Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 20 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Shimla-Cityscape-04-gje.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cityscape of Shimla by Gerd EichmannUnpetitproleX 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose perspective, unsharp and disturbing object. Sorry --Ezarate 22:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't really see any problem with the perspective, and considering the image resolution offered, no significant problem with the slight image noise or lack of sharpness either. But while I usually consider compositional issues to be secondary, I'm sorry to say that in this case, that branch in the foreground really ruins the photo. --Smial 09:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment The branch is very easy to remove. --A.Savin 10:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is. --Smial 12:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin, Smial, and Ezarate: Removed the tree branch (should've removed to begin with). Perspective is alreday correct. Sharpness is sufficient imo. --UnpetitproleX 12:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Well done. Now   Support. -- Smial 12:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for QI. --Tagooty 04:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Chhusang_fields.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Chhusang fields by Jmhullot --UnpetitproleX 08:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose QI to me if the CA is removed --Poco a poco 18:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality now --MIGORMCZ 13:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavy CAs, esp. bottom left. --Palauenc05 14:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Strong CA. Otherwise very good. --Smial 09:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment The CA has not been removed, and since I'm on vacation I wouldn't be able to remove them. Will re-nominate in the future, or someone else could remove the CA. -- UnpetitproleX 12:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok, I gave it a try.   New version uploaded. I strike through my vote but cannot support as I'm now a co-author Poco a poco 11:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: CA now well handled, but very low resolution. And a watermark. Accidental? --Smial 11:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Resolution has been majorly reduced, also a {{retouched image}} template would be better than a watermark. Perhaps you could fix, Poco? --UnpetitproleX 12:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • How embarrassing, sorry, that wasn't my intention, I used by mistake the export settings I used for some Insta media. I exported it again. --Poco a poco 07:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I would give a support for the latest version. Greetings --Dirtsc 08:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Now full   Support per Dirtsc. --Smial (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Satisfactory. -- Ikan Kekek 15:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

File:A_wintry_morning_in_Vijaynagar.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Vijaynagar, Arunachal Pradesh by Arunachal2007 --UnpetitproleX 22:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 15:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too bluish in my eyes. --Milseburg 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Nice image and not too blue IMO. However, the image is rather small for a 12MP camera and for this kind of shot. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colours look ok, but I would expect at least about 6 MPixels for landscape photography. --Smial 09:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Question Even in 2011? This photo was uploaded 11 years ago. -- Ikan Kekek 14:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  Comment Well, in 2011 the image might still have been acceptable, because there were still many cameras from the 6 Mpixel CCD class on the road, but it is now, at the time of candidacy, 2022. I am still against raising the hard limit of 2 Mpixels, because this would exclude some good images that were taken under very difficult conditions. But landscape photos, studio shots, architectural images etc. that are candidates today should have at least 6 Mpixels. Alternatively, at least 2000 pixels at the shorter edge of the image, which would then still allow square cropped images with four Mpixels and at the same time exclude endless panorama tubes with only 1000 pixels vertically. --Smial 23:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I thought we were supposed to judge 2011 photos by 2011 standards at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 03:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Even if that were the case (I know of no such written rule): in 2011 there were already a large number of cameras with more than 6 MPixels and the presented image would also have been at the lower tolerable limit for the above-mentioned areas of photography at that time. I have no problem with being outvoted if others see it differently. After all, I am not the Pope ;-) --Smial 06:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Note that I haven't voted, because I'm not sure it's good enough. I make some allowances for when a photo was taken and how much resolution the camera had, but I don't have really clear internal senses of what the standard was in 2011, as opposed to 2015 or 2008. I do have higher standards for photos taken more recently, though. -- Ikan Kekek 20:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Усадьба_Царицыно_Люстра_в_Екатерининском_зале.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Усадьба Царицыно, Люстра в Екатерининском зале, Москва --Ulaisaeva 09:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree! The photo should be rotated (see the horizontal). --Steindy 15:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose Per Steindy. --aismallard 02:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
      Support I can see no quality issues with this image, Greetings --Dirtsc 08:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)