Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 19 2016

Consensual review edit

File:16-02-14-Railjet-innen-_RR25728.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Railjet innen, erste Klasse --Ralf Roletschek 15:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 15:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too noisy --A.Savin 16:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose come guys,this just not --Livioandronico2013 17:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark areas posterized, noise, lack of DOF, probably some motion blur. -- Smial 13:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 12:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Baden-Baden 10-2015 img08 Merkur tower.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Baden-Baden: Merkur tower --A.Savin 18:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Sorry: Perspective, top crop, bottom crop. --Code 08:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't get the problem. 1) It is a close shot of a tower from the ground, so perspective issues are intended and you cannot expect all verticals to be straight anyway 2) the antenna is really very long and superfluous, it would make few sense to show it entirely, otherwise we had nothing but sky (+ this antenna) on the complete upper half of the photo. And 3) what's wrong with bottom crop? --A.Savin 13:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment Well, one can surely discuss about the perspective, but the cut antenna is clearly a no go in my opinion. The bottom crop is too tight IMO, look at the object (cube?) in the foreground which should be visible either completely or not at all. This is not a QI. It would of course be nice if someone else could vote, too. --Code 06:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as for code. -- Smial 12:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 12:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File:028_2014_08_04_Urlaub_Sulden.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination New Parish Church of St. Gertraud. --F. Riedelio 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}} Too much noise for a quality image.--Rftblr 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I do not see an overabundance of noise, other than the mountains when very zoomed in. Please point to the areas that are too noisy. --Balon Greyjoy 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment The whole shadow area of the church exhibits noticeable noise. Some of what at first glance appears to be stains on the facade, is actually horizontal banding noise (horizontal bright stripes above the windows on the apse). For me this is not quality. --Rftblr 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done New developed version (Lightroom V6.4) uploaded. Additional noise decrease in Corel PaintShop Pro X7.
    •   Comment The photo was made in RAW-format (.cr2), converted in Lightroom to .dng. and exported to .jpg. --F. Riedelio 14:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment I withdraw my opposition. However I think you overdid the noise reduction on the top half of the aspe. Everything else looks OK now. Still, another reviewer should decide. --Rftblr 14:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but really too much noise, please look to the grass, sorry --Michielverbeek 23:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't even understand what you're talking about. Easily meets QI criteria. Noise is not an issue here (IMO noise is not an issue at all as long as it's not chromatic noise or leads to a loss of details, which is not the case here). --Code 07:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 13:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose First version had some surprising noise in midtones and shadows, that could have been somewhat reduced. But the current version lost too much detail, so I'm very unhappy with this rework. -- Smial 13:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I am for it! --Caballero1967 21:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 21:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Museu da inconfidencia.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Museum of the Inconfidência, Ouro Preto, Brazil (by Ricardotakamura) --ArionEstar 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. The overall quality is very bad. Nearly all details are gone. I don't know what happened in the postprocessing but this looks like upscaled ore somewhat. Hard to say. This cannot be QI in my eyes. --Code 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} CA, noise, posterisation. Sharpening and noise reduction fight against each other. Somewhat too high colour saturation. striked, because without signature --Hubertl 09:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC),br/>
  •   Support I would say that for a 30 second exposure the loss of detail is not too bad, if it were downscaled until the detail loss was imperceptable it would still be a large enough image. It is only when viewing at original (very high) resolution that the flaws become very visible. --Prosthetic Head 13:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Severe CAs, perspective not corrected. At full resolution the quality is not acceptable, but downsized at nearly 6 Mpix, the level of detail is OK. And some overexposure on the walls near the lamps. --C messier 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavily processed (sharpened?), real image quality is not high enough at this resolution. --Shansov.net 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nothing to add. --Carschten 10:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 15:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Several quality issues. --A.Savin 13:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Fix chromatic aberrations, please. That's the most glaring issue (eg. look at the windows on a buildings near very right and left side of the frame) --SkywalkerPL 10:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I find it of good quality. --Caballero1967 21:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 21:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)