Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 14 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Münster,_Aegidiikirche_--_2016_--_2390.jpg edit

 

Yes, I do, but I would suggest for this to be nominated for VI. -- Ikan Kekek 09:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hab versucht, mir das auf gurgel-earth anzusehen. Abgesehen davon, daß die Bildkoordinaten nicht exakt stimmen können bleibt dort wohl nur das Warten auf den Winter und/oder ein Hubwagen als Lösung, um eine erträglichere Ansicht zu erhalten. -- Smial 08:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  I withdraw my nomination I think this is the shortest way. Thanks for all your reviews. I'll fix the coordinates. (BEvor der Gärtner anrücken muss um Bäume und Hecken zu entfernen.) --XRay 11:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gran_Puent_Puent_y_Puntedla_Urtijei.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of the Gran Puent bridge, the farmhouses Puent and Puntëdla in Urtijëi - South Tyrol --Moroder 18:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --A.Savin 00:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree --Moroder 14:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've seen worse; the sharpness is perhaps not the best but then the resolution is hight and the houses are some distance away. Perhaps @A.Savin: could say something more about what he thinks the problem is?--Peulle 13:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There is almost entire loss of detail at 100% view. --A.Savin 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Really very soft. What lens has been used? This has by far not the usual quality of images taken by Moroder. -- Smial 21:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment It's the usual Nikkor 24/70 zoom lens --Moroder 06:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Jetzt komme ich mit englisch nicht weiter. Besonders die hellen Partien bei den Gebäuden sehen überstrahlt und matschig aus. Beinahe wie mit einem leichten Weichzeichner geknipst. Verstehe mich nicht falsch, das Bild finde ich einklich gut gebaut und in reduzierter Auflösung ist es ganz ok. Mir geht es darum, zu lernen, wie das zustande kommt. Mein Tamron 2.8/28-75 produziert bei solchen Kontrasten ähnliches, aber das habe ich immer "geschluckt", weil das ja eine eher preiswerte Linse ist. -- Smial 07:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, the fassades are a bit overexposed but white fassades are typical of these mountain buildings. I don't think there is anything wrong with this picture; sincerely I'm puzzled with the negative comments --Moroder 20:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Wind? 1/40 may not be enough if windy. Jkadavoor 11:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
            • maybe and the tripod didn't help ;-)--Moroder 17:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 01:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Procuratie_nuove_e_Campanile_di_San_Marco_a_Venezia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Procuratie nuove palace and the Campanile di San Marco in Venice. --Moroder 05:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Woman in the front is disturbing the image --Michielverbeek 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Moroder 18:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think the people and pigeons are OK. When I looked at this, I wasn't sure about the perspective. I assume it's OK (and Moroder would certainly know if it weren't), and I think that the focus, while not pinpoint throughout, is sufficient for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --W.carter 13:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan -- Smial 13:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the woman me no disturb but the too strong distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 19:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 01:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)