Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 08 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Leinleitertal_trocken-20200403-RM-163718.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dry valley above the Leinleiterquelle --Ermell 06:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Aristeas 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am missing a better composition. --Augustgeyler 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the most spectacular motif, but technically the image quality is very good. --Milseburg 13:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good for me -- Spurzem 18:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 09:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Fliegerhorst_Vogler_in_Hörsching,_Upper_Austria,_Austria-entrance-wide_PNr°0722.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The entrance of Fliegerhorst Vogler (Air base Vogler) in Hörsching, Upper Austria, Austria --D-Kuru 19:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --C messier 16:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree , bad composition, a little blurried --Celeda 15:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks fine to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support It is good enough. --Vincent60030 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Sufficient for QI. --PtrQs 23:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am with Celeda. That is not a good composition. There is way too much nothing in the foreground.--Augustgeyler 12:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 09:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Borujerdi_House,_Kashan,_Iran2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Borujerdi House, Kashan, Iran--Amirpashaei 08:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The lower level is not vertical, but tilted in ccw direction, it feels like it needs a perspective correction --Poco a poco 11:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive! --Augustgeyler 17:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overrulling other reviewer's comments isn't really respectful. It isn't a QI to me like this if the issue is not addressed --Poco a poco 21:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment What did I do? I am sorry, but I saw you just commenting in the first place. You did not vote.--Augustgeyler 22:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Augustgeyler I didn't vote because it wasn't yet a QI to me, only after changes were applied. In this away I avoid too many candidates going to the CR section, which requires manual work and is time-consuming for everybody. Only if I believe that the image cannot be saved I decline. Poco a poco 11:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now per Poco a Poco's ccw tilt review. Furthermore: wonderful! --PtrQs 00:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Combe_Laval,_Drôme.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Combe Laval, France--Celeda 08:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Washed out details, sorry. --Peulle 10:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Peulle I'm really very surprise by your opinion about "washed out details. The absence of detail in the background emphazises the foreground. It's a very classic photo technique.--Celeda 05:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • On Wikimedia Commons, March 2020, photo challenge topic Gorges and Canyons, this photo finished first. It won 34 stars an 17 people think it's a good or even a very good picture. So far it's the second best score of the year. --Celeda 05:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • On the views of others I can offer no opinion. I maintain that the image has a very low level of detail, even the main subject. It looks like a mobile phone photo.--Peulle 07:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Main object is in focus. --Ermell 15:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Ignoring the background, most of the foreground on the right side is extremely unsharp with some kind of artifacts, very disturbing to me. Also, Photo Challenge is judged differently from QIC. I find that often the judging there is about how striking the image is, not whether it's technically a good photo or not, though of course technically excellent photos can and do win. -- Ikan Kekek 08:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Cons: corners unsharp, esp. bottom right. Burnt highlights on the stone wall. Some colliding sharpening and denoising. Pros: excellent composition, good lighting, appealing colours, full camera resolution, printable to A4 and larger in good quality. --Smial 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp, specially bottom and top. I disagree with Smials review, this is not FP where other factors could compensate the lack of quality. Here it is only about quality and there is lack of it here. Poco a poco 22:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Absolutely objective quality criteria do not exist in photography. Every photo has flaws, if you look for it long enough. Every photo has grain or noise, one more, the other less. Every photo is blurred, one more, the other less. If QIC was exclusively about technical quality criteria, the criterion "composition" would not exist at all, because it is always a question of personal taste. All possible compositional mistakes according to common understanding can always be interpreted as a conscious choice of the photographer and should therefore not be evaluated. But here they are evaluated daily and hourly:Too narrow cropping, too wide cropping, main motif too much in the middle, main motif too much at the edge, too much sky, too little sky, too little DOF, too much DOF, too colorful, too low contrast, etc., etc.
If it were really only a matter of objective criteria, any digitally perspective-corrected photo would have to be rejected, for example, because any photo that has been processed in this way is generally unsharp in the "stretched" areas; the more correction has been made, the more blurred it is. Blurred photos must be rejected, however. The only way to avoid this is to scale the image down so far that the blurred areas created in the image processing are no longer noticeable.But then the photo would have to be rejected because it was scaled down inadmissibly. Conclusion: The point of view that QIC is only about (technical) quality is absolutely untenable, because every picture here is a compromise, sometimes more, sometimes less successful. That's why I take the liberty to weigh up between all the many possible mistakes, design intentions, technical compromises. QIC was originally an event to motivate photographers to deliver images that are free of major flaws.QIC is not a competition to show who can afford the most expensive cameras and lenses. --Smial 00:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  • Weak   Support Interesting and beautiful view, good colors but sharpness not the best -- Spurzem 06:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per others. --Palauenc05 15:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very blurry out of center. Unfortunately the main subject is out of center. --PtrQs 00:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy. At first, I thought that I was looking at some image processed with a filter to make it look like being a painting. I go with Smial on the point of really good composition, though, but the technical flaws are enough for being against a promotion. Regards, --Grand-Duc 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:20200816_Widok_na_Ostrowiec_Świętokrzyski_w_pół_w_Bodzechowie_1015_3666.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski from the fields in Bodzechów --Jakubhal 04:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose well composed, nice bouchée in the foreground. But there is to much haze, isn't it? --Augustgeyler 09:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would like to check what others think about it also. --Jakubhal 17:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Unfortunately the heat flare cannot be avoided. The image is just realistic.--Ermell 13:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ermell --Moroder 01:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Maybe you can lower the intensity of those red/magenta roof tiles in the foreground? --PtrQs 00:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 09:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)