Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 28 2015

Consensual review edit

File:2014_Kościół_św._Marii_Magdaleny_w_Tarnowie,_02.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Tarnów 2 --Jacek Halicki 07:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Goo quality. ~~~~
    (no valid vote --Hubertl 07:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC))
  •   Oppose Perspective overcorrected. --Smial 11:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Mah... Livioandronico2013 21:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Which kind of argument is "Mah..."? See image note. -- Smial 09:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 06:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Kdfchapeau2.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Clothing in Cameroon. By User:Photokadaffi --Geugeor 12:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Medium69 12:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Not sharp enough for portrait photography. I see no focus point. --Cccefalon 15:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Cccefalon --Lmbuga 22:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good composition and lighting, so the microscopic amount of motion blur can be tolerated. Focus is on the left eye and eyebrow. Nice portrait - if scaled down to about 6 MPix, which meets QI criteria perfectly, no one would have noticed any fault. Please don't push QI criteria to utopic levels which can only be gained with $$$$-lenses and cameras under perfect laboratory or studio conditions. -- Smial 10:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, with regrets. A wonderful portrait that would have been a valuable addition to Commons. Unfortunately, as Cccefalon noticed, the sharpness is insufficient. I cannot see if this is misfocused, motion blur, or camera shake related, but for sure it is too much - even scaled down to lower resolution. --Hendric Stattmann 10:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, good lighting and a sufficient sharpness --Elrond 19:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Enough sharpness for QI. --Palauenc05 21:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per opposers. + the top of the head of the man behind is confusing with the fez.--Jebulon 23:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the focus is good, but there is no enough speed, and the "not very sharp effect" come from a little motion blur coming from the camera+200mm lens (you need at least 1/200S). IMO. Christian Ferrer 13:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Kdfcoiff3.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Girl hairdressing in Cameroon By User:Photokadaffi --Geugeor 12:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support QI for me --Halavar 14:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No suitable categories. --Cccefalon 15:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Somewhat messy background, but this is mostly inevitable in street scenes. -- Smial 11:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but face not sharp enough. A pity.--Jebulon 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Meanwhile You (and others) have pushed quality criteria to absurd high standards (or try to do so). This is some kind of street photography, not a studio shot for high-gloss magazines. -- Smial 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
"Quality" means "quality". And quality is not absurd. This is not a "street photograph", but a really posed portrait. And it is unsharp.--Jebulon 23:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
A funny way to apply double standards. See e.g. File:Evzone at guard unknown soldier tomb Athens Greece.jpg, which is already QI and has less sharpness and worse lighting. -- Smial 08:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was going to support this photo, but, unfortunately, no. Oppose. :-( The texture of the clothes is lost, the texture of hairs is lost. This can be taken with Nikon D90. The probable cause may be denoising: the photo was taken with ISO 800. Dmitry Ivanov 19:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC).
  •   Support IMO sharp enough, it doesn't run for FP. --Palauenc05 21:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)