Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2006

< Commons:Quality images candidates

Consensual ReviewEdit

  • Nomination White-faced Heron, Egretta novaehollandiae Gnangarra 07:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Illustrative shot, even if the image quality is not perfect CyrilB 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, bad crop, animal and background in the same color. I'm oppose. Lestat 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure it is a unique shot. I also like the colour of the reflected sky in the water. But the main subject is in the shadow. Alvesgaspar 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • just to note in your discussions, that is the raw image from the camera there has been no processing Gnangarra 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
    Kodak Z7590 has no RAW. Lestat 10:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    English such an ambigious language raw is in unedited, not RAW the format Gnangarra 02:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Don't know if my input will help but I think this picture has a high encyclopedic value - very illustrative and quite exceptional but kind of "not enough quality value", the bird is in the shadow and not visible enough in the background of the sun-lit sand river-side. If it were the opposite and cropped vertically, I'd nominate it to Featured pictures, but here, it hardly passes the quality exposure criteria : Underexposure. Lost details main subject in shadow areas). Diligent
    That was my point: I agree the quality of the picture is not enough to make it a featured picture, but what's in there is really worth the quality image promotion. CyrilB 12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    I've added a cropped version, also slight level adjustment Gnangarra 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 1 support, 3 oppose >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Nomination Medieval sculpture of Maria Magdalena --Diligent 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Good composition and subject but quite strong colour fringes in the corner. The frame is half cut - I'd prefer to see it entirely or being cropped. Noise is quite high. I'd vote for any edit that adresses this, see my example. --Ikiwaner 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with your changes. much better. --Diligent 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed ~per request the little fringed corner in the edited version. --Ikiwaner 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 2 support, 0 oppose >> promoted to QI (edited version) Alvesgaspar 10:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you maybe tell what is bad about this perspective correction? The camera is tilted so much to the sky that you almost can't see the ground anymore. That'y why perspective shouldn't be fully corrected. Leave a little bit of perspective to make you feel small standing in front of the church. --Ikiwaner 10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is not with the cathedral, but with the yellow house at left. Please compare the two versions. Alvesgaspar 11:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I see the difference, but a) your edit is not much straighter than my first and b) you'll see the yellow house just after a few seconds of viewing the church therefore a good view on the church is more important. Have a look if you really like a fully corrected perspective: Image:Alexander-Newski-Kathedrale_full_pc.jpg --Ikiwaner 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I really like this picture. Support the corrected perspective version of yours. Alvesgaspar 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
While the perspective correction of the full_pc version of this photo seems to have been successful, it has had (IMO) a negative side effect of compressing the photo a bit too much horizontally. --Pomakis 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You got it. That's why I support the first edit. --Ikiwaner 07:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 (time to decide) 1 support, 3 oppose >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 10:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Nomination Justinuskirche by Eva K --Ikiwaner 12:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok, may also serve as example of simple but working compostion. --Wikimol 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree it is a good composition. But the image has not enough quality. Look at the tree and ruins in first plan: seem blurred and with artifacts. Alvesgaspar 14:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Your arguments are perfectly true: This camera is not up to date regarding sharpness CA and noise. But I would have said that quality is just good enough for a QI as the photographical quality is good. --Ikiwaner 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you tried to downsample the picture (although I don't believe it will have much effect)? Alvesgaspar 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes the additional noise reduction did some minimal improvement to this image. I already downsized it to answer Alvesgaspars question. I don't think noise is the problem here it's rather sharpness artifacts as Alvesgaspar said before (+colour truth and CA). The photographer is strongly limited by her camera. --Ikiwaner 19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You are quire right. We cant't get useful information where just chaos exists, it is a fundamental law of the Universe. But let's see this picture from a positive side: it is a good composition and the trees have that wonderful look of impressionist painting (although not QI, I'm afraid) :-) Alvesgaspar 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO - the trees are not the subject of the image - I would compare it to low depth of field, or underexposure. Surprisingly, the church was kept intact by the demosaicing/sharpeninging/compression. --Wikimol 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

 (time to decide!) 2 support, 1 oppose >> promoted to QI Alvesgaspar 10:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)