Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 02 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Besouro_01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Nature of Viamão by Paulo rsmenezes -- Jaceron 23:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 00:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't think a photo of an unidentified flower and an unidentified insect can be a QI. Also, are the white parts of the flower really that bright, or is that overexposure? -- Ikan Kekek 07:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Identification at least of the flower or of the insect would be necessary, better of both of them. And the bigger problem is that the petals of the flower are really overexposed. Sorry! --Aristeas 09:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Chania_from_Akrotiri_02_2019.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Greek city of Chania, isle of Crete, as seen from the peninsula of Akrotiri. --Cayambe 13:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
    why only 9Mpx, this camera may take at 30Mpx --Ezarate 13:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Thanks for the review and question. I reduced the in-camera image size from 45 to 25 MP; here 9 MP after cropping part of the sky and the foreground. At full 45 MP size, most of the images appear unsharp in the 100% view... which makes them to be rejected (declined) here :-(. I also think that 9MP is still a quite valuable file size. What do you think of this? --Cayambe 21:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm in doubt now. I prefer another opinion --Ezarate 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)  Comment Sent to Discussion. --Cayambe 10:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image looks extremely weird. On one hand there is strong oversharpening and on the other hand blurred details. In all reviews I found, the used lens (per Exif: Nikkor Z 24-70mm F4) is rated rather high and should make acceptable sharp images at least up to about 20 MPixels. There must either be some errors in image processing, or the lens is defective. --Smial 11:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial. -- Ikan Kekek 16:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Parque_Nacional_de_los-Arcos-Utah2441.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Arches National Park, Utah, USA --Poco a poco 07:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose Too soft considering the relatively low resolution --MB-one 09:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
      Support Good compositon, very good lighting und good sharpness. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose - I'm with MB-one here. -- Ikan Kekek 15:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose Me too. I don't understand why Poco nominates 14y old photos like these. --Podzemnik 21:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I understand the criteria of review less and less. The picture is good: perfect sharpness, good composition, very good light, but at 14 years of age it is too old for QI. Is it correct that way? -- Spurzem 08:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good rework, but regarding the image resolution the sharpness in the image corners does not meet modern standards, sorry. --Smial 10:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Smial, wahrscheinlich sollte ich wirklich aufhören verstehen zu wollen, um was es hier geht oder was ein Qualitätsbild ist. Einerseits werden fast täglich mittelmäßige Knipsbilder mit Unter- und Überbelichtungen, übersät mit Lichtreflexen usw. hochgejubelt, ganz abgesehen von dem, was man vielleicht Bildgestaltung nennen könnte, und ein ausgezeichnetes Foto wird abgeschmettert, weil es vor 14 Jahren mit einer für heutige Begriffe altmodischen Kamera aufgenommen wurde. Macht weiter so, dann geht es wie in KEB, dass kaum noch jemand ein Bild vorstellt. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 11:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Ich bin ganz bei dir, was die Gestaltung der Aufnahme angeht, das ist ein sehr "schönes" Bild. Aber es hat nur fünf MPixel, und da erwarte ich heute durchgehende Schärfe. Hätte es 24 oder 36 MPixel, dann würde ich eine ähnliche Weichheit (auf Pixelebene!) in den Ecken ohne weiteres tolerieren, denn ein Nachnutzer könnte das dann ja problemlos auf sechs MPixel herunterrechnen und hätte dann ein immer noch für die allermeisten Anwendungen ausreichend großes Foto, dann aber eben ohne diese verwaschenen Bildecken. Natürlich kann man auch dieses Bild hier verkleinern, um eine schärfere Anmutung zu erzielen, aber dann wäre man sehr schnell bei zwei MPixeln, also sowas wie "Full HD", und das ist mir zu wenig heutzutage für ein statisches Landschaftsfoto bei reichlich Licht. -- Smial 00:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

File:חוף_פלמחים.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Palmachim beach. By User:LizzyShaanan --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion Dramatic moment, but the dynamic range is too great, as large sections look really black or nearly so. Perhaps this photo could be redeveloped from the RAW file, but if not, I will have to decline/oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 15:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    I spent some time in the photo editor, but making it lighter kills all magic --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
      Comment - How about if User:LizzyShaanan redevelops it from her raw? Her last contribution was in 2018. Are you in touch with her? -- Ikan Kekek 10:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    No, I am not. As a rule, it is hopeless to contact people who participted in contests. I nominate a lot of photos from WLM, and that is a sad side of this business. And I am only able to use basic software so can not fix everything. In any case, thank you, as always, for commenting. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 23:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
      Comment - Understood. I also get what you're saying about magic - it has that, but it doesn't look realistic. Rather than personally opposing, I'm taking the unusual step of sending this directly to Consensual Review for others to look at the photo, read this discussion and give their opinions and judgments. -- Ikan Kekek 08:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   SupportIn the case of an image design based on a silhouette, dark or completely black areas are perfectly fine. Apart from a slight oversharpening, I do not see significant deficits. An english description would have been nice. -- Smial 12:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I wasn't thinking of this as a silhouette. Thanks for your vote and comments. -- Ikan Kekek 19:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with Smial on the silhouette. But accross the dynamic range, I think that the light halo at the top looks overexposed. Too bad, the colours on the horizon made me think that this picture would look great if the top wasn't overexposed. --Gyrostat 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Smial’s interpretation as a silhouette convinces me. (I have added a short English description.) --Aristeas 09:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe 14:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Epic. --Podzemnik 03:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

File:RelojMDP.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Clock in old train station of Mar del Plata, next used as bus station, and in 2017 as building of Shopping Aldrey --Ezarate 13:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline The crop feels somewhat asymmetrical, can you center the clock a bit? --PantheraLeo1359531 14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Piotr Bart 15:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. Why should it be insufficient? -- Spurzem 10:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peulle: Why did you decline? -- Spurzem 10:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Ezarate, why did you promote? I don't understand the counting here. I count 1 supporting vote and 1 opposing vote. What the hell is going on? -- Ikan Kekek 20:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I understand PantheraLeo1359531's "Thank you" as "support". But perhaps we should wait for more votes. -- Spurzem 21:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not a supporting vote until he says it is. I sometimes thank people for improvements that prevent me from voting against a photo and don't vote for it, either. -- Ikan Kekek 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, Ezarate is a self-interested person in this nomination, so if he's responsible for the counting, it looks like he's being presumptuous or at least hasty. -- Ikan Kekek 22:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Look history, Panthera promoted it next Piotr Bart changed to CR next Spurzem support it, so 2 support, 1 oppose Ezarate 22:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, but that wasn't clear because no vote symbol was shown. -- Ikan Kekek 16:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think it's too soft for such an easy to take photo. --Podzemnik 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemik --Ermell 08:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Podzemnik 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)