Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 03 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Taman_Sari_Water_Castle,_Yogyakarta,_20220818_1047_8996.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Taman Sari Water Castle, Yogyakarta, Indonesia --Jakubhal 06:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    why nominate 2 images? --Charlesjsharp 17:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Those are two different images from different angles, so what is the problem? --Jakubhal 06:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    It doesn't need to go here. --Sebring12Hrs 09:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Now that the image has arrived on CR:   Support. --Smial 13:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support In any case, it's good. --Sebring12Hrs 15:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice photo. -- Ikan Kekek 20:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 21:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Panoramique_Palais_du_Pharo_et_Vieux-Port_en_novembre_2022.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Panoramique Palais du Pharo et Vieux-Port en novembre 2022. --Benoît Prieur 17:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 20:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Nice colors but blurred in the distance and overall not sharp enough. I also feel the composition with 50% empty blue sky not succeeded. --Milseburg 22:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You are right Milseburg, but it's not so bad for picture taken with an iPhone 13. In any event, it needs perspective correction, the buildings are leaning in. --Sebring12Hrs 15:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 21:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Column_of_Imedghassen,_Boumia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination One of the column of Imedghassen, Boumia, Batna Province, Algeria --Reda Kerbouche 08:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Lacks detail, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 09:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment This is the full photo of the column, other opinion please.--Reda Kerbouche 10:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Doesn't look great at full size on my 23.5-inch monitor but has quite an acceptable level of detail on my 13-inch, and I think that makes the cut. -- Ikan Kekek 19:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. @poco: I see and understand what you mean: there is a slight blur and a bit of detail loss, probably created by noise reduction. Also, there seems to be color channel clipping in some small areas in the red color channel. But overall the image quality is good enough for me, because it is sharp enough for a print in A4 size and any CA is well compensated. We DSLR shooters have to get used to the fact that phones nowadays can take quite good, or at least good usable pictures in good lighting conditions. --Smial 11:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 21:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Dr.-Enders-Straße_1,_Backhaus_+_Metzgerei_20220508_HOF01531.png edit

 

  • Nomination Building with food shops in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 19:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Poor colour contrast, IMO. --SHB2000 12:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment I adjusted the contrast, IMO the image is okay, please discuss --PantheraLeo1359531 15:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support The difference in contrast is really subtle and doesn't make a difference to me; I would support either version. -- Ikan Kekek 19:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 21:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Treis,_Innenraum_der_Pfarrkirche,_Blick_zum_Altarraum.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination St. Johannes der Täufer (Treis). By User:Rolf Kranz --IamMM 14:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong CAs need to be removed --Uoaei1 13:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    •   Support Well done now --Uoaei1 15:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Kurmanbek 17:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoaei1. --Sebring12Hrs 08:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--Ermell 17:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Strong CAs removed.--Rolf Kranz 21:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Rolf Kranz: Voting for your own image is not allowed, I believe.--Ermell 14:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
      •   Comment Interesting question. I think, only the nominator is excluded from voting. Uoaei1's comment is unequivocal and have to be seen as an contra, even if he didn't set the icon himself. --Milseburg (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Desaturating the back wall ruins the image.--Ermell 14:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment The whole image seems desaturated. Is that a really good idea? Rolf, could you comment please? (By the way, the photographer can indeed vote for their own photograph if they didn't nominate it.) -- Ikan Kekek 22:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment You´re right. In my new version the colorfulness is restored. The church has large windows and is therefore very bright. In contrast, the choir room with the altar is very dark because it has no windows. The light comes in through the opening in the ceiling. Taking quality photos from a dark room into a light room is a breeze. From light to dark is another matter entirely.--Rolf Kranz (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support: I find this version acceptable and would have given it more than weak support if it had been the only version I saw, but I still regret not seeing something much more like the colorful first version with CA removed. But maybe it was oversaturated and this version is more true-to-life. -- Ikan Kekek 19:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality now ! --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit oversharpened, but not disturbing at usual viewing size. --Smial 13:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Paulina_Matysiak_Sejm_2019.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Posłanka Paulina Matysiak w Sejmie by User:Boston9 --Ezarate 23:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy IMHO --Poco a poco 07:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Much bigger than it needs to be, but I think the quality is acceptable at a reasonable size. -- Ikan Kekek 17:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO not sharp enough. Looks like made by mobile phone. Unsharp parts are not natural (unsharp). --XRay 11:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Denoising has blurred some detail, but per Ikan still good enough. --Smial 15:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per XRay --Jakubhal 06:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. --Kallerna 06:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good enough for a portrait.--Peulle 07:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support by Ikan Kekek --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose lacks sharpness --Virtual-Pano 23:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan.--Ermell 14:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support by Ikan Kekek --FlocciNivis 17:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Sandro Halank 13:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose A bit too much noisy to me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No QI in full resolution. Noisy and lack of details. --Milseburg 21:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 21:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)