Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 02 2020

Consensual review edit

File:View_of_Hermitage_Community_Moorings_and_Canary_Wharf_from_Tower_Bridge._London.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of Hermitage Community Moorings and Canary Wharf from Tower Bridge. London --Ввласенко 07:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality--Horst J. Meuter 13:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose - I don't think this is sharp enough for a cityscape in 2019. I may well be voted down, but I think it's worth a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 13:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
      Support Can't detect any sharpness issue here. Even the corners are quite sharp for full frame and such a huge resolution. If local contrast diminishes on distant houses this is just real world physics, as long as we live under an atmosphere as opposed to empty space. It's not a fault of the image. --Johannes Robalotoff 09:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The left foreground isn't very sharp, for example. And I think some of the skyscrapers seem noisy or somehow off, while others are IMO insufficiently sharp. Nowadays, these kinds of panoramas can be excellent. -- Ikan Kekek 11:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan Kekek's comment. --PtrQs 18:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Blurring noise reduction? --Smial 20:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 15:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Butterfly_By_Ahamed_Rafid.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Honey collection of a butterfly from Transvaal Daisy flower.--Ahamed Rafid 08:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose The proper categorisation is needed, as well as description of the subject, at least the species names of flower and butterfly. The noise is very distracting. I'm afraid I must oppose this one until corrected. --Stoxastikos 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      Support Very good composition, good sharpness on the main object, a bit noisy. For me QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose pending successful denoising and proper categorization (the species of the butterfly and the flower). -- Ikan Kekek 13:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy, but by denoising this picture will become even more blotched. --PtrQs 13:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment If it were denoised first and then sharpened, it may have turned out all right. It looks like the noise was sharpened here excessively. --Stoxastikos (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as Spurzem, the noise not disturbs. --Ralf Roletschek 20:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I note again how few people are discussing the absence of acceptable categorization. -- Ikan Kekek 05:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • No categorization is required to assess the quality of an image. Why don't you open a competition: Commons:Quality categorisation candidates Then everyone who likes to play with categories can let off steam and photographers can assess the quality of photos here in peace. --Ralf Roletschek 11:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Really, stop trying to gaslight everyone. You know very well what the QI criteria are: They're at the top of this page! -- Ikan Kekek 11:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Ralf, so langsam verstehe ich deinen Feldzug nicht mehr. Du lehnst sinnvolle Kategorisierungen als QI-Kriterium ab. Du ziehst gute Fotos zurück, weil die wegen wirklich dürftiger Beschreibung Kontras kassieren. Wie genau sollen Nachnutzer deiner Meinung nach denn QI-Bilder suchen und (auf-)finden? Über den Dateinamen? Da lehnst du Änderungen ja ebenfalls ab. Ein Freund von wikidata bist du nach meiner Erinnerung auch nicht. Also wat denn nu? --Smial 23:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata und Semantik. Kategorien waren schon vor Jahrzehnten veraltet und Dateinamen sind ein technisches Hilfsmittel. Nachnutzer benutzen keine Kategorien sondern Google und Wikipedia. Ich lehne es ab, daß die Qualität von Fotos an Namen oder Kategorien gemessen wird. Fangen wir nach der Umstellung auf Wikidata bei Null an? Dann gibts keine Kategorien mehr. --Ralf Roletschek 08:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Google? Was muß man denn da eingeben? Zumindest mit "Prag AelterMarkt +site:commons.wikimedia.org" (und mehreren verschiedenen Schreibweisen und Kombinatiónen von "alter" und "markt" findet deine schönen Weihnachtsmarktbilder nicht. Ok, man kann seine Fotos latürnich mit Gewalt in möglichst viele Wikipediaartikel drücken, dann wird es sicherlich besser... -- Smial 09:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks like not to rescue. --A.Savin 12:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

File:San_Bartolomé,_Lago_del_Rey,_Alemania,_2019-05-17,_DD_21.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination St. Bartholomew's Church, Königssee, Germany. --Poco a poco 10:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Carlos yo 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. unnatural color fringes around the snow fields in the area on the top right. Sorry, not a QI for me. --Milseburg 20:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Neutral Purple fringes as per user Milseburg, as well as rather extended unsharp areas around both right corners. --Johannes Robalotoff 10:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
      CA Fixed cannot understand that somebody can expect sharpness in the subject at the front and back in the mountains. The subject here is the church Poco a poco 10:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Thank you for removing the purple fringes. As for sharpness: The composition lives from showing the church (which is relatively small on the image) in its surroundings, namely the lake and the mountains. Therefore I think it is normal to expect sharpness of the mountain. Moreover, from the technical point of view it is normal to expect the sharpness as described, because with 35 mm focal length at full frame and with f/9 you have a vast depth of field, so that both church and mountains will be sharp with almost any sensible focus. If you look at the center for the image, you can see that this is actually the case there. Only to the right sharpness falls strongly off. This is not a DoF issue, but it looks as if it were just a common lens limitation. (May be the fact that the EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM is a super-zoom weighted out the manufacturers pro classification here? This model was also designed before 2004, when nobody could dream of 50 MP sensors..) The effect exists also on the left, but less prominent, may be because the image was cropped at the left (assuming that your lens is not decentered). --Johannes Robalotoff 13:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  Comment The lens weakens towards the edges of the image, that's true. On the other hand, as is well known, six MPixels are sufficient for any image magnification at normal viewing distances. Only with higher requirements you really need the higher resolutions. But if somebody offers his photos in (nearly) full resolution and in this resolution lens defects become visible which would not be visible at six MPixels, then in my opinion a "decline" is unfair if it is obvious that the photographer got the best out of his lens and at the same time the defect is not visible at "normal" viewing distances. We had some cases recently where the photographer worked with an open aperture and absurdly short exposure times, which caused edge blurring. Of course, I consider this a mistake. It is also an error if you shoot unnecessarily with f/22 or f/32 and the image is completely blurred due to diffraction. And now we come to downscaling: It is absurd to insist that photos must not be reduced in size. Taken with the same lens under the same conditions, only with a, let's say, eight-megapixel camera and uploaded with native resolution, the (successfully removed) CA would probably have been found, but no significant blurring, and the photo would have been accepted without any trouble. I don't believe in extreme reduction either, so I'm asking for at least six megapixels in 2019 for photos of this kind, but a reasonable and moderate reduction may well be necessary, especially in the case of perspective corrections. I therefore consider the stubborn insistence that full resolution is always required and then counting pixels to be counterproductive and not appropriate for the QI process. --Smial 09:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  Comment I totally agree with you, Smial. I would appreciate it if we could discard the QI rule that forbids downscaling, for exactly the reasons that you describe. (Alternatively: Recommend review on a certain downscaled size.) I would also support the current image, if the kind of reasoning which you outlined were commonly accepted on this page. We should have at least roughly consistent judging. Unfortunately most reviewers decline images with sharpness defects of that kind at full resolution. Therefore changed to neutral only at the moment. --Johannes Robalotoff 09:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The snow surfaces are still a tiny bit too bright, but that's counting peas. Excellent rework and definitely QI now. --Smial 08:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Ps: From a technical point of view I would like to know how the color fringes on the upper right came about, because they didn't look like the typical lateral chromatic aberration.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 14:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

File:LSG_Sörenberg.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sörenberg, protected Landscape in Rems-Murr-Kreis, Germany. --Laserlicht 13:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 18:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Tilted ccw. --Milseburg 20:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Corrected the ccw tilt. --Laserlicht 22:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I think, it´s ok now. --Milseburg (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 14:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Front_FFW_Hof_20191212.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Front view of the Volunteer fire department of Hof, Bavaria, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 14:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Many dust spots to remove. --Steindy 20:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done Dust spots removed, but I assume that some rainy spots on buildings were classified as dust spots. It had been rained before the photographs were created, so maybe this could lead to some pseudo dust spots --PantheraLeo1359531 11:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Not all. --Steindy 00:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed sky; parts of the building are not sharp. --A.Savin 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Doesn't look overexposed to me, but rather, I see it as an accurate portrayal of a type of light I've sometimes seen after a storm. Sharp enough, IMO, in this light. -- Ikan Kekek 05:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Dust spots were removed, thanks fo the annotations --PantheraLeo1359531 07:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I also think that the sky is not overexposed. Winter skies are often this way, almost white and featureless, especially during or after the rain/snowfall. The sharpness is acceptable. --Stoxastikos (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 14:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)