Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 04 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Rathaus_Eibelstadt,_South_view_20211009_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A south view of Eibelstadt town hall --DXR 10:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Halavar 11:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing unnatural perspective correction. Why should all lines be parallel or why not take the photo further away from the building? Alvesgaspar 13:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Because there is a spring on the right side and a parking lot at the left side - again, this is imo a totally normal level of PC --DXR 14:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please check by explanation in the previous nomination. Alvesgaspar 09:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. --A.Savin 16:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me. Tournasol7 08:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar, although the picture is technically otherwise quite ok and by no means the worst example of the problem. Geometric forced verticalization has been requested by many for QIC for quite some time. Why? Because it can be done with modern wide-angle lenses in conjunction with appropriate software tools. It is now possible to create perspectives that were not possible in the past with adjustable view cameras, even with super angulons and grandagons, etc. But it just looks like crap. Mostly it is argued that architects would usually create their drawings with vertical walls and therefore an architectural photo must necessarily show vertical walls as well. This is a bogus argument. I don't think any architect would really be thrilled with such a representation of their work. Of course, extreme wide-angle perspectives in photography have their justification and useful or interesting applications, but everyone should be aware that such images have little or nothing in common with a "realistic" representation. I do not reject the use of perspective corrections in principle, I have been using ShiftN for several years, which does a great job. But there are aesthetic limits - you don't have to do everything that is technically possible. Top-heavy church spires and verticalized facades of houses that are partially or completely missing the roof because it is covered by the upper edge of the facade have nothing to do with natural-looking, "realistic" photography. Nor, by the way, do they have anything to do with the plans and drawings of the builders and architects. --Smial 10:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Support Not a problem for me. --Sebring12Hrs 18:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Smial. --GRDN711 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Alvesgaspar --Moroder 04:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Aristeas 10:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 10:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Augustgeyler 16:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

File:PL_Warszawa,_Hotel_Bristol_-_odbicia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Play of reflections - an intriguing double reflection of Neo-Renaissance Bristol Hotel, Warsaw, on a glass exhibition structure that was temporary placed in front of the hotel --Ivonna Nowicka 21:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment I wanted to vote in support, but I was confused by the presence of a watermark on the upper right. Overall very good quality. --Andrey Korzun 07:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC) — The watermark cannot be on QI. Unfortunately, I vote no. --Andrey Korzun 16:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done I didn't not know that no watermarks to be on QIs. Thank you for your explanation. Can I nominate this photo again? --Ivonna Nowicka 01:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I will support. --Andrey Korzun 05:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting picture with a reflecting building on a facade, but I don'tlike the composition. Perspective is not ok for me, and there are a lot of distracting things. --Sebring12Hrs 13:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment It was a very strange phenomenon - the reflection is actually not on a facade of any building opposite, not on any vertical plane. It's a reflection on a horizontal glass plane being the top part of the exhibition structure. And it's a double reflection (had to check other pics of the place myself to understand better after these years - I have changed the pic description accordingly). That's why there are these beams that cross - the picture is taken from within the exhibition structure and the beams are part of the reality, photoshoping them out - would belie the scene. Whatever is seen at the top - is seen through the glass pane. That is what makes the pic - and the setting - unique : ), the double reflection and being withing the reflecting structure. --Ivonna Nowicka 01:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per explanation of this strange image. -- Ikan Kekek 21:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good idea with a not that good outcome. Alvesgaspar 18:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Appreciate your explanation but regretfully   Oppose per Alvesgaspar and others. You describe the image concept well and I would recommend you include that as extra info with the image description so that future viewers will understand what they are looking at. --GRDN711 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell 18:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Sebring. --Peulle 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting shot in good technical quality. --Palauenc05 16:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done composition to show a double reflection. --Augustgeyler 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 07:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)