Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 18 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Étang de Vic, Vic-la-Gardiole 01.jpg edit

 

File:Étang de l'Arnel, Villeneuve-lès-Maguelone 01.jpg edit

 

File:Palais_du_parlement_de_Bretagne,_Rennes.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The palace of Parlement of Brittany, Rennes, France --Oakenchips 22:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Cccefalon 05:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    QI pictures must be categorized. --Selbymay 11:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    And now it is. Mattbuck 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Venice_2013-09-15.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Venice, Italy --Max Ryazanov 19:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline problems with perspektive, bellow 2MPix --Halicki 19:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
      Comment more than 4,6 Mpix --Max Ryazanov 20:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
      CommentI was wrong about size but perspective is bad --Halicki 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Sky completely blown out.--JDP90 18:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  Oppose per above. --Vamps 17:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  •   Oppose no. --Cekli829 11:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Dalian_Liaoning_China_Historical-Tramway-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dalian, Liaoning, China: Historical Tramway --Cccefalon 16:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good, but verticals at the right side are not perfect. --Tuxyso 17:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
      Comment I tried some enhancement. Unfortunately, its not possible to get it 100% in line with the tramway's verticals. --Cccefalon 19:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    Mmmh, if the ground is not straight, the tramway verticals cannot be straight. I would try to archive straight verticals in the background. Probably we should wait for further opinions. --Tuxyso 08:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it's a slope and the tramway's verticals must not be straight, the background yes --Christian Ferrer 19:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Done Alright, I followed the suggestions of Christian and uploaded a new version with a focus on observing the verticals of the buildings. --Cccefalon 18:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok --Christian Ferrer 05:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support good enough --Vamps 17:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good now. My comment was also related to the verticals in the background. --Tuxyso 06:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 10:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_Luterana,_Sopot,_Polonia,_2013-05-22,_DD_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sopot, Poland --Poco a poco 20:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose bad staff, the buildings are cut --Halicki 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
      Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 12:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose NR too strong --Vamps 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Smial 16:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Jurekgasse_30,_Wien_15.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The building Jurekgasse 30 in Vienna, 15th district. --Herzi Pinki 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 14:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, a bit soft, but nevetheless good enough --Vamps 18:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI --Isiwal 18:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Savin. Could be improved I think. --Hockei 12:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- Smial 15:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Trifolium arvense 012403.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Blossom of the Haresfoot clover. -- Qflieger 08:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose DoF too shallow. Why is no EXIF data available? --NorbertNagel 20:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC))
    DOF? This is a macro. EXIF? where is written that you need an EXIF file -- Qflieger 09:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  Comment To clarify: DoF is too shallow IMO even for a macro (Foreground and background of the object is blurred). This is why I declined. Provision of EXIF-data is not a requirement but IMO it is a good style to provide EXIF data and a not so good style to omit the EXIF data. I just added this note in case that you accidentally omitted the EXIF data. --NorbertNagel 22:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  Support QI for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • weak   Oppose dof could have been more in front --Vamps 18:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too many blurry areas--Archaeodontosaurus 16:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- Smial 15:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-095.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Skyscraper "The Masterpiece" in Hong Kong --Ralf Roletschek 10:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Low levels need brightening, comes out on its side in full view. Mattbuck 21:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
      OK, corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 08:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    Light level is better, and it's now upright, but it shows that there's a lot of perspective distortion. Could you correct it please? Mattbuck 19:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    this are 12 mm, i cant distort this more. --Ralf Roletschek 08:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose This is not about distortion, but about correction. And this one needs some. sorry.--Jebulon 09:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      Support New version. --Smial 21:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Correction "stretch" is too strong below. Crop ?--Jebulon 10:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The program I use simulates exactly the physics of a real shift lens. This can lead to somewhat distracting results when used with images taken already with very wide angle lenses. But physically the image is correct. If the result is not appropriate, it can easily be resettet. -- Smial 12:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Lots better. Mattbuck 21:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Smial 15:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Pfarrkirche_zum_Hl._Jakobus_dem_Älteren_Barbian_Ostansicht.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The leaning steeple of the Saint James church in Barbian --Moroder 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline I see what you meant about that thing not being upright. But notable sharpening haloes. --Mattbuck 10:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)  Comment
    I disagree Havn't done any sharpening --Moroder 07:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment But there are halos around all roofs. If this is not due to sharpening, then it is possibly due to an automatic sky enhancement or something like that. I don't know your workflow. -- Smial 12:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    •   Comment The halo has the size of 5-6 pixels, that is 0,1% of the size of the image (ein Tausendstel!). If you look at all colour interfaces you will see a halo. In a backlit image the light difference is very high, that is the reason why you see the halo with more evidence. It does not depend on any working process imo, it's just the essence of digital photography. Unfortunately I cannot explain it technically, maybe there is someone out there who can do it for me. Thanks for the review anyway.--Moroder 18:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral – There’s a very narrow, slightly brighter area lining the roof which does not spoil the picture in my eyes since it’s caused by a light sharpening done by most digital cameras unless sharpness is set to zero. I don’t like the lighting though, everything looking so dull. Better choose another day or time to take that shot. --Kreuzschnabel 07:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • weak   Oppose not favorable light conditions --Vamps 18:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 07:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-11-02-olb-by-RalfR-03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Oberlausitzische Bibliothek der Wissenschaften --Ralf Roletschek 21:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Please, nominate this jewel to FP --Poco a poco 22:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Nice compo, but overprocessed, loss of fine detail. --Iifar 10:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
      Support IMO there is sufficient detail and composition an ligthing are realy good. --Martin Kraft 23:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Overprocessing makes it look very artifical. The upper book shelf is inclining to the right side. Btw: I miss metadata to get a clue of the shooting condintions. I like the composition but I would prefer to get a clean shot. --Cccefalon 08:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Info new version uploaded. --Ralf Roletschek 11:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support. Tonemapping somewhat overdone, but does not look really wrong as in many dramatic manipulations in the sky seen here with other QIC, that have been promoted. Details: I've printed the image to A3 - there is no problem with loss of fine detail visible. I believe the bookshelfs are not everywhere absolutely vertical and not absolutely horizontal. -- Smial 11:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support for the last version --Christian Ferrer 12:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  Support Support for the new version. --Cccefalon 12:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  •   Support With others--Jebulon 08:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 06:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Bamberg_BW_2013-06-19_18-05-24.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Bavaria, Bamberg, Lange Straße 8 --Berthold Werner 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose roof a bit unsharp, very tight crop --P e z i 16:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Rather dark too, but I think it's OK. Mattbuck 14:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
      Support Per Mattbuck Christian Ferrer 13:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Smial 15:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.08.02.-13-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Suedliche Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Südliche Mosaikjungfer - Aeshna affinis, Männchen (male) --Hockei 16:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose Per the others, overprocessed. Mattbuck 14:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
      Fixed New version. I gave my very best to improve it. Hope good enough, but I'm not sure. --Hockei 21:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
      Support Better IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
      Support Looks fine to me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      Support good. --JDP90 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- JDP90 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Tiara Benedict XVI.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Tiara of Pope Benedict XVI, given to him by an orthodox delegation, on 25th of May 2011 --Vanoot59 09:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 11:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)  Oppose Please discuss. I think it is unsharp from the crown above, including the cross.--Jebulon 10:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp: DOF not good (f/2.8)--Lmbuga 14:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    •   Comment f/2.8 on a tiny sensor isn't the same as f/2.8 on a 24×36 frame. I agree the top is unsharp though. --Jastrow 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Smial 15:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.08.02.-19-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Distelfalter.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Distelfalter - Vanessa cardui --Hockei 20:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 06:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Pretty, but look at the edge of the wings - haloes on the left, lack of detail on the top. --Mattbuck 14:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Purple Ca on the top of the wings --Christian Ferrer 08:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Fixed New version. CA removed as far as I can perceive. --Hockei 14:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support QI -- Spurzem 11:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Smial 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Overhead (near the source) of the Romanche in Ecrins National Park, France. 01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Overhead (near the source) of the Romanche in Ecrins National Park, France (2100 m.)--
    Famberhorst 04:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Maybe better with sharpenind and the crop at top is a bit tight but ok --Christian Ferrer 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp, sorry. --Hockei 19:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - unsharp. Mattbuck 00:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Pity you did (or could) not wait for sunlight (there is still a sunny spot in the background, making the image look even darker), it’s blueish and the colours are dull, besides from being blurry. I tried to neutralize colours, brighten the pic up and give it some sharpening in File:Overhead (near the source) of the Romanche in Ecrins National Park, France. 01 ks01.JPG. Regarding the composition, I would prefer to see a bit more on the top side (background mountains, horizon). --Kreuzschnabel 11:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC
      Comment Thanks for your tips.--
    Famberhorst 05:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC))
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 00:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.08.02.-10-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Suedliche Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Südliche Mosaikjungfer - Aeshna affinis, Männchen (male) --Hockei 16:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Althought the end of the dragonfly's tail is running out of DOF, I still would consider it as a QI.   Support! --Cccefalon 14:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed areas, maybe a bit overprocessed and tail blurred --Christian Ferrer 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That what you mean with overexposure is brightness of the strong sunlight. --Hockei 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There is two burned out areas (no details in these areas : only white light) on the dragonfly --Christian Ferrer 08:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment In my opinion those slight flaws are still tolerable referring to the difficulties of shooting living dragonflies. Without those flaws we were discussion about COM:FP IMHO. --Cccefalon 10:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please Cayambe one vote by user --Christian Ferrer 13:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  Done --Hockei 14:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support I've not found any QI issue. Quality is at a high level. --Tuxyso 11:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, rather impressive shot. --Jastrow 21:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 21:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-10-30_15-01-20_savoureuse-lepuix.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Savoureuse river, in Lepuix, France. --ComputerHotline 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good and interesting--Jebulon 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, colors are oversaturated imo, especially green. Poor dof IMO--Lmbuga 20:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lmbuga. Mattbuck 20:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe 12:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:CoA Pope Francis Basilica Twelve Apostles Rome.jpg edit

  Question Dear Moroder, do you disagree only for legal matters, or about quality too ?
IMO, you should initiate a deletion request, here is not the place for a debate about the noFoP in Italy. In this case, i'll withdraw my nomination until the case is solved.
Some elements (not arguments), informations and reflexions: the geocode is good (more or less, 2 or 3 meters, I'll make it more precise). To access to this "scudeto", one must open and cross a grided gate (see GoogleMaps). The object is not visible from outside (the street), and is not in the city public domain, but in the private one, at the inside door of the Basilica, after the gate. The object itself : is it really copyrighted ? One can see here the CoA of the current pope. The blue shield itself was the one of Cardinal Bergoglio before his election as pope. Who knows who is the owner of the rights of this design ? The Tiara/Mitre and the keys are in the public domain, as symbols of the papacy since centuries, and because their design does not generate new rights IMO. I don't know about the representation of the motto. I'm interested about this issue (if any), and of course, this picture should be deleted if it violates the italian law. Could somebody very aware of the italian law help us ?
But again, please judge here only the technical quality of the picture, until it is deleted, or not. Thank you in advance. --Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Selbymay 16:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I withdraw my nomination because this picture is under a DR now. If kept, I'll renominate. Thank you.--Jebulon 21:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fischnal_in_Sankt_Peter_Villnöß_04.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fresco of the Annunciation on the farmhouse "Fischnal" in Villnöß --Moroder 15:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose CA at edges, not really crisp. --Mattbuck 21:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree Imo its good enough, look at the spiders. Let's see what others think of it? --Moroder 19:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Can't find CA and sharpness is fine. Colours and contrast seem to be natural with respect to the difficult lighting situation. -- Smial 10:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support see Smial. --Ralf Roletschek 10:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)