Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 23 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Girija_Devi_at_Bhopal_(1).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Girija Devi Performing at Bharat_Bhavan Bhopal in July 2015 in a program - Uttar Pradesh Mahotsav --Suyash.dwivedi 13:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Lack of detail --Cvmontuy 14:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 16:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Given the low resolution, the face (and hand, of course) is not quite sharp enough.--Peulle 15:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Khirokitia near Larnaca 01-2017 img1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Archaeological site of Khirokitia near Larnaca --A.Savin 01:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This kind of composition requires even sharpness throughout the image, but here only a central part of the image is unconditionally sharp; sharpness obviously drops from the centre to the corners of the photo (unsharp areas are marked); the upper right corner is too noisy, the “grains” of the noise are clearly visible on leaves. Dmitry Ivanov 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
  •   Support Noise is not so disturbing IMO and the sharpness is o.k. The optical performance reaches its limits at 9mm and this distance.--Ermell (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    • To say the truth, your arguments about limits of the optics sound veeery strange. The “art of QI” is just in getting round of limits of a camera. First, do are you sure that this distance and 9 mm were the best decision for this scene?.. Well, assume it was. So, then, when you nominate your picture, you have to minimize the undesirable influence of technical limits whith processing. Let’s reason together. As of noise: you can make a mask for leaves and denoise this area without blurring of the image in whole. As of sharpness. Details on the periphery of the picture have gone never to return, but you can increase the seeming sharpness of these areas (using the masks to avoid oversharping in the centre). These are solutions which jumped in my mind just now, without any consideration. I am sure there are other, more sophisticated solutions. Use them and you, probably, get a satisfactory QI, instead this splash-dash. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
  •   Oppose I must admit, I'm not quite happy with the sharpness either; only the centre is sharp.--Peulle 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine to me Poco a poco 21:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm on the opposers' side in this case, as I find the sharpness mediocre and don't really feel anything compelling that compensates for that. -- Ikan Kekek 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)