Last modified on 2 October 2014, at 09:28

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]] 09:30, 2 October 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.

October 2, 2014Edit

October 1, 2014Edit

September 30, 2014Edit

September 29, 2014Edit

September 28, 2014Edit

September 27, 2014Edit

September 26, 2014Edit

September 25, 2014Edit

September 24, 2014Edit

September 23, 2014Edit

September 22, 2014Edit

September 21, 2014Edit

September 20, 2014Edit

September 19, 2014Edit

September 18, 2014Edit

September 16, 2014Edit

September 13, 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:14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-06.jpgEdit

14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-06.jpg

  • Nomination Aqueduct in Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia --Ralf Roletschek 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy, unsharp/blurred, dustspots, CAs... --Christian Ferrer 08:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, oversharpened --Generic1139 16:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on grounds of having a completely meaningless filename. Mattbuck 21:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-07.jpgEdit

14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-07.jpg

  • Nomination Aqueduct in Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia --Ralf Roletschek 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy, unsharp/blurred, dustspots, CAs... --Christian Ferrer 08:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, oversharpened --Generic1139 16:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on grounds of having a completely meaningless filename. Mattbuck 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:MK29840_Dotzheimer_Straße_68.jpgEdit

MK29840 Dotzheimer Straße 68.jpg

  • Nomination Detail of the building Dotzheimer Straße 68 in Wiesbaden --Martin Kraft 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality but get the verticals rectilinear --Cccefalon 21:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until perspective is fixed --Christian Ferrer 13:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Forchtenstein - Pfarrkirche Maria Himmelfahrt (03).jpgEdit

Forchtenstein - Pfarrkirche Maria Himmelfahrt (03).jpg

  • Nomination Parish church „Assumption of Mary“ in Forchtenstein, Burgenland, Austria --Steindy 20:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Some chromatic noise, easy to fix. see note. --Cccefalon 20:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, but sorry, I don't see any chromatic noise. The color differences are also present original in the sandstone. They are in other photos of this object the same. Maybe there are metallic inclusions. --Steindy 21:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perhaps I have the wrong understanding of chromatic noise. We better let the experts add their opinions. --Cccefalon 09:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dársena_del_Canal_de_Castilla_en_Palencia_-_01.jpgEdit

Dársena del Canal de Castilla en Palencia - 01.jpg

  • Nomination Docks of the Channel of Castile in Palencia, Castile and León, Spain. --Kadellar 09:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 11:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - there is strong CA around. I will take back my oppose after handling the issues. --Cccefalon 11:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    "Strong" CA? Slight I would say, I hadn't even seen it. --Kadellar 11:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sigh. --Cccefalon 12:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Oberes Belvedere Wien, Panorama.jpgEdit

Oberes Belvedere Wien, Panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Oberes Belvedere Wien --Böhringer 06:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion You are aware, that you are doing flooding? --Cccefalon 06:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 06:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Burg Hohenbregenz, Gebhardsberg .jpgEdit

Burg Hohenbregenz, Gebhardsberg .jpg

  • Nomination Burg Hohenbregenz --Böhringer 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please read the QIC rules. Your mass nominations are considered flooding and this is leading to decline all your nomination. --Cccefalon 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ansitz Mittelweiherburg, Hard.JPGEdit

Ansitz Mittelweiherburg, Hard.JPG

  • Nomination Ansitz Mittelweiherburg --Böhringer 06:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't understand the reason for decline. -- Spurzem 08:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:GH Löwen Gaststube, Au Rehmen, Böhringer 6.jpgEdit

GH Löwen Gaststube, Au Rehmen, Böhringer 6.jpg

  • Nomination GH Löwen Gaststube --Böhringer 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Waldfriedgasse 1 Feldkirch Villa Waldfried.JPGEdit

Waldfriedgasse 1 Feldkirch Villa Waldfried.JPG

  • Nomination Feldkirch Villa Waldfried --Böhringer 05:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    i vote photos and this ist good. --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective issues (lamp post and house leaning in) --Uoaei1 06:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Hl Bartholomäus (Übersaxen) 1.jpgEdit

Hl Bartholomäus (Übersaxen) 1.jpg

  • Nomination Hl Bartholomäus (Übersaxen) --Böhringer 05:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion --Cccefalon 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    i vote photos and this ist good. --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp --Uoaei1 06:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Weiler) 2.jpgEdit

Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Weiler) 2.jpg

  • Nomination Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Weiler) --Böhringer 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    i vote photos and this ist good. --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp --Uoaei1 06:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ponte_Sisto_Roma.jpgEdit

Ponte Sisto Roma.jpg

File:2014-09-21_10-39-33_salle-mairie-belfort-PA00101139.jpgEdit

2014-09-21 10-39-33 salle-mairie-belfort-PA00101139.jpg

  • Nomination Inside the town hall of Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 17:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Florstein 08:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    Significant CA around the... thing... in the window on the left. --Mattbuck 21:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_09.jpgEdit

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 09.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo,here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jebulon is right for all images with this issue now on CR, it's on the guidelines: "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." --Kadellar 09:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Es ist unglaublich, mit welchen Argumenten einwandfreie Fotos neuerdings abgeschmettert werden. Bewerten wir denn hier die Dateinamen oder die Bilder? -- Spurzem 12:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Außerdem steht im dateinamen, was es ist. Es muß nicht zwingend englisch sein. --Ralf Roletschek 14:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
We judge a whole, please read the guidelines. In "Commons", ein "Bild" ist nicht nur ein Bild.--Jebulon 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Jebulon. A detailed description is important for QI. Yann 16:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is not only important, it is the rule !!--Jebulon 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Rules can be absurd. And than common sense is asked. -- Spurzem 09:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_10.jpgEdit

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 10.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Please read the guidelines. And here is not a competition at all.--Jebulon 22:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed area on the right --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Dass ein winziger Bereich das Sonnenlicht reflektiert, sollte kein Grund sein, das Bild insgesamt abzulehnen. -- Spurzem 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    The area overexposed is clearly in focus and thus is a part of the subject and also clearly burned out with no details, for me a reason to oppose, sorry Christian Ferrer 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. The small overexposed areas could have been better handled, but are not really disturbing. Average, but acceptable sharpness. -- Smial 08:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Ps: I'm very happy, Jacek has switched his camera (resp. post processing methods) to less saturated and much more natural colours than before.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_11.jpgEdit

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 11.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes yes, and you don't distort your photos, we know...--Jebulon 22:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in despite of the little overexposition at bottom --Christian Ferrer 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good with new, proper description. QI for me --Halavar 01:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_12.jpgEdit

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 12.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed at left --Christian Ferrer 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Ich kann die Ablehnung nicht verstehen. Wo Schatten ist, ist nun manchmal auch Licht, das hier das Bild nicht stört. -- Spurzem 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_13.jpgEdit

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 13.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very good -- Spurzem 19:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Falsch. --Jebulon 22:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Jebulon. A detailed description is important for QI. Yann 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is not only important, it is just the rule !--Jebulon 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good with new, proper description. QI for me --Halavar 01:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Lüdinghauser_Tor_--_2014_--_3336.jpgEdit

Dülmen, Lüdinghauser Tor -- 2014 -- 3336.jpg

  • Nomination Detail of the Lüdinghauser Tor, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    For me the DOF isn't good enough. Mattbuck 14:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Nearly fixed It's sharper now. May be it's good enough. What do you think?--XRay 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    The thing is, the face is great, but the background to me is too blurry. It's not a decline, so Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Mattbuck 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your review. So I set this review to discussion.--XRay 09:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF is OK. It is quite normal to have a blurry background to make the subject stand out. Yann 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but main parts look acceptable. -- Smial (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cambio_de_la_Guardia_del_Castillo_de_Windsor,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_10.JPGEdit

Cambio de la Guardia del Castillo de Windsor, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 10.JPG

  • Nomination Changing of the Guard of the Windsor Castle, England --Poco a poco 08:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice composition (on a dreary day), but there's a fair amount of blur on the left. --Mattbuck 14:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 18:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't think this is QI. Mattbuck 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss this one, I see no big issues here --Poco a poco 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Radków,_kościoł_św._Andrzeja_Boboli_04.JPGEdit

2014 Radków, kościoł św. Andrzeja Boboli 04.JPG

  • Nomination Saint Andrew Bobola church in Radków --Jacek Halicki 10:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIMO there CAs (soee note).--XRay 11:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 22:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 11:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject in shadow. Too strong distortion of the bell tower.--Jebulon 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

File:12-01-20-yog-510.jpgEdit

12-01-20-yog-510.jpg

  • Nomination Martin Sesaker (NOR), Curling --Ralf Roletschek 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose meaningless name.--Jebulon 11:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    * Sure, this photos are wrong here in this competition of quality filenames. I see no reason to change anything. It ma be: Мартин Sesaker из Норвегии, когда Corling на юношеских Олимпийских играх 2012.jpg. --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Jebulon: I don't understand the problem. -- Spurzem 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Spurzem: just read once, only once, the guidelines.--Jebulon 22:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"meaningless" is undefined. Is russian or chinese meaningless? I can take at all my photos long czech, russian, finish or catalá names, is this better? No, its nonsense. So as your view of guidelines. --Ralf Roletschek 12:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Russian? Chinese? Czech? Finish? Catalá ? Fine for me, and useful for users ! 12-01-20-yog-510 is meaningless, this is the nonsense, sorry.--Jebulon 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Nobody needs a second description in the filename. In this filename are the date, the theme (youth olympic game) and a number, more is no needed. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:12-01-20-yog-523.jpgEdit

12-01-20-yog-523.jpg

  • Nomination Robert-Kent Päll (EST), Curling --Ralf Roletschek 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose meaningless name.--Jebulon 11:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:12-01-20-yog-567.jpgEdit

12-01-20-yog-567.jpg

  • Nomination Rachel Hannen (GBR), Curling --Ralf Roletschek 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good -- Spurzem 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Meaninless name.--Jebulon 11:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:JasperCountyCourthouse_retouched.jpgEdit

JasperCountyCourthouse retouched.jpg

  • Nomination Jasper County courthouse in Carthage, Missouri. --Kbh3rd 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad time of the day, wrong light direction, IMO. One side is in full shadow, the other in half shadow.--Jebulon 11:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:La_Fornarina_di_Raffaello_Sanzio.jpgEdit

La Fornarina di Raffaello Sanzio.jpg

  • Nomination The Portrait of a Young Woman (also known as La fornarina) is a painting by the Italian High Renaissance master Raphael, made between 1518 and 1520. --Livioandronico2013 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Wrong white balance. --Yann 13:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok,now? Thanks--Livioandronico2013 16:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
No. See [1] as an example. Yann 15:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes but is too dark,it's impossible see the datails --Livioandronico2013 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Church_tower_of_uggiano_montefusco_2.jpgEdit

Church tower of uggiano montefusco 2.jpg

  • Nomination church tower of uggiano montefusco --Livioandronico2013 22:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not nearly sharp enough. --Mattbuck 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions thanks --Livioandronico2013 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Not the best composition but sharp enough. -- Spurzem 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lion_of_Viterbo.jpgEdit

Lion of Viterbo.jpg

  • Nomination Lion of Viterbo --Livioandronico2013 18:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Bottom oversharpened, top out of focus. --Mattbuck 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions thanks --Livioandronico2013 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 10:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-250.jpgEdit

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-250.jpg

  • Nomination Dyna Fyr, Oslo, Norway --Ralf Roletschek 15:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 11:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    I am not opposing as such, but I think this needs brightening. --Mattbuck 21:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 16:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen,_Burg_Lüdinghausen_--_2014_--_5496.jpgEdit

Lüdinghausen, Burg Lüdinghausen -- 2014 -- 5496.jpg

  • Nomination Burg Lüdinghausen, Lüdinghausen, Germany --XRay 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Poor masking in tree limbs on the left. --Kbh3rd 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmm. I do not see as a big problem as it is in the dark.--XRay 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentNo, it's definitely a problem. I saw it right away even at less than full resolution. Along the rooftop, too. (Is your monitor properly calibrated?) It's not in the original, so it can be salvaged. Otherwise a fine photo. Kbh3rd 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Fixed You're right. I haven't seen the problems at the rooftop. Now I adjusted the CA correction.--XRay 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Much better. I can't be sure it's all fixed, but I like this image enough to offer my support and see if others concur.

File:Blumauerhaus Steyr DSC 2743w.jpgEdit

Blumauerhaus Steyr DSC 2743w.jpg

  • Nomination Middle class house, Blumauerhaus, Upper Austria --P e z i 20:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --ArildV 06:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The contre-jour lighting is unfortunate, I oppose because I would like to read some other opinions.--Jebulon 19:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Contre-jour lighting very well handled. Weak sharpness in the upper part of the image, probably due to perspective correction. To avoid such unsharpness it is essential to scale down an image after such correction. Does not need as low as 2 MPixels, down to about 80% of the original resolution is in most cases sufficiant. -- Smial 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of sharpness in the upper part of the photo. --Steindy 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 03:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Krameramtshaus_(Haus_der_Niederlande)_--_2014_--_6867.jpgEdit

Münster, Krameramtshaus (Haus der Niederlande) -- 2014 -- 6867.jpg

  • Nomination Krameramtshaus (House of the Netherlands), Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Slight cyan ca at rooftop, Otherwise good. --Johanning 06:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks. It's fixed.--XRay 17:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have made a mess of it. When I had another look at the image I saw, that the ca was gone, thank you. But I saw also, that it had distracted me from the more relevant issue. At the very top the image is getting quite blurry. Now I have to eat my words ... --Johanning 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed No problem. I improved the sharpness. Hopefully it's good enough.--XRay 11:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI don't think so. But you had a similar debate about the town hall in Münster, that produced pros and cons. Thus, I send it to CR to give it a chance. --Johanning 17:36, 24September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp. Also possibly somewhat distorted, all those bicycles seem to have oval wheels. -- Smial 09:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

File:20140707_Radkersburg_-_household_items_(Gombocz_collection)_-_H3616.jpgEdit

20140707 Radkersburg - household items (Gombocz collection) - H3616.jpg

  • Nomination Doppelt gebrannter Ziegel, um 1900 mit Stempel --Hubertl 09:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very good -- Spurzem 10:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps QI for me (perhaps weak support): vertical lines of the right side are not straight. The picture seems tilted. Too much space at top and at bottom IMO. Too much issues IMO to be very good. Others can think. Sorry, the detail is not perfect IMO--Lmbuga 03:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Straightened and better adjusted.--Hubertl 12:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I say once more: Very good. -- Spurzem 15:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also would prefer a tighter crop (about 1/3) on top, but nevertheless QI for me --DKrieger 20:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality IMO--Lmbuga 16:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course QI! --Steindy 18:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File: Horex Regina 400 (2014-09-13 7005 Sp).JPGEdit

Horex Regina 400 (2014-09-13 7005 Sp).JPG

  • Nomination Horex Regina, a famous German bike of the 1950s -- Spurzem 09:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Composition: the flower pot is disturbing --MB-one 01:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    I know promoted images with much more disturbing things and ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 06:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Horex is properly put in the picture and that's the point. I do not understand what there is to criticize it. Of course QI! --Steindy 18:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Livioandronico2013 19:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • {{o}} As MB-one. Poor composition IMO. CAs (see note). The detail is not good IMO (see note, but there are other areas). Not QI for me --Lmbuga 03:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Lmbuga: Terrible CAs fixed, flower-pot removed. But by the way: I saw promoted images with poorer compositions. -- Spurzem 17:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Hubertl 20:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for the sarcasm (IMO). Its not QI for me, sorry: Poor composition IMO. The detail is not good IMO--Lmbuga 21:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 11:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Forchtenstein - Pfarrkirche Maria Himmelfahrt (18).jpgEdit

Forchtenstein - Pfarrkirche Maria Himmelfahrt (18).jpg

  • Nomination Stained-glass-window from Rudolf Nagl in the parish-church Maria Himmelfahrt in Forchtenstein (Austria. --Steindy 19:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspective, see comments on file --Steinsplitter 06:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks vertically somewhat compressed. @Steinsplitter: Are you sure this old masonry has absolutely straight verticals? -- Smial 09:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Steinsplitter: Ganz abgesehen davon, dass es schwierig genug war, das Glasfenster, das sich in fünf Metern Höhe befindet, einigermaßen ins Bild zu bekommen, war ich leider 1655 beim Bau der Kirche und auch 1909 beim Einbau des Glasfensters noch nicht auf der Welt, denn ansonsten hätte ich die Maurer genauestens überwacht. Soll ich vielleicht die senkrechten Linien korrigieren, damit der nächste Benutzer sich darüber mokiert, dass die waagrechten Linien nicht passen? Man kann den Bildautor für vieles, aber nicht alles verantwortlich machen! Aber wenn du möchtest, ziehe ich meine Kandidatur zurück... --Steindy 17:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective, of course.--undefined 18:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC) not logged in, sorry--Jebulon 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Aachen_Germany_Domschatz_Three-tower-reliquary-01.jpgEdit

Aachen Germany Domschatz Three-tower-reliquary-01.jpg

  • Nomination Three tower reliquary, Treasury of the Imeprial Cathedral, Aachen --Cccefalon 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. It's behind glass, I know. In this case it is IMO acceptable. --XRay 15:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree mirror effects are disturbing and there is motion blur at the bottom --MB-one 01:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As MB-one. Blurry at bottom (see note) --Lmbuga 03:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To be exact: With f/2.2 in a dark room, the DoF was limited. It is also not motion blur, as I used a tripod. However, the reliquary itself is sharp enough IMO. --Cccefalon 07:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Butterfly_at_Surat.jpgEdit

Butterfly at Surat.jpg

  • Nomination Butterfly --Yndesai 10:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice and very good -- Spurzem 11:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment propper taxa missing, frameing like this is not endorsesed. Is that motion blur on the wings?--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 11:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File Updated and removed the frame. Blur is due to very small depth of field. Yndesai 12:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot really enough DOF unfortunately. Also very noisy, from over sharpening maybe? -- KTC 14:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, poor quality IMO, chromatic aberrations, oversharpened, I don't know if there is noise or a lot of jpg artifacts. Poor quality IMO--Lmbuga 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bell_206B_Jet_Ranger_III_September_2014_01.jpgEdit

Bell 206B Jet Ranger III September 2014 01.jpg

  • Nomination Bell 206B Jet Ranger III at Jungfrusund, Ekerö. --ArildV 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Really ought to capture the whole rotor I think. Sorry -- KTC 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I strongly disagree! A intentional close-up. Not every photo has to show everything. A photo of window are not a "low quality images" because it not capture the whole building. I dont understand this review at all--ArildV 15:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Quiet people, we are not here to fight. For me it's QI. Anyway I think that KTC meant the wings (the rotor is all about them), but there is the discuss for this, peace & love Clin --Livioandronico2013 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    It was merely an opinion. Personally, if it were an intentional close-up, I would had expected to be cropped tighter. But of course, others may and does disagree. More than happy to see what others think at CR. :) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No hard feelings at all Clin. Of course, I respect KTC opinions but I was surprised. The picture is taken with maximum zoom (200mm), of course it can be be cropped afterwards. But personally I see no reason. The vertical crop is already tight, and I like the non-centered composition (which makes the picture a little more exciting, even if the movement is deliberately frozen here). In my personal opinion is this discussion about a matter of taste, both the image with my crop and the image with a tighter crop (as suggested) is a Quality image. Regards--ArildV 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok,no harm done Smile --Livioandronico2013 18:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Big dust spot (see note)--Lmbuga 22:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done Thank for note--ArildV 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportQI to me --DKrieger 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO. Sorry, I like the composition. A bit of noise--Lmbuga 22:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 09:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Maracujá em fundo preto (2).JPGEdit

Maracujá em fundo preto (2).JPG

  • Nomination Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) in black background - Rodrigo.Argenton 04:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion DoF too shallow - only the half fruit in the foreground is sharp. It would be great, to repeat that compo with other settings or with focus stacking. --Cccefalon 06:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC). This is a f/11, I can't be more sharp, if I up to f/22 the photo gonna be less sharp but with a better DoF, and the idea was be a background element, but ok. Rodrigo.Argenton 08:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    You are right about the f/11, more won't help. Only more focal distance or focus stacking would help. For a background element, it probably should be a little bit distant from the foreground element. What about sending to CR? There might be other opinions about a studio shot of fruits. --Cccefalon 08:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC) User:Cccefalon Thanks, this composition, with my equipment, only two photos and PS :D. Actually I'm using this space here as this: Commons:Photography critiques, cause no one answers there, and in the lab also... what is CR? Rodrigo.Argenton 09:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    CR means Consensual Review. Simply change the /Decline in this text to /Discuss and you will see a yellow outline. The day after, the QIC-bot transfers your nomination automatically to the CR section. --Cccefalon 09:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Well I changed not because I don't believe or give a credit to your opinion, but as you suggested and I'm here to listening opinions (and more can be better), CR could be useful, thank you. --Rodrigo.Argenton 16:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good one. Though it is possible to reach nearly infinite DOF by focus stacking, it is absolutely not necessary for every and any QI. Infinite DOF may be demanded for a featured picture to get enough WOW. This image shows a very nice, natural looking perspective, good colours, good lighting, good composition and good sharpness. -- Smial 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Smial, but very good composition --DKrieger 20:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg neutral tendent to oppose Very good composition and good resolution, but nothing is really sharp IMO--Lmbuga 03:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Prinzipalmarkt_--_2014_--_6859.jpgEdit

Münster, Prinzipalmarkt -- 2014 -- 6859.jpg

  • Nomination Prinzipalmarkt, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sky overexposed --MB-one 20:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed IMO it's fixed now. Please have a look to the new images. Thank you.--XRay 07:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Hubertl 20:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Amiens_France_Rue-du-Don-01.jpgEdit

Amiens France Rue-du-Don-01.jpg

  • Nomination Amiens, France: Colours of "Rue du Don" --Cccefalon 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too shallow DoF IMHO Poco a poco 09:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentErm, I thought, it is obvious, that I did this on purpose. This compo consist almost of vertical, coloured bands which are fading away to the background. It was my intention to focus on the first yellow band, using maximum aperture. for the same reason, I named the image "Colours of Rue du Don" --Cccefalon 12:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Well, fine with me, but is it then a QI? Not sure Poco a poco 22:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, poor DOF, f/5,6 is not sufficient here, to QI, IMO. If it's an artistic picture, perhaps FP is a better option--Lmbuga 00:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    It would be quite interesting to hear, if artistic depictions are generally excluded from QI assessment. --Cccefalon 05:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sometimes the artistic fact means low quality IMO. It's not QI for me, but it can be for yourself or others--Lmbuga 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a matter of taste. The small DOF is obviously intended and in technical aspects well done. Though I would have chosen to set the focus according to the rule of thirds, not to the facade on the far left margin. -- Smial 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I see what you meant to do, and it was definitely worth trying to see how it would turn out. In this case, though, I don't think the line of doorways regresses into the background deeply enough – they go more across the image rather than into it, and my eye expects to see detail across the board. Kbh3rd 17:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Moscow Grand Kremlin Palace4.jpgEdit

Moscow Grand Kremlin Palace4.jpg

  • Nomination Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow, Russia (by Ludvig14) --A.Savin 12:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ralf, do you like now "distorted" buildings ? I don't, sorry. It needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 17:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Its totaly distortet, ist a panorama. --Ralf Roletschek 15:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Jebulon. Yann 15:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Nepomuk-Statue am Kahlenberg in Wien.jpgEdit

Nepomuk-Statue am Kahlenberg in Wien.jpg

  • Nomination statue of Johannes Nepomuk at Nussberg, Vienna --Mariofan13 09:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient categorization (meaning: no valid categorization). I haven't checked for photographic issues, might be, there is more to complain.. --Cccefalon 09:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but we're at Quality Image candidates, not at quality category candidates. The category dropdown didn't show a category for Johann Nepomuk at Nussberg, Vienna, so the other option was to upload without any category. Please discuss the Quality of the image Mariofan13 10:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please read our QIC guidelines and find out, that correct categorization is an essential part to make a nomination eligible. If there is no suitable categorization present, create one. If you are not capable how to do that, ask someone or read the appropriate help page. --Cccefalon 10:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    I added a category for the image. Is it okay now? Mariofan13 10:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While the categorization is fine now, there are photographic issues present: It is too dark in the shadows and too noisy IMO. I'm not sure, if it is fixable, as the ISO rating is already 800. --Cccefalon 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting statue, but it looks very dark, and the upper crop is too tight: the composition is unbalanced to me. I'm afraid the noise is too strong. Please notice that I agree 100% with Cccefalon about need of categorization.--Jebulon 14:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The problem is that the statue is overexposed if the background is lighter, look this file Mariofan13 16:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, too dark and rustling. Make some new photos in bright sunlight and find out the best one. --Steindy 18:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FIS_Sommer_Grand_Prix_2014_-_20140809_-_Tom_Hilde_2.jpgEdit

FIS Sommer Grand Prix 2014 - 20140809 - Tom Hilde 2.jpg

  • Nomination FIS Sommer Grand Prix 2014 - 20140809 - Tom Hilde --Pleclown 11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why 1/1,000 sec (0.001) and only f/3.2? Random picture?--Lmbuga 23:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd suggest to clone out the pimple, as it is not an immutable characteristic and very distracting. @Lmbuga: I have no problem with f/3.2 as it leads to nice blurring of the background. DOF is ok. -- Smial 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I respect your opinion, but I'm not agree (see two notes as example). Poor DOF to QI IMO. Chromatic noise (see note)--Lmbuga 23:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: Because the light was not so good, and that the jumpers where not posing and moving a lot. Pleclown 17:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I was a ski jumping competition. I was at the end zone, and also tried to take pictures of the jumpers while flying and landing (you can see some picutres in the category Category:FIS Sommer Grand Prix 2014). As I only have one camera, I didn't had time to change the settings between the shots. Pleclown 08:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pleclown, I know the problem that you mention, very good. Exactly why can not really QI each photo. I am closing on the opinion of Lmbuga. --Steindy 18:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Geneva_Rugby_Cup_-_20140808_-_SF_vs_LOU_-_Jonathan_Danty_1.jpgEdit

Geneva Rugby Cup - 20140808 - SF vs LOU - Jonathan Danty 1.jpg

  • Nomination Geneva Rugby Cup - 20140808 - SF vs LOU - Jonathan Danty --Pleclown 11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok if the chromatic noise is removed Poco a poco 21:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic noise. DOF and noise (f/2.8, ISO 3,200, 1/500 sec). --Lmbuga 23:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this one. There is noise which is only visible if you zoom to 100% and look for it. DOF is fine; his eyes are very sharp which is the only thing that matters for a people subject. Lewis Collard 02:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should we review the images with a zoom of 20%, 40%, 60%...? Please teach me how I should review images. Thumbail of the picture?--Lmbuga 23:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is very good, but chroma noise is indeed really high. I'm using the same camera but usually have much lesser noise, see e.g. here. @Pleclown: which raw developing tool are you using? -- Smial 23:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Smial: I'm using Darktable. Pleclown 17:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm using that Pentax tool, there is a slider to supress chroma noise separate without blurring the image, if used carefully. Luminance noise is nearly unchanged and remains in the image, but this is IMO by far not as disturbing than those colourful areas. In difficult cases I'm using NeatImage. This program works best on uncompressed images (TIFF), but I could try it with your image. -- Smial 09:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but this photo ist very noisy, not really sharp in front and very unsharp in the back of the head and has CAs. --Steindy 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I can understand your frustration because of some declines of your images, but nitpicking is not the solution. -- Smial 21:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 15:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Levisham railway station MMB 05 45407.jpgEdit

Levisham railway station MMB 05 45407.jpg

  • Nomination 45407 at Levisham. Mattbuck 06:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality, but the person in the foreground is disturbing. But still QI imo.--ArildV 10:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry. But the person is very disturbing and the image is too dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the person is very disturbing --Livioandronico2013 10:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. -- Spurzem 12:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the person is very disturbing because the person is too unsharp or out of focus--Lmbuga 03:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:St_Pancras_railway_station_trainshed_2014-09-14.jpgEdit

St Pancras railway station trainshed 2014-09-14.jpg

  • Nomination St Pancras railway station trainshed. --Colin 22:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Very impressive, and I am inclined to say, you go go straight down, turn right, where it says 'FPC', but perhaps before you go, it appears there are some minor foreground stitching problems, the floor looks 'weird' around the area of the annotation I have added to the file page. -- Slaunger 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's a gap that I filled without perfection. There are some minor stitching errors in the roof. So I don't think it could be FP but hope that overall (considering the 103MP) it is QI. -- Colin 22:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The foreground problem is definately a minor issue and a recurring difficult aspect of interior panoramics. The image has huge wow, and it might even pass FP too. -- Slaunger 19:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC) --Slaunger 19:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The perspective here just makes it look wrong. It's as if the shed gets steeper closer to the photographer, and that is not the case in real life. The roof beautiful and a marvel of construction, this photo makes it look ugly. --Mattbuck 08:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that the wide-angle perspective isn't to everyone's taste but I don't think is fair to count that as a reason to oppose. It isn't a technical error. One has to balance the pros and the cons in any picture. Here we have high resolution, careful exposure, low noise and an expansive view. Compare File:St Pancras railway station MMB I7.jpg (your current nom) which is hugely underexposed and very noisy or File:St Pancras railway station MMB 30.jpg (current QI) which is also underexposed and heavily tilted. I'm led to wonder what the point in nominating at QI is, when the technical standard required is apparently ignored. -- Colin 09:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If you don't think my nominations are QI, then by all means decline them. Relist the one which is currently QI. But if a photo, for all its technical merit, does not accurately depict its subject, how can it be considered a quality image? Mattbuck 17:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Matt, the issues of wide perspectives have been discussed and debated since da Vinci and before. All transformations of a 3D world to a 2D plane involve distortions from reality. Your retina is not flat, nor do you have any real visual acuity outside of the centre small area. The eye sees an image as wide as this one but can't actually focus/concentrate on more than one small area at a time. So what is reality? Is some random underexposed tilted segment of the roof reality? No, the eye sees far more than that. I mention your nominations because it seems to me that you don't apply QI standards to your nominations, merely dumping your memory card onto QIC for others to sift through. Yet others are held to some higher, subjective standard of your own. So I really do question your impartial judgement wrt train station photos. -- Colin 20:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I note that Mattbuck has withdrawn the nomination I mentioned, and, well, I may have been a bit grumpy in my comments above. Sorry. -- Colin 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I do try to ensure that all images I nominate are up to scratch, but not all images I upload are QI material, and sometimes some slip through the net as it were. Mattbuck 17:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The perspective distortion is OK for me. Yann 13:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:109_Bank_Ottawa_Hydro.jpgEdit

109 Bank Ottawa Hydro.jpg

  • Nomination Designated heritage building Ottawa Hydro Electric Company Building at 109 Bank Street --MB-one 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion ✓ Done--MB-one 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's a bit better, but still missing the crispness in the people I'd expect from a well-lit street scene. This is an Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me I'm afraid. Mattbuck 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    The people are not meant to be the subject of this image. Do you think the building is sharp enough? --MB-one 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 1.jpgEdit

Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 1.jpg

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness + noise + perspective --A.Savin 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I disagree on that one. --Dnalor 01 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with A.Savin --Uoaei1 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version seems okay. --Steindy 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --K@rl (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,per A.Savin --Livioandronico2013 10:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpgEdit

Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpg

  • Nomination Gothic stained-glass window, Chapel of Grace, Basilica Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 16:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion We have assessed a lot of stained glass windows in the past which can be uses as reference what amount of sharpness is expected for a QI of that genre. Unfortunatly, this image does not meet the required sharpness. Sorry. --Cccefalon 17:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. In my opinion sharpness can not be much better. I only had cropped the image at the dark lines. -- Spurzem 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your important comment, new version uploaded: cropped at the dark lines. I've cropped the other 3 pictures of gothic stained-glass windows in Basilica Seckau at the dark lines too (above in the QIC-nomination of 15th september 2014). ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks to Spurzem. Now QI. --Steindy 21:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable. -- Smial 09:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)