Last modified on 24 November 2014, at 01:55

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list


NominationsEdit

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]
  • Bulleted list item

November 24, 2014Edit

November 23, 2014Edit

November 22, 2014Edit

November 21, 2014Edit

November 20, 2014Edit

November 19, 2014Edit

November 18, 2014Edit

November 17, 2014Edit

November 16, 2014Edit

November 15, 2014Edit

November 14, 2014Edit

November 13, 2014Edit

November 12, 2014Edit

November 11, 2014Edit

November 9, 2014Edit

November 8, 2014Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:Code River, as viewed from near Prawirodirjan - North.jpgEdit

Code River, as viewed from near Prawirodirjan - North.jpg

  • Nomination Code River, passing through YogyakartaCrisco 1492 11:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred on the left and right side. IMO it's not fixable. --Halavar 12:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Not blurred, but focus is elsewhere. --Crisco 1492 12:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support its ok --Wilfredor 09:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Halavar, sorry. --Hockei 11:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, the focus point is too far. --Christian Ferrer 16:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Otterington railway station MMB 31 Starscape.jpgEdit

Otterington railway station MMB 31 Starscape.jpg

  • Nomination The stars above South Otterington. Mattbuck 09:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Unsharp,noise....you must use others objective for this kind of pictures --Livioandronico2013 10:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, it´s not a question of lenses, 300mm is good enough for the night sky. --Hubertl 19:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI'm sorry but I have to disagree, serves a purpose much brighter.Anyway unsharp,noise --Livioandronico2013 20:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extremely noisy IMHO. --Code 09:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Code. --Wilfredor 09:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Spurzem 11:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In this case, the file name is really misleading. Any hint which part of the sky this is? I don’t recognize any constellation, but as far as I know, South Otterington, despite its name, should be northern enough to show a northern sky. (I even once came through it on a bicycle ride from Scorton to Thirsk.) --Kreuzschnabel 12:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:View_of_Rocky_Mountains_National_Park_from_Many_Parks_Curve,_looking_NE_20110824_1.jpgEdit

View of Rocky Mountains National Park from Many Parks Curve, looking NE 20110824 1.jpg

  • Nomination A View of Rocky Mountains National Park from Many Parks Curve, looking NE --DXR 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The weather,ok...but really too dark.--Jebulon 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, I disagree and I don't think too dark is an appropriate direct decline (it can be obviously be fixed if there is a consensus for that). Have you looked at it in full screen? I can brighten it half an EV or so if desired, but this is a upcoming storm, simply not bright in reality... --DXR 22:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm really tired to explain twice every decline vote, sorry.--Jebulon 13:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Brightened a bit. Please trust me that making it brighter than that wouldn't be faithful to reality. --DXR 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We need pictures of stormy weather, lack of admosferica light to express the reality of what is observed. --Wilfredor 09:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 21:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Arkalochori Axe 215.jpgEdit

Arkalochori Axe 215.jpg

  • Nomination Arcalochori axe. --C messier 09:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 09:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For now, because of the yellow chromatic aberration at left, easily correctible. By the way, could you improve the description in the file page ?--Jebulon 10:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)✓ Done --C messier 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_kolumna_maryjna_04.JPGEdit

2014 Kłodzko, kolumna maryjna 04.JPG

  • Nomination Marian Column in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a bit overexposed IMO, the left is leaning in --Christian Ferrer 07:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed I declined too fast, the new version is ok, sorry. --Christian Ferrer 16:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I cant see any QI criteria overexposed.svg Overexposed --Wilfredor 09:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 12:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(35).jpgEdit

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (35).jpg

  • Nomination Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sky WB is off. See this one. --Ram-Man 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I fixed the WB. I think the image is good now. --Halavar 17:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(39).jpgEdit

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (39).jpg

  • Nomination Audience. Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sky WB is off. See this one. --Ram-Man 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I fixed the WB. I think the image is good now. --Halavar 17:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Pickering railway station MMB 02.jpgEdit

Pickering railway station MMB 02.jpg

  • Nomination Pickering railway station. Mattbuck 07:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much too dark. No QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 08:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    Why discuss? Anyway Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark --Livioandronico2013 08:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoFirst: It is not the sense of CR to send photos immediately there. Second: It is good practice here to give a chance to the people when there is a possibility to fix the problem. Brightening is always worth a try. --Cccefalon 09:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    Dear Cccefalon butMattbuck don't give never chance,anyway normally the people leave a review and don't go directly to CR. I'm here from a few of time and something i know... --Livioandronico2013 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Livioandronico2013: if you have a problem with the way I review images then why don't you use my talk page and tell me rather than being passive-aggressive like this. Mattbuck 18:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Because ,Mattbuck, I want that everyone see what I think of your bad way of doing, not just those who read your page.I don't like to hide. Face-smile.svg --Livioandronico2013 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've brightened up the image and removed some color noise. How does it look now? Ram-Man 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Spurzem and Livioandronico2013 - too dark, also without colors and contrast. Not a QI. --Halavar 17:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed --Wilfredor 09:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not a sunny day but nothing underexposed --Christian Ferrer 20:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the edit I made makes it bright enough. It could be made a little brighter, but it seems fine to me. Ram-Man 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Old Agios Minas iconostasis.JPGEdit

Old Agios Minas iconostasis.JPG

  • Nomination The iconostasis of the old church of Agios Minas, Heraklio. --C messier 18:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The angle isn't very good. --Mattbuck 18:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Mattbuck thanks for review, I would aprreciate more opinions please. --C messier 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment More accurately, it is the angles that are not very good. The image is shot from ground level looking up, which causes the weird stretch, but I'd be OK with that if it were the only problem. But this was also shot just left of center, skewing the cross and giving the image a rotated ccw feel. The detail is pretty good at least. -- Ram-Man 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only the angle is not the best but there are obvious jpeg artifacts in the background. Alvesgaspar 13:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rheinberg,_St._Peter,_2014-08_CN-15.jpgEdit

Rheinberg, St. Peter, 2014-08 CN-15.jpg

  • Nomination Organ gallery in the Catholic Saint Peter Church in Rheinberg --Carschten 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • See my two annotations please --Cccefalon 21:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Carschten 11:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't like the crop - there's too much at the bottom for it to be of the organ, but too little to be a general shot. Mattbuck 18:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Completely unnatural equalization in an effort to get the vertical lines vertical. In addition, the window is toal outshines top left. --Steindy 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good quality for me! Don't forget that we here have not to vote about featured images and please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Half Support The (lack of) crop is fine, sometimes I like a little context to my images. But the angle is very awkward, causing a rather distracting perspective. But the base quality is very good: sharp, good exposure, excellent color balance, and perhaps most importantly, it's illustrative. It has the look of a downsampled image, but the EXIF is missing (intentionally?). If so, the original full size image should be uploaded, even if it leads to inevitable opposes. -- Ram-Man 04:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is fine to me although I would prefer it cropped in the bottom. Alvesgaspar 13:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:USO-CAB_-_20131130_-_Régis_Lespinas.jpgEdit

USO-CAB - 20131130 - Régis Lespinas.jpg

  • Nomination USO-CAB - 20131130 - Régis Lespinas --Pleclown 11:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice pregame portrait-he keeps our attention despite the guy behind him --Daniel Case 04:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not accessible sufficiently sharp and especially to strong noise. --Steindy 20:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support{{neutral}} This is a borderline image, so I'm going to think about this. I agree that the composition is unusual in that the person in the background is not very distracting. The resolution is not high and the noise level approaches unacceptable, but that is not atypical for this type of "sports photography", so I think it might just be fine. Ram-Man 04:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very small (I assume a downsampling), very noisy, chromatic noise in the hair, sharpness beyond the limit IMO.--Jebulon 10:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality and composition. Alvesgaspar 13:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise and size acceptable for sports photography. (I remember PierreSelim's comment in an earlier FPC.) Jkadavoor 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 12 158842.jpgEdit

Nottingham railway station MMB 12 158842.jpg

  • Nomination 158842 at Nottingham. Mattbuck 07:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I like the idea (would have cropped a bit tighter, though), but I think it's not sharp enough. --El Grafo 10:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems fairly sharp to me - you can read the unit code quite clearly. --Mattbuck 18:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark,sky overexposed,CA,noise --Livioandronico2013 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    It's not overexposed as it's not #FFFFFF. I can't see any CA even on zooms over 300% and it's actually remarkably not noisy. Mattbuck 23:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    For me is as above....the rest are words... --Livioandronico2013 08:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Neither do I see CAs, nor is there any noise. The sky isn't blown out as well. But I'm not sure whether the composition is ok for QI or not since most of the picture is nothing but pure black. Anyway I think I am not experienced enough to make a clear decision. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of some of the QI-regulars here. --Code 18:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've been hesitant to weigh in and cast a vote because it is so different than the typical images we see. At first glance the clarity isn't great, there is a lot of "dead space", and I wanted to reject out of hand. But not all photos have to have the same technical and compositional attributes. This image is really about the lighting. You get the glow on the train, the glow on the tracks, the glow from the lights in the tunnel, and the glow off the building. It's actually quite a thematic image and visually aesthetic. Why can't an image show it's subject primarily through light instead of detail? It is a very impressive use of light, and regardless of the outcome of this vote for QI purposes, I want to compliment the photographer for a superb job. -- Ram-Man 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- I can't oppose this pciture because I like it a lot although I recognize that image quality in on the poor size: little detail probably caused by an agreessive de-noising? Alvesgaspar 14:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, just an older camera. Mattbuck 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:St._Verena_in_Rotwand_Ritten_Westansicht.jpgEdit

St. Verena in Rotwand Ritten Westansicht.jpg

  • Nomination St. Verena in Rotwand church in Ritten. --Moroder 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective correction is needed. --Halavar 22:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the hint. The cross is tilted. Regards --Moroder 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot really crisp enough IMO. Mattbuck 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not agree. QI for me --Halavar 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unlike many other building shots, this has perfect lighting/exposure/dynamic range, proper depth of field, it's sharp, and the composition is slightly interesting. It looks good even at 100%. As for the perspective I wouldn't mind if the cross were straight, but it's the only thing I don't care for in the image. Ram-Man 03:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. For me, the first version was better, because it corresponded to the natural vision. --Steindy 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rests_of_Temple_of_Diana_in_Nemi.jpgEdit

Rests of Temple of Diana in Nemi.jpg

  • Nomination Rests of Temple of Diana in Nemi --Livioandronico2013 21:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some parts of the photo are out of focus. Also, some parts are overexposed. --Steindy 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to composition (the wire in the foreground). I fixed the overexposure and uploaded an edited version. Ram-Man 04:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The new version is better, but some problems are existing further. See my annotations. --Steindy 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the second version. Just a question, maybe you can produce an own version from raw with the same quality? ;-) --Hockei 11:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Walls_of_Temple_of_Diana_in_Nemi.jpgEdit

Walls of Temple of Diana in Nemi.jpg

  • Nomination Walls of Temple of Diana in Nemi --Livioandronico2013 21:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The vast area of the photo is out of focus. Also, some parts are overexposed. --Steindy 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    out of focus? Others please --Livioandronico2013 22:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have make some annotationes that you can see it yourself. --Steindy 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically the QI review rules require review at 100%, which makes the right third of the image "out of focus". Of course it's perfectly fine under reasonable standards, but you should still use a smaller aperture next time. As for the overexposure, I fixed that and uploaded a new version. -- Ram-Man 03:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Your version ist better, but the problems are further existing. See my annotations. --Steindy 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of focus for me too. As suggested by Ram-Man, a different exposure solution with a smaller aperture (and higher ISO setting) would have solved the problem. Alvesgaspar 14:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Panoramica_del_Centro_de_São_Paulo.jpgEdit

Panoramica del Centro de São Paulo.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramica del Centro de São Paulo --Wilfredor 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise everywhere,not very sharp --Livioandronico2013 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Could be nice underestand more the noise concept when the picture is taken with a Nikon D300 and you have a super size image. Thanks --Wilfredor 21:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Understand? Would be better and more interesting to understand your concept of noise, super images are exempt? And Nikon D5000,D4000 etc...what change? --Livioandronico2013 21:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Again. Due to the size of the image, I think that is enough for QI--Wilfredor 21:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Repeat...for me not. Big o small,there's noise --Livioandronico2013 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Makes no sense to have small images that meet the minimum requirement without noise. The noise is not everything, it's important to have pictures with more information .--Wilfredor 22:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For some it's not about the size/resolution, but 100% magnification. For me, this is more than acceptable. I find the stitching errors to be quite minor and the "noise" is insignificant. Ram-Man 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Given the size of the photo image noise is acceptable. --Steindy 21:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Livioandronico, this is certainly not a QI. Large size does not mitigate the extensive noise and lack of detail. It looks as if the original photo were upsampled. Alvesgaspar 14:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Alvesgaspar: but you are forcing me to apply downsize, this is a panoramic of 25 images --Wilfredor 22:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Where does that strong noise come from? A panoramic cannot show more noise than the source images do. Have they really been that bad? --Kreuzschnabel 12:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Problem Solved, Downsizesing had been applied. Thanks for nice reviews and recomendations --Wilfredor 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are you kidding? Barely above the 2 mpix limit now, way too small for such a shot. It’s still a bit soft due to the noise. And have a brief look into the right bottom corner. --Kreuzschnabel 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Now is too small for me --LivioAndronico talk 17:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I ask myself, for what size requirements, if nobody respects that when reviewing a picture. --Wilfredor 23:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I appreciate your attempt to make a statement, but I seriously doubt it will work. Just change it back and if they refuse to support, just move on. It's a good photo for sure and still useful regardless. Ram-Man 01:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Fulmer_Falls_Wide_View_3000px.jpgEdit

Fulmer Falls Wide View 3000px.jpg

  • Nomination Fulmer Falls Ram-Man 04:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Discussion was getting a bit long, so I moved it here where there is more space. Ram-Man 14:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Please remember to change to /Discuss, or it'll get nuked as soon as QICbot runs! Mattbuck 15:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't know that. Thanks for the info! Ram-Man 16:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilted cw. Slight magenta fringing in the foreground water part. All fixable. Please fix the redlink category. --Cccefalon 07:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I fixed the tilting and the category. I don't have the tools to fix the fringing, but if someone else wants to take a shot, go for it. Ram-Man 13:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info still tilted; the single water streaks still don't follow gravity law yet. --Cccefalon 13:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The water streaks are being ejected under pressure from the water behind it and from bouncing off the rocks. You can see how the water curves out from the rock before somewhat straightening, showing it is not falling directly downward. This is easier to see in this version. The direction of the water streaks are not directly at the camera, so of course it would not appear to fall straight down. The image is flat where the rocks meet the water line. Ram-Man 14:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • So far, I did not declined the photo but just left comments. How can it be, that this photo appears in CR during the afternoon? --Cccefalon 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    See above. Ram-Man 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, I didn't noticed that insertion. --Cccefalon 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Big Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful! I particularly like that the water is not frozen. Looks like a painting. --Steindy 21:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very good. -- Spurzem 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic noise (please see note). Seems a bit over processed, and I don't like the water does not look natural (Exposure time, sorry Steindy, my opinion)--Jebulon 11:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I respect your opinion, but I see the best of intentions no chromatic noise. I only see the dust of the water. --Steindy 01:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its ok IMHO for QI. Nice quality for a E8700 --Wilfredor 09:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    The 8700 was my first digital camera. I loved it, and for a point-and-shoot produced really high quality (sharp) images that would contest my later Nikon D50 SLR. Of course it was no good anywhere but outdoors in bright sunlight due to its poor noise performance (and the other minor faults pointed out by reviewers). It was also a slow camera. But this is one of many very good photos I got from it and 8 years later it is still getting votes for a QI. Not bad. -- Ram-Man 01:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(10).jpgEdit

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (10).jpg

  • Nomination Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Pleclown 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    White balance needs adjustment. --Mattbuck 07:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. --Halavar 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(12).jpgEdit

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (12).jpg

  • Nomination The judges and viewers. Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Pleclown 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    The white balance is not correct here - everything's green/yellow. --Mattbuck 07:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. --Halavar 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Église_réformée_Saint-Martin_de_Vevey_-_10_-_vitrail_du_chœur.jpgEdit

Église réformée Saint-Martin de Vevey - 10 - vitrail du chœur.jpg

  • Nomination Église réformée Saint-Martin de Vevey - le chœur - vitrail représentant saint Martin. --Jmh2o 16:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Two issues: Too much black (resolvable by tighter crop, see my note). Needs slight perspective correction. Please try also, if adding a little bit more sharpness is enhancing the upper part of the stained glass window. --Cccefalon 07:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Feels unsharp to me. Mattbuck 15:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like some of the changes were done. Good enough for me. --Ram-Man 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp in the upper part. --Steindy 01:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp.--Jebulon 19:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Belinskogo_Bridge_SPB_01.jpgEdit

Belinskogo Bridge SPB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Belinskogo Bridge in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 20:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Combination of bad foreground lighting and wires obstructing the best part. --Ram-Man 01:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Wat? No-no, you have mistaken, it's not FPC, I require the arbitral tribunal. :) --Florstein 19:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Ha, funniest thing I heard all day! It's true that I may emphasize composition more than some others, so let's see what they say. Incidentally, this is an example where the red-channel clipping is unimportant. Ram-Man 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The lighting in my opinion is unbalanced and the image seems to be a bit pressed. -- Spurzem 21:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Extreme wide angle perspetive is a bit irritating, but quality is acceptable. -- Smial 15:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Amanita_muscaria_mushroom_2.jpgEdit

Amanita muscaria mushroom 2.jpg

  • Nomination Amanita muscaria mushroom --Uberprutser 22:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ram-Man 04:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree and very much deslike the tight framing. Let's try CR. Alvesgaspar 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It's a pity but the crop is too tight. -- Spurzem 18:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To close trimming. This grows the mushroom out of the picture. Sorry. --Steindy 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Kipaku_Sabah_Dusun-with-traditional-basket-01.jpgEdit

Kipaku Sabah Dusun-with-traditional-basket-01.jpg

  • Nomination Kipaku, Sabah, Malaysia: Kipaku Dusun posing with a traditional basket. --Cccefalon 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The flash unbalances the lighting. Maybe others think this is not a good reason to reject, if so they should say so. --Ram-Man 01:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • This is one of the most ridiculous declines I ever got here. Other opinions please. --Cccefalon 04:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The flash does unbalance the lighting with abrupt unnatural changes between light zones (unlike this one which I voted to promote). That said, I did realize that it might be a borderline case, so I suggested that if there was disagreement we should discuss it, and here we are. That's the point of CR afterall. I'm not sure where I was being unreasonable. -- Ram-Man 13:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Flash lighting is part of the composition, and so can be reason to reject. The flash is somewhat too strong and too hard in this image. All in all acceptable though. It's QIC here, not FPC. -- Smial 12:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I have no objection to QI. It is a good photo. -- Spurzem 18:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The weakest Symbol support vote.svg Support I’ve ever given: The flashlight is irritating, in the first place for the reflections is caused in the face. But then, all in all it’s a pretty good shot. --Kreuzschnabel 06:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have retouched the picture and removed the reflections in the face, but its still a pro. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- DerFussi 07:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done --Wilfredor 09:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Zespół_klasztoru_Gandan_(01).jpgEdit

Zespół klasztoru Gandan (01).jpg

  • Nomination Gateway. Gandantegchinlen Monastery, Ulan Bator, Mongolia. --Halavar 20:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilt, tight crop.--Jebulon 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon --Kreuzschnabel 18:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice facade detail. -- Smial 13:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree, but here we are talking about technical qualities of pictures, not beauty of subjects.--Jebulon 00:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, of course. The detail is very well depicted with good sharpness, colours and lighting. So we see nice facade details. If I want to show a detail, I do not need to show the complete thing. And I do not need to do a perspectivic correction if I want to show a special perspective. My special view as a photographer would be broken then. -- Smial 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Smial. --Ram-Man 20:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag_of_India,_New_Delhi.jpgEdit

Flag of India, New Delhi.jpg

  • Nomination Flag of India, New Delhi. --Yann 14:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1) The author must be a Wikimedian user! 2) Image must be in a proper category. --Halavar 14:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    This is taken with my camera. I think it is a bit silly, if I give proper credit, I can't nominate it here. Anyway, fixed. Yann 17:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. QI for me. --Halavar 17:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think it is more useful if the colours (especially green) is corrected to mach with national flag of India. --Jkadavoor 08:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Jkadavoor: No. I don't think manipulating the colors because they do not match the official colors is the thing to do. This is the picture out of the box without any change. Yann 13:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I agree; the colours used in the flag are a bit difficult to reproduce, accurately. May be a fine tuning in colour temperature/wb works; but leaving it to other opinions. Jkadavoor 05:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Color manipulation is a tricky proposition that goes beyond simple white balance adjustments. Even the official colors would appear different depending on the time of day and light conditions (various color temperatures). My opinion: it is outside the scope of QI. Ram-Man 20:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Scharlachsichler_Walsrode_2014.jpgEdit

Scharlachsichler Walsrode 2014.jpg

  • Nomination Scarlet ibis(Eudocimus ruber) in Weltvogelpark Walsrode --Tuxyso 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really like the picture, but the most of the bird (except the head) isn't really sharp. However, we can discuss if you want to. --Code 04:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • More than sharp enough - take a look on the resolution. IMHO the quality of this photo is quite high. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but per Tuxyso. Look at the bird’s foot, or even the white line in the tail feather. The center plumage is definitely out of focus, and so is the beak. The bokeh looks really weird too. --Kreuzschnabel 18:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The "weird bokeh" results from the cage the bird is in. Visitors can go into the cage and photograph the birds from the inside. IMHO a weird bokeh is too subjective to be en eligible reason to oppose QI status. --Tuxyso 19:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That’s why nobody did so. Most of the bird is not sharp. Maybe it could not have been taken better under the circumstances – bad luck, still it’s just below QI threshold for me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Assuming that this is a portrait photo, then that's good enough. The eye is sharp, exactly as it is always required. Somewhat low DOF, but if aperture is stopped down, the background will be distracting. Irgendwas ist immer. -- Smial 09:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche_--_2014_--_2781.jpgEdit

Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche -- 2014 -- 2781.jpg

  • Nomination Holy Cross church, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Distortion and CA at upper right; sky seems overexposed --Daniel Case 05:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your review. Distortion and CAs are fixed.--XRay 16:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don’t like the strong distortion of the tower, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Kreuzschnabel. Yann 13:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Żelazno,_Kościół_św._Marcina_02.JPGEdit

2014 Żelazno, Kościół św. Marcina 02.JPG

  • Nomination Church of Saint Martin in Żelazno 1 --Jacek Halicki 18:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've looked at this four times. There are so many noisy shadow areas, the lighter areas are not tack sharp. It's underwhelming. Ram-Man 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky looks unnatural indeed. This may in this case be the result of a low JPEG quality. Can you upload another version with better JPEG quality settings? --Code 10:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI! It is the lack of many good photos that colors are more beautiful than in reality. But this is no reason to decline. Further I can not see that the image would be too noisy. -- Spurzem 18:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Spurzem--Livioandronico2013 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:140531_Forellen_auf_dem_Grill.jpgEdit

140531 Forellen auf dem Grill.jpg

  • Nomination Four rainbow trouts on a grill, wrapped in aluminum foil. --Code 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,overexposed,and some aerea not very sharp. --Livioandronico2013 17:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The subject is sharp. I can't see any overexposure. --Code 04:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The gleam on the metal foil is completely blown. --Kreuzschnabel 10:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ich checked the histogram in Lightroom again - there are no blown out parts in this picture. --Code 13:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Details are blown out, but no clipping. A blown out sky doesn't match reality, but reflections look like reflections. The reflections are part of the subject. FYI, see Overexposure vs. Clipping. Ram-Man 15:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ram-Man is right, the glare is part of the subject here. Vote changed. --Kreuzschnabel 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm going to deviate from my normal voting because I think the nature of this image is a mitigating factor. The atmosphere of the smoke is most effective because of the strong directional lighting. The foil acts as a mirror, but it's not like there is any important detail that is really being lost. Not all clipping (which this is) is overexposure (which this is not). The sharpness is more than adequate for a QI. For me, this is the textbook case of quality beyond raw technical evaluation. -- Ram-Man 14:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 18:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:NR18 + IP Stratton, 2014.JPGEdit

NR18 + IP Stratton, 2014.JPG

  • Nomination Indian Pacific train--Bahnfrend 14:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition but not QI I'm afraid. There is some JPEG artifaction under the wheels and in the trees, and it's overall a bit bright. Pretty close to QI though. --Mattbuck 14:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI for me. I know much photos of trains which are very dark. But these are not better. -- Spurzem 17:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good light IMO, but JPEG artifaction under and over the wheels and lack of detail in that areas. Poor DOF (f/3.2)--Lmbuga 18:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not sure what you mean about artifaction and DOF. It was a long, fast moving train on a dusty track. The ambient temperature was about 35 degrees Celsius, and therefore there is some heat haze. I have brightened the shadows to reduce contrast, but could darken them again a bit. Bahnfrend 00:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It was too bright already... Mattbuck 08:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Response: No, you misunderstood me. I brightened it before uploading it. I've now uploaded a second version, which I think is a bit dark. Bahnfrend 12:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I'd prefer you stick with the brighter version, although I'd support both anyway. Ram-Man 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image quality (looking like heavy denoising), apart from other issues. Nice shot though. --Kreuzschnabel 10:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This was taken with a point and shoot camera with a 1/1.7" inch sensor. The DoF is a lot higher than the stated aperture would indicate, as it is not a full frame or 1.5x/1.6x SLR. It is approximately equivalent to f/13 @ 20mm on a full frame camera. The artifacts are annoying, but only at large magifications. No point and shoot is going to look good at 100% in shadows. But at normal viewing sizes, this is an easy QI. I strongly encourage opposers to change their vote so as not to set the standard that only an SLR can be used here. Ram-Man 15:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I got an entirely different point of view here. I hardly ever have a look at the Exif data because I assess the image itself, the result of the photographer’s work. I don’t care which tool he was using as long as the result is sufficient. If we had to take the camera’s limits into account, we had to promote each shoddy phonecam image because the cam just couldn’t do better. And while this picture looks fine downscaled into my 2.2 mpix monitor, Common’s images are not for screen rendering or Wikipedia illustrations only. The idea is to collect media for a far wider range of reuse, needing higher quality standards. And I don’t say this image was bad. It’s just still below QI threshold for me. – This said, I totally agree that good images can be taken with a point-and-shoot as well (several of my QIs have been taken with Olympus XZ-1 or Panasonic DMC-TX25, and I am going to take more with my new Oly XZ-10 which arrived this morning). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreuzschnabel (talk • contribs)
      • I respect your opinion and don't expect you to change your vote (can't blame me for asking though), but the comment "Poor DOF (f/3.2)" above is misinformed. Ram-Man 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Response: My understanding is that commons images are primarily for encyclopedic use in Wikimedia projects. The guidelines deal with the issue Kreuzschnabel is addressing by requiring quality images to be at least 2 megapixels in size. This image meets that requirement, but not by a large margin. It is therefore not to be directly compared with, eg, a 20 megapixel stitched image. As Kreuzschnabel says, the image looks fine in a 2.2 mpix monitor. Shouldn't that be enough? Bahnfrend 01:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Quoting from our Image Guidelines: "Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that our best pictures have as high a resolution as possible." --Kreuzschnabel 18:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
          • "..as possible." This is very important, because the requirement is that the highest resolution possible is given. That means that people should not submit downsampled images, but it does not mean they have to have a higher resolution then they are capable of producing. This is the only reasonable interpretation of possible, because if we meant it in the broader sense, then we'd have to reject any image that did not come from the highest resolution camera. Those are just guidelines anyway. The more pertinent rules are "images should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily". Clearly 2MP is the requirement except for easily photographed subjects. Anything beyond that is on the reviewer, not the rules. Ram-Man 15:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
          • If you are reviewing at anything less than 100% you are reviewing your browser's thumbnail rendering rather than the actual photo. Mattbuck 14:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This is misleading. The browser downsamples the original for display at that particular size. It's still the same photo, just not the same magnification. (Or by the same logic, by viewing at 100% you are looking at a crop of the image and not the same photo.) Sure, if you downsample in photoshop, you can choose your own resampling algorithm, but if it looks fine in firefox (which defaults to a less perfect algorithm) it's going to look even better in photoshop. If it looks bad at 2MP, you could have a false negative, but that's not the case here. Personal standards vary, but the method of evaluation is not at fault here. Ram-Man 14:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Ram-Man. Yann 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Response: Photo was taken not with a phone cam, but a Leica D-Lux 6, which I have found usually takes better pictures than my Nikon D5100. It has been cropped because the train was moving fast and I was a bit trigger happy. I enhanced the colours with Microsoft Live (the original version has a blue cast), but the second upload is not denoised or otherwise altered. I still think the second upload is a bit dark. If you want to see what a full size image created with this camera looks like, I've uploaded today another candidate image of the train stationary at East Perth Terminal (with heat haze in the background). Bahnfrend (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Pictogram voting question.svg Question If you used f/3.2 to freeze the motion, then why used ISO80? I see you used a program mode. Jkadavoor 05:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Response: It's a fair question, so I'll answer it, even though you've crossed it out. The Leica program mode is really good for this sort of image. It follows and focuses on the moving locomotive, and also selects automatically the best type of program for what the camera can see. In this particular case, the selected program may not have been ideal, because I was a little trigger happy, and I therefore had to crop the image. However, Western Australian spring and summer sunshine is very bright, and back in the 1980s I used to use Kodachrome 64 to take shots like this, so I think that ISO80 is a pretty good choice. Bahnfrend 13:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the explanation. Jkadavoor 16:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 05:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code 08:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've now uploaded a third version with the shadows just a little bit brighter than the second. Bahnfrend 13:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable. -- Smial 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Especially nice that the train almost its entire length is visible. Since it is normal that he is out of focus in the back. Of course QI! --Steindy 22:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not nearly good enough on my (large) screen, let alone at 1:1 --DXR 14:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 17:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »020 Strand.jpgEdit

London MMB »020 Strand.jpg

  • Nomination Strand, London. Mattbuck 09:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Very dark, tilting building and streetlamp. Please discuss whether it is QI. -- Spurzem 17:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Spurzem--Lmbuga 18:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    I have brightened it, but I don't see any major tilt, except in the streetlamp. Mattbuck 07:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 05:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Spurzem --Livioandronico2013 11:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:West Branch Susquehanna River looking upstream near Montgomery, Pennsylvania.JPGEdit

West Branch Susquehanna River looking upstream near Montgomery, Pennsylvania.JPG

  • Nomination West Branch Susquehanna River. Jakec 00:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. It's more a kind of snapshot. IMO sharpness is not OK. May be another crop would be better. --XRay 12:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    Sharpened and brightened a bit. Jakec 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Atmospheric haze is not the most attractive (i.e. it's boring subject matter), but the photo itself is well exposed and the lighting acceptable. It's illustrative. It's a QI for me. Ram-Man 15:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Care to state a reason? Jakec 22:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes sorry,too hazy and for above --Livioandronico2013 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_kamień_Napoleona_05.JPGEdit

2014 Kłodzko, kamień Napoleona 05.JPG

  • Nomination Stone of Napoleon in Kłodzko 3 --Jacek Halicki 11:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion It's in focus and sharp, but the poor light conditions (for me) are too much. --Ram-Man 13:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This side is in the shadow, and disturbing background. Static object, should be easy to do again. Yann 14:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    This side is all the time in the shadow, because it is from north side. --Jacek Halicki 21:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    In this case, some flash would help. Regards, Yann 15:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Ampelmann_Shop_Karl-Liebknecht_Strasse_2013-11-24.jpgEdit

Ampelmann Shop Karl-Liebknecht Strasse 2013-11-24.jpg

  • Nomination A green Ampelmännchen figure in front of the Ampelmann Shop in DomAquarée, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 5, Berlin, Germany. --Slaunger 17:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The blurred man behind your subject need noise reduction (and not a little) on his noisy face and on his noisy leg --Christian Ferrer 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Christian. Mattbuck 15:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Christian Ferrer and Mattbuck: Thanks for review, you are right. I have adressed the walking man in a new edit, please check again. -- Slaunger 15:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say a bit more around the head, but ok now --Christian Ferrer 16:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 22:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Budda_w_swoich_młodzieńczych_latach_w_klasztorze_Erdene_Dzuu.jpgEdit

Budda w swoich młodzieńczych latach w klasztorze Erdene Dzuu.jpg

  • Nomination Buddha in his teenage years. Eastern Temple in the Erdene Zuu Monastery. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 11:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The midtones are a bit washed out due to flash firing. Can you correct the curves? Mattbuck 20:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 00:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm just not convinced by this. Mattbuck 23:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI think other reviewers should decide. --Halavar 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    And one would have done without you moving it to discuss. Mattbuck 07:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. Yann 19:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Arundina graminifolia at Kadavoor.jpgEdit

Arundina graminifolia at Kadavoor.jpg

  • Nomination Arundina graminifolia -- Jkadavoor 07:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --JLPC 16:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed See comment by Kreuzschnabel --Ram-Man 04:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Upper part looks blurry and lacks detail. I would excuse this on a 24 mpix image but a 3 mpix QIC has to be crisp sharp IMHO. Not the best lighting too; I wouldn’t say it’s underexposed but contrast was too high for shooting. --Kreuzschnabel 12:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • This is probably a more accurate assessment than mine and I agree with all of those points. Ram-Man 13:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed a detailed review. The upper part is blurry because it is more than one inch behind. Not the best lighting as in Europe because it is from India. I don't know whether you have any idea about the climate in India now; may be the burnt out wings of this drangonfly helps. (Please don't misunderstand for me that I'm striving for a QI badge. Just responding to the "issues". Fully satisfied with a "QI rejected".) Jkadavoor 07:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 18:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Kreuzschnabel. Disturbing thing (see note)--Lmbuga 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • May be disturbing to you; but it is life. Scarab beetles will start eating the petals before the flower blooms. :) Jkadavoor 07:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DoF acceptable, ((98%) most of ) the subject is well exposed. --Christian Ferrer 12:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Holleday 13:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The shadow can be brightened IMO. --Hockei 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 15:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(25).jpgEdit

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (25).jpg

  • Nomination Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 17:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. One person in shadow, two only from the back. Sky overexposed. --XRay 15:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I do not agree that sky is overexposed. I check it precisely. But I uploaded new version. Hope it's better now. --Halavar 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's better. But IMO there are still too many problems.--XRay 12:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not enough quality: noisy, oversharpened. Alvesgaspar 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Cresta_de_Longiaru.jpgEdit

Cresta de Longiaru.jpg

  • Nomination The "Cresta de Longiarú" in the Geisler and Puez group (Dolomites). View from the "Odla de Valdusa" peak (2936 m)" --Moroder 05:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yet a big collection of dust spots. I didn't made notes, because too much spots --Cccefalon 06:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks indeed --Moroder 07:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality now --Hubertl 10:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, some of the dust spots are not finally erased and some others are visible from the clone-out operation
          @Hubertl: It is good practice here to give priority with the judgement to the people who start the review. --Cccefalon 18:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Cccefalon – spots either still there or poorly cloned out (traces are even visible in thumbnail view!). Clouds are blown btw. --Kreuzschnabel 13:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bad cloning is a big no-no for me. Jakec 22:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Platzer_in_Schrambach_Feldthurns_Heustadel.jpgEdit

Platzer in Schrambach Feldthurns Heustadel.jpg

  • Nomination Farmhouse "Platzer" in Feldthurns in South Tyrol --Moroder 21:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred, probably due to camera shake --Uoaei1 09:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree. No motion blur the photo was taken with a tripod. Look at the sign it is crisp clear --Moroder 23:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Sharp enough considering this is a 36 mpix image. --Kreuzschnabel 12:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose But the sky at left is overexposed. Alvesgaspar 17:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You might not like it (there is nothing I can do about it) but it is NOT overexposed it is just a white (cast) sky, please look at the histogram. --Moroder 18:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry Moroder, but not being blown doesn't mean it is correctly exposed. This is apparently due to the proximity of the sun, as suggested by the glare behind the tiles. Alvesgaspar 18:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a common mistake to equate overexposure with clipping. This is obviously overexposed. Ram-Man 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Well than please explain me the difference --Moroder 21:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Would this edit be acceptable?
    • Sure:
      • With your image, the left side of the sky is white, while the right side of the sky is blue, and a somewhat unnatural shade of blue at that. See this example showing an overexposed and correctly exposed sky for the same scene.
      • This image has clipping. The bright spots are mirroring the sunlight. If a person were standing there, they might not see the detail either, because it would be too bright for the eye as well. But the image is not overexposed. If it were any darker, the main subject would be too dark and it would be underexposed even if it was not clipping. An HDR composite might fix that, but unless done right it would destroy the mood. The clipping is not causing color shifts either (like this image).
      -- Ram-Man 15:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • All that said, if the color variation in the sky were balanced (completely white instead of that blue shade), I'd support, although I'm not sure anyone else would change their vote. For this subject, a blown white sky doesn't bother me, only the distracting color variation. Ram-Man 16:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I created a version of the file with an artificially extended sky. I don't know what the policy is regarding this type of manipulation, but I'll put it out there. -- Ram-Man 16:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you so much for your intensive dedication to my issue but I am not convinced. I still believe that clipping is just a visual effect of overexposure. I still am convinced that the "common mistake" is not to equate overexposure with clipping, imho the same but too light or too dark with over-underexposure. I believe that the over-underexposure ist whenn the pixels are obove and below the limits of the histogram. The rest is just a matter of taste and resolution of the image. Therefor I'd accept that you would say the sky is to light for me. If you like I could try to send you the RAW file of the picture. Anyhow I don't dislike your version since the sky in this picture is imo a irrelevant issue, the object is the barn. Cheers --Moroder 12:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I certainly respect your opinion. Sorry I can't change mine, but at least we understand one another. Also, I don't edit in RAW, so I won't be much help there. Ram-Man 12:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Plaque Rotundenbruecke NW DSC 5297a.jpgEdit

Plaque Rotundenbruecke NW DSC 5297a.jpg

  • Nomination Plaque at Rotundenbrücke, 3rd district of Vienna --P e z i 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot sharp enough to see the details --Uoaei1 07:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Another opinion please. --P e z i 10:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is perfectly acceptable. Ram-Man 14:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp enough for QI. -- Slaunger 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Building_Gloria_Door_in_São_Paulo_center.jpgEdit

Building Gloria Door in São Paulo center.jpg

  • Nomination Building Gloria Door in São Paulo. --Wilfredor 19:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeVery unsharp above and a bit of noise in the dark area. --Livioandronico2013 15:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Due to the size of the image, I think that is enough for QI --Wilfredor 15:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure we can discuss,but 1/3 is blurry,and noise,see note --Livioandronico2013 16:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At normal viewing distances this looks fine. Even blown up it still looks good. The unsharpness is hardly noticeable to me. Ram-Man 12:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that if looked at in 100% the top stones are both soft in focus and quite noisy, but this is a 40 Mpixel image, and when reviewed in a more reasonable review size, the image quality is fine and in fact very, very good in the most important middle section. Exposure control is good too. -- Slaunger 16:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Spurzem 22:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm agree with Livioandronico2013, but with this resolution it's a good picture clearly--Lmbuga 18:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rosa 'Madame Isaac Pereire'. Locatie De Kruidhof 03.JPGEdit

Rosa 'Madame Isaac Pereire'. Locatie De Kruidhof 03.JPG

  • Nomination Rosa 'Madame Isaac Pereire'. Location De Kruidhof.
    Famberhorst 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The image is overexposed, especially the rose. --Ram-Man 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very little bit but sure ok for me --Livioandronico2013 13:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei 18:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Overexposed? -- Spurzem 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. Yes, overexposed. The red channel on the rose is blown, that’s why the edges look so blueish. The sky is widely blown and posterized, too. Not a QI for me. Better lighting required. --Kreuzschnabel 13:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with the opposers Alvesgaspar 17:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose posterization --Carschten 13:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Monumento_a_la_Independencia,_México_D.F.,_México,_2014-10-13,_DD_22.JPGEdit

Monumento a la Independencia, México D.F., México, 2014-10-13, DD 22.JPG

  • Nomination Independence Monument, Mexico City, Mexico --Poco a poco 18:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is better than this picture, except for the very strange light ghosts that really detract from the image. Others may find the people ghosts distracting as well. Ram-Man 13:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Are you rejecting because of the ghots? The are not relevant versus the size of the subject IMHO Poco a poco 22:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Not the ghosts, they are just an additional factor, but I know that some reviewers are bothered by it even more than I am. Ram-Man 12:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you mind if we discuss it. I thing this decline is pretty tough --Poco a poco 21:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Isn't the picture leaning to the left? Or does it just seem so? Concerning the ghosts according to my opinion they are no reason for declining a promotion. However, there are some strange light effects with the lamps - they look like firing laser beams. Did they move during the exposure? --Code 18:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The strange lights are what I called "light ghosts". Perhaps laser beams is more accurate. They are also on the point sources of light in the background buildings, and they don't all point in the same direction. It seems like it is a strange lens artifact. Ram-Man 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blown whites, strange looking statue on the top of the column (blown whites, posterization?). --Carschten 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed Alvesgaspar 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Benkoka_Sabah_Jetty-at-Dataran-Benkoka-Pitas-01.jpgEdit

Benkoka Sabah Jetty-at-Dataran-Benkoka-Pitas-01.jpg

  • Nomination Benkoka, Sabah: Jetty at the resthouse at Dataran Benkoka Pitas --Cccefalon 04:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 05:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Its completely overexposed. --Hubertl 07:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Needless to say, I disagree. There is considerable detail even in the clouds. Looks more like a somewhat misty day. Crisco 1492 08:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    It's extremely overexposed. Check the histogram. Ram-Man 12:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    It was intended as feather-light depiction of the morning at Marudu Bay. I should have foreseen, that only a gaussian histo will be expected here ... anyway, I ✓ reworked it. --Cccefalon 14:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the new version. Ram-Man 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 17:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough: the blue channel is near the limit but not really blown -- Alvesgaspar 17:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Münchenstein_-_Grün80-Park_-_Seismosaurus2.jpgEdit

Münchenstein - Grün80-Park - Seismosaurus2.jpg

  • Nomination Dinosaur at Grün 80 --Taxiarchos228 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition: Tail is cut off. --Ram-Man 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    tail isn't presentable because it´s behind the brushwood, beside of this I see no valid reason against QI. --Taxiarchos228 22:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I would like to see the complete tail too. But it should not be a reason to decline this image. -- Spurzem 20:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Ram-Man. Not only the tail is cut off (no matter the reason) but the composition looks unbalanced. Alvesgaspar 17:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree. Would look balanced IMHO if the rightmost 40 percent are cropped off. But then, the head is unsharp. --Kreuzschnabel 12:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tail cropped is a reason to decline: The picture is taked from behind, it's not a portrait or close-up. Left area (head) is unsharp --Lmbuga 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Pottendorf_-_view_heading_west.jpgEdit

Schloss Pottendorf - view heading west.jpg

  • Nomination Ruins of palace Pottendorf and chapel. View heading west. --Herzi Pinki 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting foreground elements. --Ram-Man 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, for me QI --Hubertl 13:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the composition is acceptable. --Code 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice, but unsharp. --Carschten 15:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition but unsharp Alvesgaspar 17:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sharpness could be better, but it is acceptable for QI. However, there are two sensor spots to eliminate. --Steindy 01:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown sky, posterizing clouds, and most of the subject is unsharp. Sorry, I don’t think it was possible to take a QI by single shot in this lighting. --Kreuzschnabel 08:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Intern_of_Church_of_St._John_of_the_Malva_in_Trastevere.jpgEdit

Intern of Church of St. John of the Malva in Trastevere.jpg

  • Nomination Intern of Church of St. John of the Malva in Trastevere --Livioandronico2013 20:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed, low contrast, and a little noise. --Ram-Man 03:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Ok now Ram-Man? --Livioandronico2013 09:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    I like the original better. This white balance is not great. And the image is underexposed regardless. Ram-Man 12:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ok Ram-Man,last chance. Better now? Face-grin.svg--LivioAndronico talk 14:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    So, I modified it to brighten it up and increase the contrast. Not too much, but it pops much more now. This is what I had in mind. Ram-Man 23:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    The last,if don't work I surrender --Livioandronico2013 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Ram-Man 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy (surprising because of ISO 100), low sharpness. --Carschten 15:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough for me. --Hockei 18:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and unsharp. Alvesgaspar 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Palacio_de_los_Castejones,_Ágreda,_España,_2012-08-27,_DD_29.JPGEdit

Palacio de los Castejones, Ágreda, España, 2012-08-27, DD 29.JPG

  • Nomination Palacio de los Castejones, Ágreda, Spain --Poco a poco 18:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm ok with the bit blurred edges, but can you fix WB?--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 11:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    The bottom left is too blurry for me. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mattbuck 20:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • {{s}} Dificult picture and with a 17mm lens. Chromatic noise at bottom left and right, but QI for me. Very good resolution--Lmbuga 23:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Two reasons: the too imposing unfocused foreground; and the door at the top of the staircase, which is supposed to look vertical. Anyway I deslike this type of extreme geometric distortion. Alvesgaspar 18:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Like you, Alvesgaspar, I deslike this type of extreme geometric distortion, but unfortunately (IMO), this is not a reason to decline. I'm agree with you --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 13:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are three ways you can deal with a subject like this: (1) use a less wide lens and just don't capture the whole thing. (2) use a wide angle lens and accept the perspective. (3) create a panorama to control the projection and increase overall sharpness. For #1, this is just a different picture entirely and not really what I want for this subject. For #3, I'm not sure that I'm getting to the point where I require panoramas for a QI of this type of subject. That leaves #2. The quality is fine (good overall sharpness, good color balance in mixed light, good exposure) and compositionally my eyes are drawn last to the areas of lowest sharpness. This is what you would want. Ram-Man 15:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 12:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Arroyo_junto_al_cráter_Eldborg,_Vesturland,_Islandia,_2014-08-14,_DD_032.JPGEdit

Arroyo junto al cráter Eldborg, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-14, DD 032.JPG

  • Nomination River near the Eldborg crater, Vesturland, Iceland --Poco a poco 18:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would be better with an added sharpness --Halavar 20:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, more sharpness wouldn't help but rather damage the image Poco a poco 22:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The fine details are there, so enhancements would be easy. This is already solid image. --Ram-Man 19:26, 10 November 2014

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality--Lmbuga 22:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Otmuchów,_zespół_zamkowy,_pałac_03.JPGEdit

2014 Otmuchów, zespół zamkowy, pałac 03.JPG

  • Nomination Otmuchów Castle 2 --Jacek Halicki 10:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would brighten the dark shadow parts. --Hockei 20:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    The brightness is good now. But what have you done with the sharpness? --Hockei 11:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Not really done. The improvement is hardly visible. Compare with the second one. --Hockei 21:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 00:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    I really don't know what I shall say. You changed the picture completely. Maybe it's better to discuss in order to see what other people think. --Hockei 20:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for me. Quality is ok but the composition is off - for me the framing needs to be flipped horizontally to give lots of space on the right and little on the left. Mattbuck 20:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Lmbuga 22:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Zameczek_Myśliwski_w_Promnicach_4.JPGEdit

Zameczek Myśliwski w Promnicach 4.JPG

  • Nomination Hunting castle in Kobiór, Silesia, Poland --Halavar 21:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Rather noisy. Crisco 1492 15:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hard contrasted, noise is neglectable, QI for me --Hubertl 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, its really needs some discussion, its not the noise, its about the underexposed areas. --Hubertl 07:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Hubertl: You just opposed your own promotion... wtf? I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on grounds of underexposed areas. Mattbuck 20:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown whites, noise, flowers overexposed and blurry --Kreuzschnabel 12:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rynek_w_Wodzisławiu_Śląskim_1.JPGEdit

Rynek w Wodzisławiu Śląskim 1.JPG

  • Nomination Market Square in Wodzisław Śląski, Silesia, Poland --Halavar 21:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Comment: Rather noisy. Crisco 1492 15:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hard contrasted, noise is neglectable, QI for me --Hubertl 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC) --Hubertl 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, its really needs some discussion, its not the noise, its about the underexposed areas. --Hubertl 07:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Hubertl: You just opposed your own promotion... wtf? I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on grounds of blur. Mattbuck 20:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp and undetailed. Alvesgaspar 18:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Argiope in Kadavoor.jpgEdit

Argiope in Kadavoor.jpg

  • Nomination Argiope sp. on the midst of stabilimentum --Jkadavoor 07:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, even from normal viewing distances. --Ram-Man 12:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree , sharp enough for QI --Hubertl 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    This image has a number of technical faults. While it has the appearance of "top down", it was taken at an angle, so part of the spider is out of the plane of sharpness. The aperture is probably too low. The abdomen, one set of legs, and the "hairs" on the top of the spider are out of focus. And the resolution of the image is low too. The species of spider has also not been identified and we have better images of this genus (like this). I see no reason to set this image (or the other one in the series) above others on its quality. Ram-Man 13:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ram-Man, this is a male; so less than 1/10 of the size of a female as in Muhammad's FP. Here the dia. of the stabilimentum is less than 10mm. Jkadavoor 15:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    It requires more technical skill to get a quality shot, for sure, but I'm not willing to accept a low quality image just because it's tough to take the shot. I've taken pictures of even smaller subjects with high quality, so I don't feel the size of this subject really matters. The web (in perfect focus) was the wrong subject, rather the spider should have been in perfect focus. I might be alone in my opinion, so let's see what others say. Ram-Man 15:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. The web is sharp enough but the animal isn’t. --Kreuzschnabel 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Argiope of Kadavoor.jpgEdit

Argiope of Kadavoor.jpg

  • Nomination Argiope sp. on the midst of stabilimentum --Jkadavoor 07:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, even from normal viewing distances. --Ram-Man 12:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree , sharp enough for QI --Hubertl 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. The web is sharp enough but the animal isn’t. --Kreuzschnabel 20:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, poor quality. Unsharp, blown out (spider), underexposed (cobweb areas)... Poor, poor detail--Lmbuga 22:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Louvre Cour Carree.jpgEdit

Louvre Cour Carree.jpg

  • Nomination Louvre Museum, Paris (by Benh) --Paris 16 12:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 13:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not a fan of this kind of deformations, and this one is not very well managed: the central pavilion is strongly leaning right. Ghosts are too prominent and disturbing. Excellent exposure of course, but needs a discussion--Jebulon 15:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral now, after corrections. I don't support, because I dislike the artistic choice of deformation for the "squared Square".--Jebulon 21:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon --Hubertl 07:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It’s not perfect, still it’s by far good enough for the QI seal. The distortion is rather a matter of taste than a flaw. Will support as soon as the CW leaning of the central building is fixed. --Kreuzschnabel 10:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is excellent quality. Other photos should strive for this. Ram-Man 12:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Ram-Man. Yann 11:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Acrobatic_Gymnastics_World_Championships_-_Mixed_pair_-_Qualifications_-_Brazil_2_06.jpgEdit

2014 Acrobatic Gymnastics World Championships - Mixed pair - Qualifications - Brazil 2 06.jpg

  • Nomination Acrobatic Gymnastics World Championships, Brazil. --Pyb 01:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 06:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and the sharpness is not convincing. --Hockei 11:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Face out of focus (the breast decoration is much sharper). --Kreuzschnabel 10:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Due to 1250 ISO a bit noisy indeed. But very expressive in a good composition and sharp enough for me. -- Spurzem 21:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO it's not the best, but acceptable. --XRay 20:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The face is usually the most important part of a person's photograph and this one is too unsharp and undetailed. Alvesgaspar 19:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't require perfection and this one is just good enough for me. Ram-Man 19:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others: quality is average or...--Lmbuga 12:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise is visible, but not the problem. If you need short exposure time under bad lighting conditions, you will need high ISO setting. But the face is unfortunately out of focus. -- Smial 15:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 17:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rifugio_Capanna_Fassa_Piz_Boe_winter.jpgEdit

Rifugio Capanna Fassa Piz Boe winter.jpg

  • Nomination The Rifugio Capanna Fassa hut on the Piz Boè, 3152 m elevation, in the Sella Group. --Moroder 23:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    See notes --Hubertl 23:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Also here the shadow parts are too black. --Hockei 17:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploaded a slightly corrected version, thanks for the comments --Moroder 12:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better --Hockei 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the shadow parts and the small distortions are a minor problem, for me QI --Hubertl 07:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ram-Man 14:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Moni_Preveli_Monk_Cells_03.JPGEdit

Moni Preveli Monk Cells 03.JPG

  • Nomination Buildings with monks' cells in Preveli Monastery (Moni Preveli), Crete --Uoaei1 19:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing really sharp, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 19:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. And I think that is sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Camera shake --Kreuzschnabel 09:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Camera shake with a 18 mm lens and 1/250 seconds exposure time? --Uoaei1 10:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at fine details at 100 percent view. They’re blurred in one direction, so either they or the camera was moving through exposure time. And yes, camera shake is possible at any focal length or shutter speed. It just gets less but never zero. And here is too much of it. --Kreuzschnabel 16:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image is fine. Due to the extreme resolution (24MP), 100% zooms look slightly funny, but it's not noticeable otherwise. -- Ram-Man 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but strong support to Poco a poco opinion --Livioandronico2013 16:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Camera shake and, IMO, subject in shadow is a problem of composition--Lmbuga 22:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB T8 Pierhead Lock.jpgEdit

London MMB T8 Pierhead Lock.jpg

  • Nomination Pierhead Lock flats. Mattbuck 07:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad top crop, sorry --Poco a poco 18:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Poco a poco: there's nothing worth seeing up there, I cut it off to keep the view down lower. I think it looks good like this, keeps the sky in balance. Mattbuck 23:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It is disturbing to me, sorry, go for CR if not convinced Poco a poco 10:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Poco a poco: is right. Tight crop, and some structures on the roof even cut off. --Kreuzschnabel 09:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Again, there is nothing up there worth including. The crop was intentional to avoid a massive amount of the photo being empty sky. Mattbuck 14:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptble here IMO --Christian Ferrer 08:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 22:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I oppose many pictures on the basis of composition. In this case, the subject (the buildings) take up the vast majority of the frame and are adequately illustrative. It's not a perfect composition, but it does not detract from its usefulness and is thus acceptable. Ram-Man 19:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others --Livioandronico2013 21:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Lądek-Zdrój,_Zakład_przyrodoleczniczy_Wojciech_21.JPGEdit

2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech 21.JPG

  • Nomination Interior of Wojciech Sanatorium in Lądek-Zdrój 7 --Jacek Halicki 12:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Generally underexposed, maybe some white balance issue as well. --Ruthven 15:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 18:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for me. --Kreuzschnabel 09:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ram-Man 13:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei 18:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Aysgarth Falls MMB 66.jpgEdit

Aysgarth Falls MMB 66.jpg

  • Nomination Aysgarth Falls. Mattbuck 10:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I don't see the value for wikimedia projects (too detailed to illustrata a waterfall). Seems slightly out of focus as well. --Ruthven 14:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree --MB-one 18:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Ruthven --Livioandronico2013 15:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unclear subject matter. Ram-Man 13:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Localized contrast applied
    To clarify, by "unclear" I mean that the image lacks contrast (what I think others were referring to as focus). It appears "washed out" (pardon the pun). The edited version solves this. I do not agree that the image has no value for wikimedia projects. --Ram-Man 14:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As nominator and photographer, I would like to present a big "what the hell?" to all these opposes. A photo of a waterfall is too waterfally to illustrate a waterfall? As for unclear subject matter, the entire photo is of the subject matter. Every single pixel is of the subject. There are no distracting backgrounds, nothing obscuring the subject. The photo is of a waterfall. I grant you it's quite zoomed in and short exposure, but if anything that makes it more valuable because these are details you don't see just by looking at a waterfall. Your eye can't process what happens in a thousandth of a second. These opposes are ridiculous. Mattbuck 14:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Mattbuck for me, personal opinion of course, this picture is ridiculous.And I can I might add what the hell is this?.Always no offense.Regards. --Livioandronico2013 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 15:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a brain thing. When I, as someone who hasn't seen the falls in nature or on other pictures, look at the picture, I don't see a waterfall. I see turbulent water at the bottom and a brown something in the background. On first sight, I thought this was just some kind of rapids with the water streaming into the frame horizontally from the right. Once I discovered that the brown background was not the steep earthen river bank I expected, it took me quite a while to figure out that it was falling water. It's a bit like showing me a picture of a flat wooden surface and telling me it shows a table. Once you're telling me what it is, I can accept it - but from the image alone my brain wouldn't be able to make the right connections. I think the very similar File:Aysgarth Falls MMB 67.jpg works much better in this regard. --El Grafo 14:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I support El Grafo, what he said word for word --Livioandronico2013 15:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • FYI, I've nominated the superior image for a QI. Ram-Man 15:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Amstrad CPC464-IMG 7169.jpgEdit

Amstrad CPC464-IMG 7169.jpg

  • Nomination Amstrad CPC 464 computer. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne. -- Rama 15:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Gyrostat 18:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp/diffraction blur? --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Tobias "ToMar" Maier. At f/22 I'm pretty sure that this is due to diffraction. This is a rather flat object, so I'd presume that something like f/11 would have delivered enough depth of field with significantly reduced diffraction. --El Grafo 16:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others plus motion blur (vertical lines are sharper than horizontal ones). That’s not a QI. --Kreuzschnabel 18:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I took the liberty to crop the image. So much white background is pointless. --Kreuzschnabel 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not sharp, not taken from centrally above causing visible distortion. Mattbuck 19:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Hôtel Weisshorn, (2337m). Zicht op voetpad naar Zinal (1670 m) achteraan in het Val d'Anniviers 01.JPGEdit

Hôtel Weisshorn, (2337m). Zicht op voetpad naar Zinal (1670 m) achteraan in het Val d'Anniviers 01.JPG

  • Nomination Location Hotel Weiss Horn (2337m). View footpath to Zinal (1670 m) in the back of the Val d'Anniviers.
    Famberhorst 16:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Overprocessed. You've got a RAW file. right?--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Small correction.--Famberhorst 05:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI don't know what to make of it. Let's hear others--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition and colours but unfortunately technically inadequate imo --Moroder 10:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Moroder. Perhaps too much noise reduction, oversposed rocks, oversharpened... Too many issues IMO--Lmbuga 22:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. Overprocessed (looks like heavily denoised and then re-sharpened again, looks unnatural), and the path is severely blown in several places. --Kreuzschnabel 12:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.07.06.-10-Sprotta--Landkaertchen-zweite Generation.jpgEdit

2014.07.06.-10-Sprotta--Landkaertchen-zweite Generation.jpg

  • Nomination Landkärtchen - Araschnia levana, zweite Generation --Hockei 18:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Livioandronico2013 08:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The crop could have maintained the flower below. --Ruthven 22:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the subjet? The flower? --Livioandronico2013 23:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it is my picture and my decision what I want to show and what the subject is. If you want to determine the species of the thistle, then you can do it. But there is no reason for starting a discussion. --Hockei 06:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I just meant that a wiser crop would have produced better picture. If it's enough quality like that for you, then ok. --Ruthven 07:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ups, missunderstanding. :-( New version with changed crop. --Hockei 16:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough IMO. --Lmbuga 22:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- This is a difficult angle because it is not possible to have all important parts on focus. Alvesgaspar 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Knock-Out-OriginalIMG_3830.jpgEdit

Knock-Out-OriginalIMG 3830.jpg

  • Nomination Rosa 'Knock Out' in the Volksgarten in Vienna. Identified by sign. New version, cropped, but barely unprocessed. --Hubertl 08:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, too dark. Others can think. Improvable IMO--Lmbuga 12:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version here--Lmbuga 12:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    very fine and bright colors, indeed, but in fact, these are not at all the colour of Rosa Knock Out, even my version is slightly to bright. The name of this special rose is Knock Out and nothing else. I hope, you can understand this! --Hubertl 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you. Knowing the reality is possible to improve the image respecting the subject. I do not know the reality, but the picture can be improved IMO. See File:Rosa Knock Out Wien.jpg--Lmbuga 15:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Lmbuga Ok, tell me, how this picture should be improved. It is not blurry, it has no noise, it is sharp where it has to be sharp. The background ist dark because the background was dark. --Hubertl 09:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, I worked very carefully, even I have a calibrated monitor. Anna reg did it maybe with full sun (June), I did it in the afternoon (September). Maybe she processed it, maybe not. Mine is the picture of a Double Knock Out at this time with this light. One of almost 10 different breeds I found. Even the Blossoms are different. She obviously took a ordinary Knock Out, mine is a double one. Late summer/early summer. Please send me some general standardisations how Rosa Knock Out has to look like so I can fulfill your expectations.--Hubertl 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The brightness is a matter of taste. In the full size for me it is not too dark. --Steindy 10:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed, lost shadows. Not in the background but in the blossom. --P e z i 15:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Where you have lights, you will find shadows, thats natural. It is dark in some parts, but you can even see the strukture, and it is not underexposed. You can even see the different shadow nuances. Depends, how many blossom leaves are between.--Hubertl 19:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This [shows] what my image editing software tells me about lost shadows. --P e z i (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
      • change your image software, use your eyes.--Hubertl 22:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This a very fine quality image. I'd even say FP for my taste. It doesn't seem underexposed at all. Very good use of lightning has made it possible to avoid big shadows. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in my eyes its no too dark, where is 100% black? This picture is very sharp and QI. --Ralf Roletschek 22:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a great source image, but it badly needs to be edited as it is too dark. I worked up my own version, which does not have any red channel clipping (unlike the edit above) but is brighter. Ram-Man 20:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: looks underexposed to me too (fixable!); there are also two minor problems (see annotations). Otherwise very good and after corrections immediately QI IMO. --Carschten 15:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)