Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 13 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Noordflank_van_de_Vorderrhein_15-09-2022._(d.j.b)_02.jpg edit

 

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 18:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teatro_de_la_Ópera,_Roma,_Italia,_2022-09-16,_DD_28.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Teatro dell'Opera, Rome, Italy --Poco a poco 10:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Leaning CW (left side) --Terragio67 10:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please, fix verticals on the left part of the building. --Terragio67 10:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment   New version Poco a poco 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    •   Support Really better now, THX.
      Good quality. --Terragio67 21:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    •   Support Good Quality --Snehrashmi 02:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 20:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Vorderrhein from the Vorderrheinbrücke at Waltensburg-Vuorz, railway station 22-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg edit

 

  •   Comment Because it doesn't show the railway station. If you retitle it "View from the Vorderrheinbrücke of the Vorderrhein downstream" and then include in your file description that that bridge is at the Waltensburg/Vuorz Railway Station, things will be clear. -- Ikan Kekek 09:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. file name and description changed.Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 17:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. Filename hopefully correct. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 05:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Weak support I think the filename is OK now. I'm fine with motion blur in the water and more bothered by motion blur in the plants. -- Ikan Kekek 10:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Note: the blurry leaves are a (deliberate) consequence of the long exposure time.--Famberhorst 17:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't looked at the exposure time. -- Ikan Kekek 06:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I understand it's a long exposure which is really common for a river, but the worst part is in these type of pictures, if anything moves except the subject it really makes the photo bad and in these case, those are the trees and leaves. You are an experienced photographer, I think you know that. Also, some of the stones look over exposed. If you want to do some research, you can use google to see various longer exposure river shots which will give you more knowledge on these type of photographs --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 10:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tekniska_museet,_Stockholm_(P1090641).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Putto with telephone in the Swedish Museum of Technology --MB-one 09:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose harsh flashlight shadows and even then slight underexposure --Grunpfnul 09:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. Pushed the exposure a bit. The shadows are not distracting IMO. Please discuss. --MB-one 16:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 09:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me.--Ermell 10:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Grunpfnul. --Smial 14:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Grunpfnul --Jakubhal 15:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me --Llez 07:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMHO, the hard shadow is quite distracting. --C messier 21:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Completely white subjects on white backgrounds are always difficult, the result is good. --Aristeas 09:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good for white-on-white. BigDom 07:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 20:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)