Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 23 2013

Consensual review edit

File:2013-12-06_Orkan_Xaver_in_Warnemünde_12.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination storm Xaver in Warnemünde, 2013 from User:Jonas Rogowski --Ralf Roletschek 23:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Very good quality. --XRay 07:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Sorry but I don't agree. The composition and subject are very good but the image is too noisy; please look at the sky -- Alvesgaspar 12:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I did some careful and slight noise reduction, aot. I wonder about the level of expectations, though: I don't think there was much noise.--Cartoffel 03:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Better now, I have reverted my oppose vote. -- Alvesgaspar 13:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Another rework only reducing colour noise should have done. -- Smial 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- I don't think it can be saved because the lack of detail and unsharpness is already considerable. More denoising will make it worse. -- Alvesgaspar 19:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support A great photo. Noise is inevitable, you need a higher ISO when you want to capture the the nature of storm. It is possible to take a really sharp image of this lighthouse with good weather and clear skies. However, the stormy weather provides a really poignant context to lighthouse: in these conditions the lighthouses where extremely vital for the ships to navigate. In my opinion you don't need to apply noise reduction at all! --Urmas83 12:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • this is a really great shot, otherwise I would not have tried to enhance it. I reduced mainly chroma noise but damped luminance noise only a bit to keep details. So the result is still somewhat grainy, but if you zoom in it can be seen that there is no significant additional blur. As for Urmas83: We should not decline images because of high ISO, if this is necessary to get a sharp as possible photo under bad lighting situations.   Support QI for me. -- Smial 12:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- Yes, we should decline an image because of noise no matter how difficult the shooting conditions were. This is QIC, where image quality is assessed as objectively as possible, according to the image guidelines here. In my opinion this picture has better chances in FPC, where the subjective components of wow and beauty have considerable weigth. -- Alvesgaspar 14:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment According to guidelines there must not be "distracting amount of noise". In this picture the noise is not distracting, as it is not in many other pictures that have been rejected. The technical requirements is one side. We should not forget the main goal of QI: "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects." So don't keep your eye only on technical reguirements, witch are also very important, but on the main goal. I think this photo in valuable, even with noise! --Urmas83 14:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Ack. -- Smial 21:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support as Urmas83 --P e z i 11:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Smial 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Yambol (Ямбол) - Georgi Benkovski neighbourhood 2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Yambol (Ямбол), Bulgaria - Georgi Benkovski neighbourhood --Pudelek 23:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Dust spot at the very left --A.Savin 16:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Halicki 21:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not this way; please remove the spot first. --A.Savin 15:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Info Removed! --Pudelek 10:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC))
  •   Support OK now. --A.Savin 19:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 12:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Meenikunno_raba_laudtee.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Boardwalk at Meenikunno bog --Urmas83 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry but you used the wrong aperture, that makes the picture look washed out. But feel free to revert to discuss after perspective correction --Moroder 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Sometimes it seems to me that you are not looking at the picture but only the metadata. It is possible to change the metadata information about the aperture and it seems to me that if I had changed it to 1/16 or bigger, you would have approved it. There is no such thing as wrong aperture! It is photographers decision witch aperture to use. Some lenses might be a little unsharp at f/22 but not the one I am using. It is somewhat unsharp because it is HDR. And still so much sharper than some pictures accepted as Featured pictures. I am not desperate to get this picture approved as QI. I just want you to look at the picture and not the metadata. --Urmas83 09:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)*
      •   Comment This is not the way I do my reviews! I noticed that the picture was not up to the level of a good D800 picture and I wondered why and the high f value is the answer IMHO. An other reason could be the could be the high exposure time (pardon me if I look at your EXIF data) --Moroder 23:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   CommentAnd it would be good enough if I had captured it with my D80? --Urmas83 16:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- I'm not sure what the reason is but there seems to be no sharp parts in this picture. Did you use a tripode? -- Alvesgaspar 20:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    •   CommentMay be you are puzzled because you don't find where the focus is and you cannot accept the fact that everything is in focus. Tripod was used. It is sharp! It is just low contrast. It's because this is a High Dynamic Range photo and it's taken against the light. --Urmas83 16:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Everything is in focus? That’s the funniest definition of "focus" I’ve ever seen. The nearest object at the lower edge are the least unsharp, the background trees are entirely blurred. --Kreuzschnabel 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
        • It is a panorama and consists of 5 photos, so there are 5 focus points in this photo. Closest object seem naturally shaper, distant objects blurred. If you looked the photo at screen size then its sharp enough. Full size is 5 bigger than your screen, of course it looks blurred. Next time I resize my photos to 2200px longer edge.--Urmas83
  •   Oppose Nice composition but too soft for QI IMHO, and perspective distortion (see the background trees near the edges). --Kreuzschnabel 10:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    •   Comment There is no perspective distortion. It is a raised bog. It looks like a shallow hill because it is a shallow hill. There are no straight lines in nature. Don't want everything to be straightened. --Urmas83 16:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The trees near the left edge all leaning to the left and the ones on the right edge all leaning to the right is quite natural of course.--Kreuzschnabel 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It lacks very low frequency, it's too flat - like a painting. Looks like too much HDR effect.--Foerster 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support File is updated. --Aleks G 21:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Since it was you who uploaded the new file I consider it partly your work, so you’re not supposed to vote for it. --Kreuzschnabel 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • If someone changes the contrast of a photo it does not make the photo "his work". Anyway I don't approve the changes. The original photo is better. Exactly as I wanted it to be. It was good to see that we have so many digital photography experts amongst us. I wish you nice strong contrast and endlessly straight lines.--Urmas83 08:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Commons have indeed very talented and technically capable photographers; a quick look at our FP galleries illustrates the fact well. The interesting detail is that much of that talent and competence were, in some cases, acquired in this forum through the criticism and suggestion of others, pros and newbies alike. A different matter that you probably are not aware of is that Commons FPC and QIC are not artistic fora although artsy photos are usually welcome here. -- Alvesgaspar 19:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I said "partly his work". Making a derivative work makes him a co-author of the new version. --Kreuzschnabel 07:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 12:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «75 Netham Weir.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Netham Weir. Mattbuck 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Review   Comment Needs perspective correction (please look at the top on the right). Composition not optimal.--XRay 07:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that wall is actually vertical. Mattbuck 21:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      Comment Let's discuss.--XRay 07:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cccefalon 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Sportwagenmanufaktur Wiesmann (Gewerbegebiet Telgenkamp) -- 2005 -- 1508.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Wiesmann Roadster, Sportwagenmanufaktur Wiesmann, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 14:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose blown whites --A.Savin 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support What against this photo?! For me QI! -- Spurzem 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    •   Fixed I've reduced the lights. So white doesn't look blown.--XRay 05:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. --A.Savin 07:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • weak   Support – visible sharpening artifacts around edges at such a small size usually drive me to decline but regarding the fine composition and lighting it’s altogether good enough for me. --Kreuzschnabel 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • comment - if the photographer (or nominator) could tell me which exact model (MF3? MF30?) and model year this is, that would push me over into a supporting vote... Mr.choppers 23:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 12:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Kornkasten_beim_Breitner_Villanders_02.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Barn at the farmhouse "Breitner" Villanders - Northern view --Moroder 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Halo. White sharpening fringe (roof). Bad lighting. The fence in foreground is disturbing (composition issue)--Jebulon 10:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      Comment You don't like the fence, i'd wish it was wooden but I don't like to cut it - it's a matter of taste and of long dicussion for QI. The lighting is not bad its backlit but you can see every detail. There is no sharpening fringe because there was no sharpening done, the 5 px fringe (1 in one thousend of the size of the picture is a regular fringe with high res digital photography, I explained it several times on my comments. Let's look for other opinions ;-) --Moroder 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 11:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - colours are very dull - lacking contrast. Also not that sharp. Mattbuck 10:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness is more than OK for that resolution. I agree with Mattbuck the image looks dull and I guess some image editing could massively improve this image. Out of the cam photos look seldom really appealing even not with such a good camera like the D800. But I see no reason here to decline it as QI. --Tuxyso 09:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Info I made a slight change in light balance --Moroder 18:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Poor lighting due the contre-jour conditions. Alvesgaspar 14:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 12:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Oly-EM1-connector.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Olympus OM-D E-M1: bayonet mount, connector pins and image sensor --Kreuzschnabel 14:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose The camera is very dirty. Besides the upper right corner is disturbing. --Florian Fuchs 14:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      Support dirty camera? sorry, lets discuss! to me its QI, the corner can be corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 20:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      Done The shadow was cast by the camera belt, I left it there as a framing corresponding to the heavy shadow in the lower left, but I don’t need it there. And sorry I have been using the camera before, I just couldn’t resist ;-) --Kreuzschnabel 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Warum arbeitest du mit so komischem Mischlicht? Ich finde das sehr störend, warme Lichter und blaue Schatten. -- Smial 16:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Dieses Bild ist mit reinstem Tageslicht entstanden, unter einem Dachfenster. --Kreuzschnabel 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Seltsam. Sah mir nach Blitz + Tageslicht aus. Egal. Dann reflektiert da evtl. etwas ungünstig. Ich habe schon eine ganze Tabletopserie neu machen müssen, weil mir erst am PC-Bildschirm auffiel, das alle Bilder einen komischen, ungleichmäßigen Farbstich hatten. Dann schaute ich an mir herunter und entdeckte, daß ich Schussel einen roten Pullover trug... -- Smial 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  Oppose Composition (it looks like falling or flying) and also the crop are disturbing for me. Sorry --Moroder 13:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  •   Support For me everything looks OK. Some dust is imho no QI issue. --Tuxyso 09:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Unfortunate crop. Alvesgaspar 14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 12:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)