone perfect light from all sites, this pic is interesting. --Ralf Roletschek 11:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Naica_bloque_diagrama_de_la_mina.jpg

edit

  • Nomination: Idealized block diagram with the ore fluids exsolved from the magmatic chamber at Naica mine (Mexico). The topography corresponds to a moment after the ore formation and erosion of the Naica mountain, by Albert Vila --Poco a poco 16:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  OpposeNo compelling reason for a smallish jpeg. Should be vector. Biopics 21:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Please, indicate which guideline you are using to decline this nomination Poco a poco 21:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Please, let's discuss Poco a poco 17:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)]]
  •  Support Knowing the process of creation of this image I can say that is partially a 3D render and that partially uses textures. In SVG textures and gradients are rasterized, then is more efficient for these kind of image to be bitmaps.--Dvdgmz 07:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Then if it is rendered there is no reason for it to be this 'small' (it is within the limits, but it could be much more useful if it were larger. I think e.g. of use on scientific posters...)? Biopics 12:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to contact the author asking if it is possible to increment the size, but is a work of integration 3D-2D and I don't know in witch size they had work (witch you recommend?). However the image is upper 2Mx (2.3). --Dvdgmz 10:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Barcelona Pano Jardí Botànic 2013.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Panoramic image, taken from Jardí Botànic de Barcelona. -- Felix Koenig 09:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The cropped trees on the very right are unfortunate. Have you got space left there? --Tuxyso 10:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It's fine for me. Mattbuck 20:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Scharnhorstfest_Großgörschen_2013_by_Stepro_IMG_1598_DxO.jpg

edit

  • Nomination 200-Jahr-Feier der Schlacht bei Großgörschen 1813 --Stepro 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe lady looks rather soft... Biopics 08:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is overexposed (background, feather in the cap). The lady is out of focus. --Steindy 11:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Plats.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Vue du village de Plats --Gratus 18:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Gratus 07:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    What happens here? Is he the same user (nomination's user and promotion's user)? → Sorry, let's discuss--Lmbuga 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new on Commons and I thought it worked like [5] and therefore the applicant could vote, which does not seem to be the case.--Gratus 13:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Français : (missing text)
Désolé, je suis nouveau sur Commons et je croyait que ça fonctionnait comme [6] et que par conséquent le proposant pouvait voter, ce qui n'a pas l'air d'être le cas.--Gratus 13:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Since one single Pro vote is sufficient to promote an image here, it is of course not possible to vote for one’s own nominations. --Kreuzschnabel 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition and lighting, but unfortunately not really sharp. -- Smial 14:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dull colours, green cast, very misty view, and the cable or wire running through below the center ruins the composition in my eyes. Sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Geranium Sandrine.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Geranium Sandrine. Somewhat lit leaf. --Famberhorst 05:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 09:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not crisp. Biopics 05:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, poor detail and picture without quality IMO --Lmbuga 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Lución_(Anguis_fragilis),_Jurata,_Península_de_Hel,_Polonia,_2013-05-24,_DD_08.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Slow worm (Anguis fragilis), Jurata, Hel Peninsula, Poland --Poco a poco 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, noise, dof and... detail --Lmbuga 22:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 18:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Better, thanks. I think that it may be QI, but I'm not sure. Now I like the picture--Lmbuga 08:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Haneburger 11:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 07:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Final of the 2011–12 Austrian Cup (126).jpg

edit

  • Nomination The trophy for the winner in ÖFB-Cup designed by Silvio Gazzaniga. --Steindy 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose CA, overexposed areas. --Mattbuck 17:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Looks like with you because of bare silver in the bright sunlight and headlights? --Steindy 23:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support This is highly reflective material in bright sunlight, no studio conditions. The overexposed parts are quite small and do not destroy important details, no erroneous colours. Not absolutely perfect, but QI for me. --Smial 08:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo of a glossy object. --Ikar.us 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --George Chernilevsky 16:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

File:South Otterington MMB 05.jpg

edit

  • Nomination South Otterington, Yorkshire. Mattbuck 07:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
Please, add the species, Poco a poco 09:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea. I have tagged it as an unidentified plant. Mattbuck 16:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I tagged it as wheat. --Dirtsc 07:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Little DOF, maybe too little, lets have more opinions. --Dirtsc 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not bad but no QI for me: The little DOF doesn't seem the great problem for me, but it isn't ideal chosen, see the very dominating upright ear in the left part which isn't sharp and the lighting conditions are mediocre - apart from the disturbing vertical line in the background --Haneburger 11:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Dreiblatt-Windröschen_-_Anemone_trifolia.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Anemone trifolia --Steinsplitter 22:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Disturbing higlights in the background, for me the composition isn't ideal with the second cutted blossom --Haneburger 06:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I quite like it. Mattbuck 20:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)  Support Am Anfang hat mir das Bild nicht besonders gefallen, aber je öfter ich es anschaue umso mehr gefällt es mir und den Kriterien für QI dürfte es auch entsprechen --Haneburger 05:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. -- Smial 12:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that the left side can be cropped because strong CAs and composition (cutted blossom)--Lmbuga 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Passage_bab_maalqa.JPG

edit

  • Nomination The gate of Bab M'alqa, a fortification in the walls of the medina of Salé dating from the twelfth century --Ismael zniber 10:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Interesting composition, good light, vivid colors. --Tsui 12:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, strong (IMO) chromatic aberrations (see notes), noise, sky too noisy, not the best detail (floor...). --Lmbuga 20:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This has already been nominated and discussed a few weeks ago, and my opinion is still the same: Loss of detail and unfortunate framing (cropping the wall top but wasting space for the uninteresting ground) --Kreuzschnabel 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for crop. --Ikar.us 19:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikar.us 19:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Amanita pantherina 2013 G1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Panther cap Amanita pantherina -- George Chernilevsky 09:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 11:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Poor light, poor DOF. Biopics 22:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - DOF too low. Mattbuck 23:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. --Florstein 07:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Matt, a step back before shooting would have been better Poco a poco 08:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --PJDespa 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Holleday 18:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 12:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 13:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Porrón_moñudo_(Aythya_fuligula),_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_02.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 17:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Unnatural halo (see note)--Lmbuga 18:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 18:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    es: Lo siento, no puedo ver la foto por el caché. Lo intentaré más tarde, tras apagar el ordenador. Paso la foto a discusión: Mi opinión no va a misa, es solamente una opinión--Lmbuga 11:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
     Support QI for me, sorry--Lmbuga 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Ikar.us 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination Hamburg, Church of Blankenese, Great window in the southern wall --Dirtsc 18:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  CommentNot QI for me: The superior part is too bright, the lower half it's not--Lmbuga 19:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    The brightness variation is due to the trees and buildings outside of the church. --Dirtsc 20:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, sorry, I have little experience in this kind of photos. {{neutral}} In pictures of this kind, the horizontal lines should be straight --Lmbuga 12:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    Tried to fix the perspective --Dirtsc 19:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good now, thanks... and sorry--Lmbuga 23:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    No need for an excuse. Its a review and I want honest opinions. ;-) --Dirtsc 05:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Ikar.us 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Kymco_MXU_500.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Quad Kymco MXU 500 --An-d 11:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --NorbertNagel 20:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, I like it, but chromatic aberrations or halos, see notes. Can you fix it?--Lmbuga 22:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    I try to fix it --An-d 19:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good now, thanks.--Lmbuga 19:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Ikar.us 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)