Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 05 2016

Consensual review edit

File:VC-10_Cockpit.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination flight deck of a Vickers VC-10 --Sturmjäger 20:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --KaiBorgeest 22:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Some chromatic aberrations. --Cccefalon 05:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose User "Sturmjäger" is not a Commoner as far as I can see, thus the image is ineligible, right?--Peulle 13:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Peulle: You're wrong, anyone with an account on Commons is a Commoner. I've struck your oppose vote, please vote only on quality matters. --A.Savin 13:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  Question So even though there is no user page, the user is considered a Commoner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs)
I can just delete my userpage, so I am no Commoner anymore? Nonsense! Anyone with an account on Commons is eligible, and also anyone with an account on any sister project in any language. --A.Savin 13:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too noisy for my taste. --Alchemist-hp 21:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Overall nice. Noise is only noticeable if you look for it, so it meets the appropriate threshold. Ram-Man 16:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise, and flash reflection.--Jebulon 16:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jebulon. Looks like a snapshot. --XRay 18:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 20:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_Santa_Giustina_Longhena_ex_Venezia_notte.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Night view of the Santa Giustina church in Venice. --Moroder 08:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Perspektive völlig zerstört. --Steschke 08:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Das Bild wurde von einem erhöhten Standpunkt (ich nehme an, von der Fußgängerbrücke) gemacht. Deshalb kann ich das Perspektivenproblem nicht nachvollziehen. Ich sehe andere Probleme, aber so ist das halt mit Langzeitbelichtungen ohne AEB und dumm herumstehenden Laternen. Deshalb auch der (kleine) lens flare. --Hubertl 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As for Steschke. Trying to correct perspective issues both in vertical and horizontal direction to make a photo of a building compulsively rectangular leads to, sorry, funny results. -- Smial 13:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support "Völlig zerstört"? Weitweinkelaufnahmen wirken oft unrealistisch nach dem Versuch alle Linien so gerade wie möglich zu bekommen. Bei Rundungen ist nicht viel zu retten. Für dieses Motiv ist ME die Lösung sehr gut.--Ermell 07:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The lighting is the biggest thing for me; the sharp light on the left. I am not sure if that warrants an "oppose" vote though, so for now I'm on the fence. What do you other guys think? --Peulle 12:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OK, I'm landing on oppose; the difference in lighting is just too big for me; glaring on the bottom left and dark on the top right. I don't blame the photographer, though; the conditions are difficult. --Peulle 13:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Overall it's very good. The perspective issues are noticeable, but not extreme. The lighting is trivially balanced with the Photoshop Shadow/Highlight tool. Ram-Man 16:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I tend to agree with opposers. At the end of my (balanced) thought, the blue bags are a no-go.--Jebulon 16:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp 21:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)