Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 19 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Catedral_de_Petrópolis.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Catedral de Petrópolis. By User:Filipo tardim --Mike Peel 10:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 10:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed and colors are unrealistic. --Sebring12Hrs 08:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Smial 12:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy sky (visible JPEG artifacts) --F. Riedelio 14:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Vote stricken as invalid; entered after image was declined.--Peulle 07:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Ermell 09:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Unterhaid_Lindenbaum_Luftbild-20221022-RM-154450.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Linden tree in Unterhaid, aerial view. --Ermell 09:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
      Oppose Sorry: IMO too low sharpness for QI (blurred and motion blur). --F. Riedelio 08:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    Let´s see what others think. --Ermell 20:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Can't the noise reduction on this camera thing be set less aggressively? It seems to me that there is enough detail, but there is a strange, uniform blur across the whole image that I can't explain with optical weaknesses in the lens. --Smial 12:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    •   Info Here is a new version in which I have tried to show a little more detail.--Ermell 11:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. It is a certain improvement. Personally, I prefer a little image noise, as long as it is unavoidable, to excessive smoothing, but I won't nitpick here. The photo is sharp enough to be printed in A4 size, has nice colours, composition, and lighting. --Smial 12:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)