Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 07 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Tiger_Yawning_Mudumalai_Mar21_DSC01305.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tiger (m) (Panthera tigris tigris) yawning, Mudumalai National Park, India --Tagooty 15:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Horst J. Meuter 16:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think, it's to unsharp sorry --Geoprofi Lars 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree; grainy and not too sharp. --Peulle 12:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing object top left. --F. Riedelio 07:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Altmannshausen_Kirche_Altar_HDR-20210314-RM-170919.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Catholic Filial Church of St. Jacobus maior in Altmannshausen, main altar. --Ermell 06:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but white objects in the center of image have nearly no details in lights. --LexKurochkin 12:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
      •   Info Whites reduced a bit and some more structure added.--Ermell 08:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
        •   Comment Yes, now it is better. Thank you! Please do not count my objection for the new version. --LexKurochkin 07:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment I disagree. --Ermell 16:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support There are some burnt highlights, but most are tiny reflections. Also the window has clipping, but no unnatural colour shift, acceptable for me, as it is the lighting source. All in all, the image is not perfect, but well-balanced. --Smial 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Smial, not perfect, but good enough. Apart from the lights on the statues, the details are well readable. —Nefronus 19:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd be OK with the "white objects", but what is it with the faces of the altar sculptures (angels, Christ, the Father)? To me, they look blurred (although they can hardly be out of focus, considering sharp details right next to them). Is it an issue with the photo, or with the sculptures themselves? -- Martinus KE 22:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment The visually perceived impression of sharpness is very strongly dependent on the local contrast. Just by the way of lighting you can make one and the same object, photographed with the same camera and the same lens and the same settings, look once sharper and once blurrier. Sharpening algorithms work on a similar principle by enhancing local contrasts. Anyone who has ever developed black-and-white film with Agfa Rodinal (or comparable developers from Ilford, Kodak, or other manufacturers) has known this effect for decades. In the picture above, the brightness of the white figurines is close to the overexposure limit and, depending on the "development algorithm", the low contrast may have been compressed (keyword: "s-curving"), so that they have less visual sharpness than their surroundings. --Smial 09:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Support Good enough for me --Moroder 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good. --Aristeas 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 06:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Hampi,_India,_Community_hall_(sabha_mandapa)_of_Vijaya_Vitthala_Temple.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Community hall of Vijaya Vitthala Temple, Hampi, Karnataka, India. --Argenberg 11:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 12:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now -- please fix   chromatic aberrations, correct perspective, and stop over-categorizing. --A.Savin 13:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose still not fixed, and even so, not enough detail or crisp enough for a day time shot like this.--Peulle 12:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)