Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 08 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Heterochromia_dog,_Struga.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Heterochromia dog --Liridon 08:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose The eyes are sharp but the focus should have been closer to the camera to include the snout, the f-numer is too small (and probably the shutter speed to high) --Poco a poco 12:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Yes, the DoF could be a bit wider, but the whiskers are still sharp enough to me, to consider this a QI. --MB-one 11:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support As the description and focus of this image are both centred on the eyes of the dog I concur with MB-one on QI while not disagreeing with the assessment of Poco a poco!:) --Scotch Mist 14:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nose not in focus. Charlesjsharp 15:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others - maybe not a common motif, but dogs are normally considered relatively easy to photograph. However, it could be a good VI, depending on its competition. -- Ikan Kekek 21:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very small DOF. But the purpose of the photo is to explain heterochromia (maybe for encyclopedic use). And heterochromia is perfectly explained by two sharp eyes.--KaiBorgeest 22:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Per KaiBorgeest: Focusing on the eyes only could even put more emphasis on the phenomenon --Moroder 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment You guys have a good point. I've crossed out my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek 04:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas 20:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Barclay de Tolly Mausoleum 38.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Barclay de Tolly Mausoleum in Estonia Scotch Mist 06:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I am sorry. But the dark tones are so dark that recent parts of the monuement are close to black. --Augustgeyler 12:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Augustgeyler: Understand your opinion but it puzzles my why you repeatedly insist on opposing the views of images promoted by others, which generally I find disrespectful unless a major fault or blemishes, such as dust spots, have been overlooked, while many images have not been reviewed at all??? --Scotch Mist 16:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I expected this response from you. That's why I first thought about not voting on this. But as I told you before: It has nothing to do with being not respectful when following the guidelines of consensual review in case of different opinions. --Augustgeyler 17:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment With respect, you did not answer my question! --Scotch Mist 19:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK with me, but disagreeing with a vote to promote is in no way per se rude. If it were, a single vote would amount to an automatic promotion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Ikan Kekek: Thank you for your review and I agree with your comment as well as also understanding the technical criticism behind the opposing view, but I find it 'puzzling' when support of others for images I have nominated is persistently opposed while many more images of myself and others remain un-reviewed? It is appreciated that time is a constraint for all of us but I would prefer not to spend mine repeatedly fighting the same 'battles' on matters that many would consider more to do with 'individual style' than 'essential technical standards'. While in addition to object\scene details I aim for my photographs to capture the broad range of natural colours and contrasts as seen around us, I fully understand others may prefer to focus their photographic attention on achieving what they consider to be more 'technically perfect' results (I think most who contribute in this forum are content to accept this situation, irrespective of their personal views, while generally endeavouring to achieve their own 'good compromises'). QI provides good guidance in this process but IMHO should not be viewed so rigorously that every photographer of a particular object or scene produces an image that looks much the same because it has been created with identical camera settings and under ideal lighting conditions to sharply reveal every detail, no matter how relatively insignificant, in the scope of the image!:) --SM1 (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I surely understand the frustration. If I had to guess, I think that at least some of the time, when photos aren't reviewed it's because people who are looking at them can't decide whether to promote or decline them. -- Ikan Kekek 21:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 04:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. Would improve if the deep shadows are lightened a bit. --Tagooty 01:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 15:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)