Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 10 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Voigtländer-Bessamatic-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Voigtländer Bessamatic Camera --Cccefalon 05:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      Oppose There are some en:Jaggies (see notes for examples), might be due to oversharpening.) --El Grafo 10:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I'm generally ok with repairing defects in an image, but seeing jaggies here is mere pixelpeeping IMO. Please don't forget, that this is QIC, not FPC. --Cccefalon 10:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      Comment It's difficult to draw a line between a "normal" review overly critical pixel peeping. In this case, those jaggies were the first thing I noticed when I zoomed to 100%, I didn't look for them. On the other hand, if there hadn't already been a support, this would have been a comment instead of a formal oppose. It's just that, because of the controversial nature of effects like this, I'd like to hear some more opinions. If the majority sees this as negligible, I'm more than fine with that. --El Grafo 12:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      Support Jagging on single-pixel level at that high resolution is not a big issue for me. All in all it is a bit too much sharpened but still within limits. I think this could stand FPC too. --Kreuzschnabel 18:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Christian Ferrer 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 20:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 12:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Canon Zoom-Lens EF 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM-01a.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Canon Zoom-Lense EF 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM --Cccefalon 05:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good picture of a good lens. --Ximonic 05:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    cut-out is a bit sloppy (also, you might want to try blurring the borders of your mask by ca. 3-5 pixels), oversharpening (see image notes for examples). --El Grafo 10:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    Did you use noise reduction? Details appear too washed out imo. --Kadellar 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, I agree now that I look at it again. The surface looks somewhat polished and slippery compared to my 70-200mm which is quite rough (like some sort of sand surface). The pixel stairs might be avoided by a little smoother radius for the selection edges. --Ximonic 19:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      Done reworked from scratch. Please El Grafo, Kadellar, Ximonic take a look again. --Cccefalon 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support very good --Christian Ferrer 09:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 20:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me.--Hubertl 21:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support No flaws. --Johann Jaritz 03:43, 08 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support much better now, thanks for improving! --El Grafo 10:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 12:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Man woman praying archmus Heraklion.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Adorant statuettes of a couple, ca 1650 BCE, from Pikokephalo (Sitia), on display at archaeological museum of Heraklion, Crete, Greece.--Jebulon 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality --Halavar 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Jebulon, check again WB, it is too blue, the clay looks almost green. --C messier 08:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • C messier Better ? I've corrected the perspective a little too, the man was leaning.--Jebulon 17:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Better indeed.   Support Good quality now. --C messier 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 18:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Tagus in Toledo002.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tagus River in Toledo.--لا روسا 00:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Comment Shadow parts need brightening. Maybe you can sharpen it a bit too. --Hockei 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      Neutral Hard to say. The dark parts are better now. But I'm not quite convinced about the sharpness. I think you have used unsharp masking or sharpening only edges too strong. With this picture I cannot make it better. Sorry --Hockei 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Hockei: review it now.--لا روسا 11:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    I really don't know. Maybe other people can review it. --Hockei 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No fine detail, very unsharp for a 3 Mpix image IMHO. --C messier 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed. About 20% of the pixels are clipping in blue and green channels, still 5% in red channel. Leads to wrong colors in the sky. Not fixable. --Smial 10:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Smial In the original version sky looks better. --C messier 13:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Only gradual. I've looked at the first version and found the same color issues, only the area with clipping is smaller. -- Smial 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - cyanotic sky, generally feels "not QI" though it's hard to pin down an exact reason. Mattbuck 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 12:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

File:The Temple of Hercules010.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The Temple of Hercules, Amman.--لا روسا 12:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support QI -- Spurzem 12:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO, it needs perspective correction. --C messier 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      Done @C messier: review it now.--لا روسا 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Why needs it perspective correction? I know many images which are distorted by these modern duing and this here would not look better with absolutely vertical lines. -- Spurzem 20:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Spurzem: So i have to revert the original one.--لا روسا 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done. The top of the columns is leaning in. It's not difficult, but you need a special software, like the freely available GIMP. According to Image guidelines "Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant". In this case the camera isn't angled enough for the perspective not to be corrected (for a purpose) nor the disturtion is insignificant (it is noticable in the thumbnail). I gave it a try and it looked really nice. --C messier 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@لا روسا: I have to apologize. For now it is indeed too distorted. -- Spurzem 14:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What side is the right one? Is it wrong way now or before? -- Spurzem 15:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have taken 2 photos from its two sides, one is this from the back (original one without any perspective) and the other is that from the front.--لا روسا 20:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Not done --C messier 15:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Posterisation in the background spoils this even if we ignore the rest. Mattbuck 20:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Van Hool A308 M3021 - Demi-Lieue STAR.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bus in Roanne --Billy69150 07:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support You didn't lose your subject this time (although once again, simplifying these with tighter crops will help) --Daniel Case 06:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Seems to have a fair amount of perspective distortion, and brightness isn't great. --Mattbuck 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't specially like the photo but I see no apparent issues. Kvardek du 18:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 12:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_04.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 4 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      Done--Jacek Halicki 18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Σπάρτακος 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bitte nichts für ungut. Aber die übertriebene Korrektur der Perspektive zerstört den Eindruck der Wirklichkeit. -- Spurzem 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose see El Grafo and Spurzem --Dirtsc 11:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 21:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support - seems ok to me, perspectives corrected. Mattbuck 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 12:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)