Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 26 2015

Consensual review edit

File:St._Margarethen_(Ranis),_Westfassade,_151002,_ako.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination West facade of the church of St. Margaret (Ranis, Thuringia, Germany). --Code 05:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No QI for me because of the strong distortion and the unfortunate crop. --Palauenc05 14:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Palauenc05: There's not distortion at all and I don't understand what the problem with the crop should be. Probably your problem is more about the perspective. Concerning that it's quite clear that the perspective is part of the composition here. That's no valid reason to decline this nomination, look at the guidelines, they allow intentional tilting. We have dozens of similar pictures which were already promoted QI, look here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Regarding this picture itself: As you can see here the church is completely surrounded by other buildings. That's why it's not possible to take a "rectilinear" picture of the facade. You won't find such a picture anywhere. I've chosen this composition because I found the thought interesting that the facade looks like an arrow. The contrast of the colours even increases this impression. The cross on the top is pointing towards the sky. Quite symbolic, I thought. Additionally I find it quite strange that you have been supporting this version of Moroder's Belmond Grand Hotel Europe Saint Petersburg picture which was clearly distorted while you were opposing my picture just a few minutes later. You shouldn't change your own criteria from one picture to another. To make a long story short: No distortion, no problem with the crop. Perspective was chosen intentionally, which is allowed by the guidelines and the only possible way to show this facade. --Code 05:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's a basic question if a picture should get the QI-label mainly because no better shot is possible ("the church is completely surrounded ..."). Nevertheless, I see your point and don't mind taking my objection back. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, I absolutely agree with that. I just wanted to explain why I took the photo this way. The lack of other possibilities was one reason, but not the only one. Thank you very much for your understanding. --Code 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 10:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb sharpness, colors & resolution. All lens defects (distortion, CA...) corrected. The reason for the perspective-induced distortion was given and is perfectly acceptable in this case. 100% clear QI promotion for me. PS: I need a 6D! :-) --Hendric Stattmann 14:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hendric Stattmann: Thank you, Hendric. I'm really happy with the 6D and with the 24-70mm F4L lens. If you have any questions regarding the camera, I'll be happy to help you (or at least to try to help you). --Code 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I also recommend this combination.--Hubertl 22:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Ekin_kargası_(Corvus_frugilegus)_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: A rook (Corvus frugilegus) during feeding. Atatürk University Campus, Yakutiye, Erzurum - Turkey. --Zcebeci 22:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 08:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't seem QI sharp to me, this one. Charlesjsharp 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness is somewhat lacking, also the feathers could be better defined. And yes I know how hard it is to shoot a black bird in a bright environment. --Hendric Stattmann 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Church_of_San_Giovanni_Battista_dei_Fiorentini_-_interior_HDR.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Church of San Giovanni Battista dei Fiorentini - interior HDR. By User:Livioandronico2013 --Σπάρτακος 08:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree The blown windows are not acceptable for an HDR picture. --Code 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good resolution, composition is OK (a wider lens would have been nice). No noise, colors OK, no CA. I agree that the windows are blown, which could be fixed through HDR, but not a reason not to grant QI promotion, for me. --Hendric Stattmann 14:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hendric Stattmann: I would support the nomination as well if this was a single shot. But it isn't: The user said he used HDR. For an HDR picture, the blown highlights are not acceptable. That's why I oppose. --Code 16:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose +1 at Code. Denis Barthel 15:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, Code is right. @Livio: Sometimes, it helps, to leave out the brightest photo of the set, if the highlights are too dominant. I made several HDR with only two instead of three photos. --Cccefalon 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)