Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 15 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Loreen_-_Melodifestivalen_2023,_Malmö_508.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Loreen performing at Melodifestivalen 2023 (by Josve05a) --Ktkvtsh 02:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but bad bottom crop (on hands). Also quite noisy --Jakubhal 04:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ktkvtsh: please don't nominate pictures by other authors as your own. Include authors in your nominations as described in the instructions. --Jakubhal 05:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Tagooty 04:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise is acceptable for an available light shot. JPEG compression settings somewhat too high, contrast somewhat high, but sharpness is excellent and colours appear realistic. Image cropping in live concert photography, that's another very special topic. If the hands were still visible, you would possibly have cell phones held up in the air or funny headgear from fans at the bottom of the image, which would then also be criticized. Sometimes you just can't pick and choose in front of the stage and have to make decisions in a matter of milliseconds. I think a crop like in this picture is still acceptable. --Smial 09:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 06:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Ломаха_(2).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lomakha, Lomonosovsky District, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Красный 05:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ktkvtsh 02:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low level of details --Jakubhal 04:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Is this "Low level of details" now the new "your camera and/or kit lens is too cheap"? According to EXIF, the photographer has done everything right here: Low ISO, aperture near the sweet spot, camera held straight, perfectly exposed. But unfortunately not over-sharpened to fool the pixelpeepers into thinking it's pixel-sharp. The image is not outstanding, but perfectly usable for a print in A4 size. --Smial 09:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Smial: when I mention a lack of detail, I mean exactly that. Please refrain from attributing malicious intent to me or from making personal attacks ("pixelpeepers"). I don’t check the type of camera used. Here, I see a blurred building and overly sharp grass with numerous artifacts on that grass due to over-sharpening. Additionally, the white balance seems off, with the sky appearing too green. --Jakubhal 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  Comment In the 100% view without pixel peeping, I can't detect any sharpening artifacts, neither in the grass nor anywhere else in the image. When viewed as an A4 print, the image is "sharp enough" in every way. The too-green sky thing seems to be on the rise lately. A lot of cameras seem to be broken. Other artfully and dramatically enhanced sky versions, on the other hand, are readily accepted. If you feel personally attacked, I'm sorry, that was meant as a general comment about the developments and trends in reviewing here on QIC, not personal. English is not my native language, I have to rely on what the translation program delivers as soon as sentences get a bit longer. --Smial 12:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  Comment While I respect your viewpoint, I'd appreciate it if any concerns about reviewing trends were addressed in a broader discussion rather than under the consensual review discussion started by me. As for any unfairly (because of the dramatically enhanced sky) supported images, you are free to start a consensual review for any of them as well.

--Jakubhal 14:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Weak   Support: Not completely sharp at full size, but the overall level of details is good. We see individual bricks, and while the ruffles on the roof aren't clear everywhere, enough of them are well-defined for us to extrapolate the rest. -- Ikan Kekek 21:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 06:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Il_mini_di_italiano.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dictionary - Italian; Dizionario della lingua italiana, pubblicato da Zanichelli: scritto da Elena Pallottini --多多123 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose IMHO unfavorable cropping (portrait instead of landscape). --F. Riedelio 06:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Pleasing to the eye. Good detail. --Ktkvtsh 18:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfectly good to me. Sure, portrait would be the natural orientation, but that doesn't seem to me like a good basis for declining this photo. -- Ikan Kekek 21:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 06:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Kurhaus_Wiesbaden_in_Ukrainian_colours.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kurhaus Wiesbaden in Ukrainian colours for concert with the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra. By User:Gerda Arendt --A1Cafel 13:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality.--Alexander-93 14:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. No QI in my eyes. Unfavorable crop, perspective correction needed, strange foreground. --Milseburg 13:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 20:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can disagree too. Near the half of photo is unfocused close-up of water, building is placed on-side and doesn't look like as epicenter of photograph. Красный 16:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. The funny structures in the foreground can also be found elsewhere in the image, wherever the camera "intelligence" couldn't decide whether it should massively suppress the noise or rather over-sharpen it. Btw: Such lighting, usually with almost monochromatic LED spotlights, is extremely difficult for our camera sensors to handle. The "real" colors can usually only be captured with extremely narrow exposure - and then the rest of the image in such evening scenes is completely drowned in image noise, especially if the colour is "blue" and the image contrast of the subject is already severely limited due to the high ISO setting. --Smial 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Mini_Hatch_(J01)_Cooper_S_IAA_2023_1X7A0724.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mini Hatch (J01) Cooper S at BMW World Munich 2023.--Alexander-93 08:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 17:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Distracting flares. --Vasmar1 17:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  Comment The bright blue part behind the blue car is very annoying. In addition, the information board is too bright. Perhaps a correction is possible. -- Spurzem 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support: The purple reflections are a little distracting, but I think this is barely acceptable and better than many photos we see with loads and loads of bisected people in them. -- Ikan Kekek 00:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • weak   Support per Ikan. Better than those parking lot snapshots. --Smial 12:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 06:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Münsing_Am_Kirchberg_2_022_2023_04_26.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Catholic parish church Mariä Himmelfahrt, built from 1640, baptismal font
    --F. Riedelio 06:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose The figures are out of focus. Sorry. --Ermell 19:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Improved version IMHO sharp enough for QI. --F. Riedelio 14:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Very pleasing to the eye and nice detail --Ktkvtsh 18:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still quite unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek 18:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Not pixelsharp but good enough for an a4 size print. --Smial 18:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Ermell. Tournasol7 05:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose +1--Peulle 11:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Vue_aérienne_du_bloc_administratif_principal_de_l'INSTI_05.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Vue aérienne du bloc administratif principal de l'INSTI Lokossa --Fawaz.tairou 23:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  • The verticals are not straight. the perspective fix is needed --Jakubhal 03:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality - its an aerial image, how should an image from the sky should show straight verticals? On the horizontal plane could it be more centered, but still in this stage good enough --Grunpfnul 15:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. The distortion is huge, it does not seem to have any intentional purpose. There were a lot of aerial photos here, which were not distorted. It is not an excuse. --Jakubhal 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  Comment made an PC attempt. No vote therefore. --Smial 10:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Now is ok. Thank you Smial. --Jakubhal 12:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question Is the sky too green? -- Ikan Kekek 06:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  Comment Colour saturation probably a bit high, but the sky looks still ok. --Smial 09:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thanks for your opinion, but I've decided to vote against and let Fawaz address this. -- Ikan Kekek 18:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose lack of detail, WB off --Virtual-Pano (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)