Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 08 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Fishing_in_recife,_pernambuco,_Brazil.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fishing in recife, pernambuco, Brazil --The Photographer 10:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality: pretty good composition, but far too noisy IMO. --Peulle 11:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Noise is gone. Let me know if it's ok --The Photographer 12:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Big difference between the versions. I think this one is OK. -- Ikan Kekek 07:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 11:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's OK now.--Peulle 20:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 21:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2016_77.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Crown & Polish Eagle atop Old Town Hall Tower in Cracow (Kraków) catch the late summer evening light --Scotch Mist 07:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Not a good composition. At first I would like to see more of the townhall. At second; the shadows are too strong. Sorry no Q1 for me --Michielverbeek 06:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review - with regard to the points you have raised there are many images of the tower that remains of the Old Town Hall in Krakow Main Market Square but few of the crown and eagle atop the tower. Catching both in a good light was fortunate on my part but has resulted in the base being in shadow - as this contains little detail I thought I should propose image for consensual review for further opinion as a guide for future nominations/reviews. --Scotch Mist 12:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Michiel that the lower part of the photo is too dark, and it's not that sharp, either, with the caveat that this is a large file. -- Ikan Kekek 07:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too dark. Charlesjsharp 11:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Castle_of_Disneyland_Park_(Paris).jpg edit

File:Castle of Disneyland Park (Paris).jpg

  • Nomination Castle of Disneyland Park (Paris) --Livioandronico2013 18:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree lower part is too unsharp for QI --Cvmontuy 05:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cvmontuy, and I'm also seeing some unnatural-looking borders in some places, which I think have chromatic aberration though someone with better eyes for that than I would be a better judge of that. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Also per Cvmontuy.--Peulle 11:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Isn't this subject of copyright as there is no FOP in France? We had a similar story some months ago here... --Basotxerri 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cvmontuy --Sandro Halank 17:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016_Singapur,_Chinatown,_Świątynia_i_Muzeum_Relikwi_Zęba_Buddy_(06).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Buddha Tooth Relic Temple and Museum. Chinatown, Central Region, Singapore. --Halavar 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Please sharpen a bit. Looking at the middle and upper reaches of the temple causes me eye strain, from the combination of the dull light of that day and unsharpness. -- Ikan Kekek 14:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done Yor request is done. --Halavar 15:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm still unsure of this one. Can you do more? -- Ikan Kekek 15:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment That is all I can do, without destroying my image. Adding more sharpness means more noise. Sharpness level now is OK for a QI. --Halavar 16:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand that there are limits to what can be done in post-processing. I'll let someone else pass judgment on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek 17:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, overprocessed, banding stripes over the whole sky. --A.Savin 06:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The bandings in the clouds are usually a result of size reduction and easy to fix. Despite of that the picture is QI for me. --Ermell 08:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Wrong! Bandind in the sky is mostly a result of overdoing of highlight/shadow correction. --A.Savin 18:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment What banding stripes? I don't understand... --Halavar 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment The border line between different colour tones gets visible. In your picture on the top left area. You can fix that by blurring that part.--Ermell 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective distortion. Charlesjsharp 11:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Perspective distortion? Really? Please show me where? --Halavar 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Jardín_de_Fin,_Kashan,_Irán,_2016-09-19,_DD_13.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fin Garden, Kashan, Iran --Poco a poco 08:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 08:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At this stade. The top right is blurred as well as both side, the shadows are a bit strong, the right area is a bit overexposed (or at least too bright), there is purple fringe or a contour everywhere on the trees. --Christian Ferrer 09:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, agree, there is room for improvement, will upload a new version tomorrow Poco a poco 16:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Charlesjsharp 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version updated (reworking CA, perspective, highlights, shadows) Poco a poco 19:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Still oppose, 1/that is not the same image. 2/Though on this one the main subject seems better, the side are still not good (blurred and ovexposed), and the ground is to my eyes too bright or /and overexposed. I see there is one support, but the ground is so bright that there is no details visible on it. Sorry but I'm wonder how this can be a QI. --Christian Ferrer 17:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks overexposed and blurry.--Peulle 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed and blurry. Adamdaley 02:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)