Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 07 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Lok_auf_dem_Bahnbetriebswerk_in_Tübingen_zur_blauen_Stunde.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Locomotive in Tübingen --Dktue 10:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Would be very good if not cropped in on the right. --MB-one 10:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support for me the crop is no reason to oppose. --Palauenc05 11:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Palauenc05. It's true that the right crop removes a small section of the locomotive from the picture, but it's a minor, not very bothersome detail in a striking, good photograph. -- Ikan Kekek 21:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support extactly as Ikan. --Aristeas 08:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Impressive lighting situation, and good sharpness, but bad crop. This cropping was not necessary in order to draw the eye to a certain detail, as it might be the case in a portrait of an animal, for example, where the tail might be missing, or the antennae in an insect, where one might want to show the eyes or mouth parts. Here an important piece of the object is simply missing without need. --Smial 08:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For the record, I don't consider it important, as we see the lefthand one, and the one on the right shouldn't look any different, barring different conditions of wear, etc. -- Ikan Kekek 10:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  Comment In the past, it was common practice to make one buffer flat and the other convex rounded. Take a look at the railcar in the background. Today, both are usually rounded off. So the KÖF is missing an essential information in the photo, so I'm sorry for the otherwise appealing image. --Smial 11:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  Comment - I see! I didn't know that. -- Ikan Kekek 12:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I hate it so much that I missed this detail but I had only 30 seconds to get the spontaneous shot done and it was already quite dark. --Dktue 13:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Such situations are probably well known to everyone here. I can fully understand and comprehend your anger and I am sorry for the otherwise very well done picture, as already written. If I am outvoted, it's okay with me. If your picture is not chosen: Never mind. The QIC award is not that terribly important. Just try again with another picture ;-) --Smial 09:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I fully support Smial's opinion. --MB-one 09:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per MB-one and Smial. Good quality, very nice image, but to cut of a relevant part of the main object is a no-go. --Carschten 10:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

File:An_old_and_rusted_screw.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination An old and rusted screw--Subhrajyoti07 18:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeNot sharp enough for a studio photo --Michielverbeek 21:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support We should know how big the screw really is. If we look at it in assumedly double natural size, it is shaft enough. -- Spurzem 23:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The screw is five and half centimeters (approx 2.12 inch) in length - Subhrajyoti07 08:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michielverbeek. -- Ikan Kekek 09:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like perspective and lighting, but stacking is not clean and there is a weird dark spot/shadow/whatever at the top. Try to use f/8, where many lenses have best sharpness. In addition, the greater depth of field makes the stacking program's work easier. --Smial 11:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thank you for your feedback. Will work on these aspects. - Subhrajyoti07 18:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I replaced the original photo with a new photo of the same screw. Aperture is F/8, Base changed to Black. Stacked 211 photos. Pl share your views. - Subhrajyoti07 16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment This one is technically better, so I strike my opposing vote. But I can't get myself to a "pro", because the new version seems to have small artifacts, too. I can't see how they could have been created or what caused them, they could also be artifacts due to too much sharpening. But I'm surprised that you used 211 single shots, in my opinion that's actually too many with this motif. Maybe also too many for the stacking software. My screw (introduced above) got by with 10 shots at f/11. With yours I would assume that 20 partial shots at f/8 should be sufficient. What software do you use to create the stacks? Is it integrated into Adobe Lightroom? I don't know Adobe software. -- Smial 11:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Comment - Actually I am relatively new to macro photography and hence tried to maximize number of photographs to ensure no area is without sharpness. I used Helicon Focus using Depth map method to stack. Raw was fed into Helicon with DNG output and used LR and PS to touch up the photo. - Subhrajyoti07 13:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment As this is a studio image, we tend to ask a lot. I like your f/8 stacking but also see a lighter flash band at the top of the image that may be able to be overcome by gradient post-processing. Can you fix? --GRDN711 04:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 04:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too unsharp for such a large object. --Llez 05:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Fischer.H 16:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)