Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 24 2023

Consensual review

edit
  • Nomination しないで、よ我,本作品著作权人,特此采用以下许可协议发表本作品: --Q28 12:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose bad file name --Modern primat 15:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Please tell me what do you think the name of this picture should be --Q28 16:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Info Please have a look at the Guidelines; in them, you can find that QIs should "have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages." What this means is that the file name should have some correlation to what we're seeing. So in this case, "wall decorations" or something like that.--Peulle 06:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective correction is needed. And bad file name as mentionned per above. --Sebring12Hrs 12:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Echazquellen_05.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Part of the Echaz springs, Lichtenstein-Honau, Germany --Llez 05:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Strong oppose Most of the picture seems to be out of focus. --Der Angemeldete 11:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Where can you see out in focus area here ? The focus is good. --Sebring12Hrs 07:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • what is an 'out in area'? the branches on the the left are sharp, the rest is blurred, water is blurred, even the grass at the bottom is blurred. But yeah, go ahead, make it a FP.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose That’s a nice pic, but the main central area is out of focus. Also, IMO the picture is slightly under-exposed. --Mister rf 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Mister rf. --Peulle 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Irland_1993-1130.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Cleary, 18 John Street, New Ross, County Wexford. Shot in film in 1993. By User:Superbass --Augustgeyler 14:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 10:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment As this was shot on 35mm film in 1993, I think it is sharp enough. I'd like to ask for more reviews. --Augustgeyler 10:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree, there's plenty of detail here. Perhaps the scanner outresolved the original film, resulting in less perceived sharpness at 100%, but better to outresolve than to underresolve. (PS: checked Google Maps, a pity that this cool little grocery store no longer exists!) --Julesvernex2 07:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good photo, well processed. --Smial 13:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough. --Palauenc05 00:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question Is it really not sharp enough for analog film? Was analog film in 1993 usually sharper than this? -- Ikan Kekek 19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'd say this is within the expectable sharpness range of 35mm film. Some special low ISO reverse films might have brought significant sharper / more detailed results, same with larger formats like middle format. Sadly there is no information given about the film in the description. --Augustgeyler 12:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Understood, but you're the nominator and had already expressed your views clearly. I'd like to hear from one of the opposers, too. Ermell or Palauenc05, would you like to address my question? When you say it's too blurry or not sharp enough, are you judging it as a 1993 analog film still or using some other standard? -- Ikan Kekek 21:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment The question is whether we judge "good quality" or "relatively good quality". Taking the year and analog film into consideration, we should dicuss new guidelines. --Palauenc05 08:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's the question, Palauenc05. For me, the issue is that we keep assessing sharpness at 100% instead of at a consistent scale (say, 3,500 pixels wide), which puts higher resolution images at a disadvantage (or, like in this case, film negatives that have been scanned at a high resolution). --Julesvernex2 18:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment That is basically a very sensible approach. However, I consider a fixed number of pixels as the viewing size to be impractical, since there are still screens with 72ppi, but also some with double and even higher resolution. As a result, you would get different viewing sizes on different screens. Therefore, for photos that show slight blurring when viewed pixel by pixel, I have resorted to estimating whether a respectable, natural-looking printout in A4 size (or letter size) is possible. (Of course, this does not apply to panorama shots, where the narrow edge must be enough for A4, the long edge for more, depending on the aspect ratio. Nor does it apply to stitched images or images taken with special cameras, which were obviously created with the intention of offering extremely high image resolutions, well beyond the typical resolution of digital 35 mm cameras). --Smial 09:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Support 1993. OK. For this year good enough. --XRay 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)