Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 11 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Hertha_BSC_vs._West_Ham_United_20190731_(041).jpg edit

 

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Info @Podzemnik and Peulle: Withdrawn! I'm not the plaything of meaningless comments. Apart from the white balance and the reduction of the picture noise, nothing is "overprocessed" at the picture. Football players generally have not only their feet moving while walking but also swinging their hands, which of course results in a slight blur even at 1/800 of a second. Higher than ISO 1000 I did not want to go in the mix between cloudy skies and light rain and floodlights, because then the noise would have become stronger. Believe me, I know a bit about my specialty football (since 45 years!). Thanks for the motivational comments. I therefore withdraw my nomination! Special thanks to Manfred Kuzel for his revanchefouls. Yours sincerely --Steindy 22:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great_banded_grayling_(Brintesia_circe)_Hungary.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Great banded grayling (Brintesia circe), Bükk National Park, Hungary. By User:Charlesjsharp --Smial 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Distracting background, head not in focus, generally not very sharp for FS --Axel Tschentscher 15:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Distracting background is no basis for oppose vote in QI. Charlesjsharp 08:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is, actually. Please see Composition section of the Guidelines: "Foreground and background objects should not be distracting.". Not sure what I think of this particular image, though - I guess the twig in the foreground is a bit annoying ... --Peulle 15:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2_and_4_Princelet_Street_E1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 2 And 4 Princelet Street, Tower Hamlets, London --Bobulous 16:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Seriously deformed --Michielverbeek 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Perspective is natural, not an error, and this shot shows the composition as it appears to the human eye. --Bobulous 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose People who see the houses like that, probably need to visit an eyes ambulance urgently. -- Spurzem 07:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This was taken with a rectilinear lens, so this is exactly how the lines looked when standing at that position on the street (trust me, I was there and my eyes don't need an ambulance). If I applied artificial perspective corrections to this image to make the house fronts perfectly rectangular it would look false and quite absurd.--Bobulous 11:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective lean doesn't work with this angle.--Peulle 11:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question are there other photos that show this odd distortion? Seven Pandas 14:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • see [1] it's not distorted one bit in that photo Seven Pandas 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Most cameras are deforming the image a bit and this might differ from camera to camera and from composition to composition. You are standing very close to the buildings so this deformation is very serious. What you see is not what you get, unfortunately. Those verticals (three notes) have to be straight and it is very far from it and impossible to get straight by Lightroom. A larger distance and a stronger zoom might have been better, but probably it is impossible to make an excellent photo of those houses. --Michielverbeek 14:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll point out that all three lines are perfectly straight (and I have just confirmed this), they're just not perfectly vertical, nor are they parallel to each other. That's perspective, and I don't feel that it makes an image less informative when the aim is to show how these houses look, in this case when stood at the end of the street. You are correct in your guess that there's not much leeway in terms of moving further away while keeping both houses in view, and the alternative of capturing a perfectly rectangular shot of a smaller portion of the scene seems much less useful in my opinion. But if images displaying perspective are currently out of vogue then I'll not nominate anything similar for quality image status for the foreseeable future.--Bobulous (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I captured the photo, culled it, and nominated it, so it's fair to say that the perspective is a deliberate part of the scene. And let's be honest, this is entirely subjective: if those three images you link were submitted to these same reviewers they'd be shot down for the same reasons they've given here. As would some of the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 which show very strongly converging vertical or horizontal lines (or both in the case of the shot of Al-Khazneh).--Bobulous (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 19:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Marché_bio_place_Albert_Thomas_-_La_Ferme_des_Hautes-Terres.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The merchant in her van show his organic farming products. --Touam 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jolmia 13:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Jolmia 13:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice woman but bad composition of the image. Further some parts are not sharp. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment After reviewing again: composition is not good enough. --Jolmia 13:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Please see new version with little improvments I hope. --Touam 14:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 12:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

File:View_over_Bajep_Sårjåsjávrre_and_Sårjåstjåhkkå.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View over Bajep Sårjåsjávrre and Sårjåstjåhkkå --Frankemann 19:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed image. --Muntashir.islam 08:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed the photo is dark, but everything is sharp --Michielverbeek 07:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too underexposed Seven Pandas 13:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sharpness is only mediocre (diffraction blur? too strong noise reduction?), at the same time there are strong sharpening artifacts. And the shot is actually somewhat underexposed. A pity, because the lighting situation and also the composition are really appealing. --Smial 20:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 19:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)