Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 16 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Chapati_making_at_the_Chokhi_Dhani_Resort_Panchkula_09.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Chapati making at the Chokhi Dhani Resort Panchkula - baking the bread --Kritzolina 19:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Noisy, low detail, tilted --Plozessor 06:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good quality in view of 1000 ISO. I miss no detail. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Plozessor. Valuable but the flatbreads, cooking surface and spatula are so unsharp and noisy, and nothing is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacking sharpness and the left is overexposed.--Peulle 11:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment at Ikan Kekek and Peulle, I'm always amazed at what is praised as a quality image and what you dismiss as unusable. If you see the image here as blurry as you write, you should get your glasses checked. Please don't be offended if I say it like that, it means well. Best regards -- Spurzem 21:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
      Comment Everything in this picture except for the front pizza is blurred, the whole picture is suffering from extreme noise reduction, just check the shovel in the background or the back part of the fire. At full resolution, this photo is really bad. ISO 1000 is not an excuse for poor quality (if your camera can't take good pictures at ISO 1000 then don't take pictures at ISO 1000, or take pictures at ISO 1000 but accept that they won't be of high quality.) --Plozessor 05:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Plozessor and Ikan. @Spurzem: For some time, I have been observing you accusing others of ill will on the QIC page or writing comments bordering on personal attacks, like the one above. Please be warned that this may end up on Administrators' noticeboard with you being blocked like last time. --Jakubhal 05:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Very difficult lighting situation. Somewhat low DOF and somewhat noisy due to the necessary camera settings, but still good enough to be printed in A4 size. --Smial 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Smial. The image is rather blurry at full resolution, but o.k. at 1388 x 2048 Pixels. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Spurzem, your remark is particularly dumb because I recently had my first eye exam in like 35 years and have 20/20 vision, certified by the opthalmologist, so no prescription glasses need to be checked. -- Ikan Kekek 00:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too unsharp due to low DOF and strong noise reduction. Nothing is really sharp even in the 3 Mpix version. --C messier 07:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 14:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)