Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 14 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Het Vliet, Leeuwarden 1559.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Het Vliet, Leeuwarden. --C messier 16:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Rear parts of the vliet are not sharp enough (maybe because of f/5.6?), and the sky is too noisy. --Jacek79 21:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Denoised, but the further part isn't less sharp and I think here DOF is hyperfocal, even with f/5.6. The reason it's less detailed may be just the distance. --C messier 16:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 07:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Really somewhat soft in the background when pixelpeeping, DOF maybe a bit shallow. But sharp enough in 100% view. -- Smial 08:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me. W.carter 08:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Suboptimal crop on the right, but the DoF is OK for me. -- Ikan Kekek 03:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality high enough for a Q1photo, but indeed some parts of the vliet might have been sharper --Michielverbeek 05:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Had some have been sharper, I live near Leeuwarden and everything is easily recognizable. For me okay.--Famberhorst 16:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Lilienstein_-_from_Festung_Königstein.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lilienstein und Elbe river from Festung Königstein --Pudelek 21:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jkadavoor 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Distortion has to be corrected. --Milseburg 13:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Milseburg. Not very sharp. --Basotxerri 15:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 21:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:20160805_Inle_Lake_Myanmar_7575.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Seaweed fishers at Inle Lake, Myanmar --Jakubhal 21:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose What a shame! It's a very nice composition and a really interesting picture, but only half the pic (left) is sharp enough. The other half has motion blur. Sorry. --W.carter 19:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Second person is out of DoF and if that disqualifies the picture it's fine with me. If no one support the picture I will withdraw it. But there is no motion blur and it cannot be as the picture was taken in 1/640 of second. --Jakubhal 07:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Apologies for calling it the wrong thing but the part is still too unsharp for me. Let's hear some other opinions. W.carter 09:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The left is fine for me, but the right side ruins it. I'd suggest cropping the image. --Peulle 14:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The right side is OOF just because that end is in a different plane. This gives the photo a 3D effect and "moving away" feel. No problem for me. Jkadavoor 15:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think I agree with Jkadavoor on this. As Jakubhal says, this is a DoF question and a matter of taste. I think the DoF should be sufficient for QI and is a valid artistic choice. -- Ikan Kekek 08:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm with the opposers, sorry. IMO the main subject are the fishermen (both of them) and there work, this should be reflected sharply on a QI. --Basotxerri 15:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 21:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)