Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2007

< Commons:Quality images candidates

Consensual ReviewEdit

  • Nomination Church in Göttingen. --Dschwen
  • Promotion a clear image-LadyofHats 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For me - bad perspective. Lestat 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please remember, that this is not FP. You are probably alluding to the wide-angle effect. Whether this is bad is probably a matter of personal taste. There are no obvious flaws such as tilt in the picture. --Dschwen 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • what would be wrong in the perspectie?-LadyofHats 02:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In my opinion it isn't wide-angle shot, but photo combined from 2 or more photos in program like Panorama Tools. So, perspective is unnatural and fake. Tower is wider on the top then in the middle of builiding. "Hedersche Buchhandlung" has crooked roof. Pictures with little perspective problems has declined on QI. Why this image should have QI title? Lestat 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • How the wide angle is achieved doesnt matter. As for the tower being wider on the top then in the middle, this is simply wrong. The perspective was corrected to achive perfectly vertical building corners. Some work went into this picture and I'm fairly happy with the outcome. The crooked roof is a result of the projection that was used. A rectilinear projection would have led to unpleasant areawise unproportianality. --Dschwen 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you can argue about, wether you like the perspective or not - some famous photographers do that because of artistic reasons others decline that catigorical. But beside that the quality of the picture is superb. So i would promote it. Simonizer 12:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 2 Support 1 Oppose ---> Promoted

  • Nomination Modern architecture in Katowice. Version 2. --Lestat 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I like the cut trees in front of the building, maybe do a crop of these. In this version there's too much shadow and color fringes are strong. --Ikiwaner 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mayby consensual review for this photo? I don't understand Ikiwaner review. Croping pictures when picture perfectly see concepts of modern architecture of this building? Shadows and color fringes aren't high and on permissible level for QI. WarX 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting is not good (too harsh), resulting in part of the building being in shadow. - Alvesgaspar 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 1 Support 2 Oppose ---> Not promoted

  • Nomination image created by Nino Barbieri, nominated by me--LadyofHats 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Nothing interesting, bad crop. Lestat 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • interesting subject or not has nothing to do weather it has quality. and i do not find the crop bad-LadyofHats 02:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 0 Support 1 Oppose ---> Not promoted

  • Nomination Tassled scorpionfish. Scorpaenopsis oxycephala --Jnpet 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Object can't be easily seperated from the background - even at fullsize. Dull colours and blurry. norro 11:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If there was a problem with the image itself, such as focus, over exposure , etc., I wouldn't have an issue, but when it's declined because of subject matter, I have a problem. This is not FP. Took me long enough to understand the difference. This is an image of a tassled scorpionfish. They are ambush preditors. They look like a rock to blend in so they can surprise their prey. Practically every picture of a scorpionfish would be like this in the wild. Possibly a better picture could be done in a white washed aquarium, but frankly, I would prefer real wild-life shots. Jnpet 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is another important effect which was not mentioned here, that is the fact that light becomes more and more bluish with depth as a result of the longer wavelengths (red) being absorbed by the water. The effect may be dramatic in underwater photo. I tried to correct it in this edited version, but it might be overdone. What do you think? Alvesgaspar 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • what i find wrong on the picture is not the subgect but the missing contrast wich removes volume on the texture. wich is completly fixed on the edited version (even when i would sugest doing it no so dramatically as Alvesgaspar did). that the fish looks like the background i find actually as a good thing for the foto any case i would support an edited version-LadyofHats 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 0 Support 3 Oppose ---> Not promoted

  • Nomination Closeup of a bluespotted ribbontail ray --Jnpet 18:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline QI in consideration of the fact that it is a submarine shot. --Leyo 00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this promotion. The image has an overall green tint and it's not really sharp. Furthermore the subject is that cropped that you can hardly identify it to be a ray. Leyo is right, it is a submarine shot, but even submarine shots can meet the QI demands. norro 11:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I also disagree with the promotion. A quick google search turned up some much better images (though small), for example this or this, both of which show the whole ray and have better colours. --Pharaoh Hound 12:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I sort of agree, this was a shot of the most cooperative ray I've ever encountered. They are very common, but they tend to swim away when you get too close. Unfortunately, the flash didn't bring out the colors in this instance. Hence the green. But I do like the details though. Only problem with this image is the color. Jnpet 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have created an edit which improves the colour and is downsized somewhat to increase sharpness here. However, the image is still too blurry to qualify (in my opinion). --Pharaoh Hound 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • May I ask what photo editing tool you used to achieve this edit? (Question also for Alvesgaspar on his edit of the Scorpionfish). I've been exploring Gimp for my editing, but new to photo editing software. Would appreciate some advice on this. Jnpet 07:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe any standard photo editing tool is capable of doing it. I use Corel PhotoPaint 9 to manipulate the "tone curves" of the image (Photoshop is too expensive!). A "tone curve" of a colour chanel (R, B and G) is the distribution of the intensity of that ink (0 to 100%) along the various tones of gray (0 to 256). This tool allows, for example, to change the intensity of only the darker blue parts of the image. Much easier to do than to explain... Alvesgaspar 11:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I used Adobe Photoshop Elements version 3.0, as can be seen on the extended metadata. My brother purchased the program, and therefore saved me the expense of having good software (on of the few instances where he is genuinely helpful to me). --Pharaoh Hound 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • there is a point in wich i disagree on your argumentation. that there are other better pictures should not in any case afect weather this one has quality or not. less if you show a FP! gallery to compare. the subject can be recognised as a ray. you keep confusing what the image subject with its quality. i find the image suficient to be OI. but have to admit the eddited version is better--LadyofHats 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 1 Support 3 Oppose ---> Not promoted

  • Nomination b/w sunset with impressive mood --Ikiwaner 22:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Beautiful night ambiance and nice setting. --Leyo 17:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. But the image needs some downsampling in order to eliminate (some of) that noise. After that, who knows?... Also, there is a considerable CCW tilt which should be corrected. Alvesgaspar 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then, you might prefer the first version that has been uploaded. --Leyo 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do, but it might be too small. Was the original picture upsampled? - Alvesgaspar 23:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no idea, sorry. --Leyo 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The exposure of this image is very good, and the ambiance itself should make it QI! I'm not sure there is much to do with the noise, which I admit is not really nice, but the resolution is so big that we can live with it CyrilB 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is something quite easy to do with the noise: to downsample the image, or rather, to put it back to its original dimensions (the first version mentioned above?). Why keep an oversized and extremely noisy picture? - Alvesgaspar 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • After your annotations I have made some changes. 1° clockwise rotation, resized the image and reduced the noise (the original file is very noisy because if the high ISO-value and and the necessary exposure correction . Paul_Morphy 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support After these changes, it is just a great picture! --Leyo 13:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support promotion now, despite remaining noise ;-) - Alvesgaspar 13:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 3 Support 0 Oppose ---> Promoted

  • Nomination Highresolution linear macro panoramic --Dschwen 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Excellent! Jnpet 15:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Image already FP! --Leyo 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that a reason to decline? Anyways it was promoted to FP after I nominated it here (didn't count on the nomination to pass. So remove it if you wish. --Dschwen 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not change a verdict of a reviewed image. If you wish to dispute the verdict, please follow the instructions as set out for consensual review above. Jnpet 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC
  •   Support if anybody asks for my opinion although i do think Dschwen should humbly withdraw his nomination to QI as FP is acheived. --Diligent 13:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said its fine with me either way. FP and QI are two different things, and the opposite (first QI then FP) has happened befre as well). But I'm not hell bent on getting that green seal. The thing is just: I see QI as a service for commons users, not as a reward for uploaders (so humility is of no concern here). The goal of QI should be forming a subset of good pictures which people can browse (not appealing to the personal vanity). Declining QI to FPs means the users will have to browse two collections instead of one. But this is just my view. If everyone else things I'm a greedy award-snatcher ;-) just decline QI status to the pic, I won't be upset. --Dschwen 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This time I have to acknowledge Dschwen ;-). QI is a database of good quality pictures, FP is (also) a "vanity fair" for greedy award-raiders. But there is still some confusion. Please check the going-on QI and FP discussions here. - Alvesgaspar 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 3 Support 1 Oppose ---> Promoted

  • Nomination Old State House Boston --Dschwen 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice composition and dramatic perspective. Sharp image, good colouring. - Alvesgaspar 18:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Visible chromatic aberration, that dramatic perspective isn't good in my opinion. Lestat 10:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There is some purple fringing, but it is restricted to the bright sky and not affecting the central subject. The perspective is used to emphasize the small building among the high rises. --Dschwen 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 2 Support 1 Oppose --->  Promoted

Where is third support? I see only two... Dschwen is nominator. Lestat 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Corrected. Jnpet 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Young women, Chichicastenango, Guatemala by User:Nanosmile (Reinhard Jahn). Denoised -- Drini 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion This denoised version meets QI standards as far as I can see. --Leyo 15:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to discord again, that was a nice try but didn't work. I agree this is a beatiful picture, almost like a painting, but the strong posterization doesn't allow a promotion to QI in the light of the existing guidelines. Maybe some recognizion of "beatiful picture" can be created in which image quality and resolution/size is not as critical as in here. - Alvesgaspar 17:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • But it looks ok after downsampling a bit. I'm currently unsure whether overly large size should be held against a picture when downsampled to a still acceptable size it looks good. --Dschwen 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This wasn't posterization but a tiny selective gaussian blur (with a very small radius and delta). This may still NOT be feature image quality, but hey! this is NOT featured image candidates. -- Drini 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Besides, which guidelines you refer to? the purpose of QIC is to encourage people, to enhance pictures. Commons:Quality images guidelines DOES suggest to tweak your pictures before posting them here (check for instance about perspective distortion). There's nothign on the guidelines that pictures can't be improved to reach QI status and as far as I understand, it suggests you to do that. -- Drini 22:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I might prefer the "unedited" version, but both of them are outstanding! color, depth of focus, and, mainly, the subjects! make it QI! CyrilB 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Meets all the required criteria, in my view. --MichaelMaggs 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support to be fair. i complained about the grain and stated it is a beautiful picture. grain gone -> my vote :-) --Diligent 13:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 6 Support 1 Oppose ---> Promoted

  • Nomination: Scarpe abbandonate sotto la pioggia a Napoli --Mattia Luigi Nappi 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC),(UTC)
  • Review Let's wait for the FP decision, Support if not a FP --Ikiwaner 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What FP decision, the image was not even nominated? I'm sorry but I don't like it, either aesthetically or as a photo. Some parts of the image are blown by excessive light. Is it dirty water in the ground? Alvesgaspar 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This decision. I think its good photography because everybody asks "why are the shoes abandoned in the dirty water"? The overexposure here is no problem since there would not be any interesting details in the blown out area. Just very few images here tell a story for reflexion. --Ikiwaner 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But this photo was never nominated in the Commons:Featured picture candidates page! Please check again and proceed with the nomination, if you like, acording to the procedure explained in the page. Alvesgaspar 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • never mind, I did it myself! :-) Alvesgaspar 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • like Alvesgaspar, I am disturbed by the excessive light (surexposition) - this shot is not that difficult to take with nice grey shades and it fails in that account. Not QI. --Diligent 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with both Alvesgaspar and Diligent. Not a QI, in my view, for the reasons they give. --MichaelMaggs 16:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support, 2 oppose >> not promoted - Alvesgaspar 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination digestive system diagram--LadyofHats 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice illustration, but needs improvements in the text (better alignment, no need for so many colours) and in the segments linking the organs to the tags (random orientations, conflict with text). Alvesgaspar 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This image is outstanding! I agree the texts are not perfecty aligned (I suppose this is due to the svg conversion server-side), but it is a minor issue, as this is a svg and therefore easy to edit. Maybe a png low-res version (400-1000px) for the projects with an link to this svg "master" might help. For me this is definitely a quality image! CyrilB 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is so easy to correct those flaws and improve the image, that I really don't understand why it hasn't been done yet. For example, the conflict between the line segments and the tags is not acceptable in a QI. Alvesgaspar 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I was unaware that QI is for non-photographic images too. This said, I support this one. --Diligent 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info I have edited the original drawing to correct the "offending" flaws and submitted it to QI as a new nomination. Alvesgaspar 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info New version has been promoted to QI. The present one will be archived. Alvesgaspar 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: not promoted Alvesgaspar 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination Melospiza melodia --Pharaoh Hound 16:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline you notice there is some image noise, and blurry in some areas. Arjun 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is just very few noise and unsharpness in the birds tail. The bird itself is sharp and clear. The composition is perfect. I think this is an excellent image for Wikimedia commons. Arjun can learn something from this contributor. --Ikiwaner 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ikiwaner, this is an excellent photo, as usual. Alvesgaspar 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Ikiwaner -- Simonizer 08:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree too, this image is very good CyrilB 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm...I said that yikes! Perfect image, sorry if I caused any offense. An honest screw up on my review. Arjun 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 5 support, 0 oppose >> promoted to QI Alvesgaspar 12:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Dohyo-iri ceremony (sumo) --Pomakis 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad crop, overexposure fragments, insufficient sharpness. Lestat 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose it is a bit late to oppose the vote on this image, but I find it really informative, clear, and its relative softness is a minor defect, especially in such low-light. I also disagree on the cropping, which I find fine. For me this image fullfills all the requirements of a quality picture, as it represents clearly its subject, and has a good enough quality for any support including print. CyrilB 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If we want to follow the guidelines, yes, it is too late: the image has been rejected more than 10 days ago. I think we should be a little more regular in the closing process... Alvesgaspar 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I could re-nominate it. Should I? (Or we could just give it a vote here...) -- Pomakis 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I support Pomakis' proposal. --Diligent 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  Result: no concensus reached (suggest renomination) >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination The only thing IMHO that prevents this being a FP is the tail is cut, but with so many good features it deserves to be QI Gnangarra 12:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor image quality: very grainy, rather blurry, cut-off tail doesn't help. --Pharaoh Hound 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the blurred areas are either due to movement ie the wings; or focal length ie the background the grain is in the background so doesnt have any impact on the subject. Gnangarra 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you looked at it at full res? The whole image including the hands and the bird is severely grainy. --Pharaoh Hound 13:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Pharaoh Hound. Lestat 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Very heavy grain and artifacts in full resolution. The rejection as a QI is obvious for me - Alvesgaspar 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support, 3 oppose >> not promoted -Jnpet 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Colorado State University --KyleThayer 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline It's nice you try to improve your pictures with editing. In this case it didn't work because exposure is wrong. Only the asphalt is correctly esposed. The sky had been more interesting. --Ikiwaner 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In a "contre-jour" photo, can we speak of a "right exposure"? Due to a high dynamic range, it is impossible not to have underexposed and overexposed parts in the same picture. IMO the photo deserves the status of QI for the composition. Alvesgaspar 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • See the image below for a good example of "contre-jour" photo. --Ikiwaner 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a QI image but IMHO this Image:CSU IMFields2.jpg original is a better presentation Gnangarra 05:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont feel it. Maybe a matter of taste, but the pic seems unbalance to me, with the large dark shadow area and the not very interesting sky. All the action is concentrated in a small area. The sprinklerwater looks great, and I think a telephoto pic of dark silouettes against the water would look great. --Dschwen 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose >> promoted --Ikiwaner 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Härzlisee, Engelberg --MRB 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion This a nice composition and a beatifull picture. But the quality in full resolution is low probably due to too much compression. - Alvesgaspar 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's a well exposed image with good composition. I simply see no compression artifacts. At 100% there is a slight amount of noise but on an image larger than screen resolution this is no valid argument against a picture imo. Those pictures get downsampled anyways when viewed on a screen. On a printout resolution is much higher (200-300dpi) so you won't see it there too. --Ikiwaner 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From the guidelines: Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. - Alvesgaspar 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you ever seen a monitor with more than 1600x1200 pixels? I have not. 95% of image views here are at thumnail size (guessing), 4% at "large view" and maybe some dozens of posters get printed a year. A quality image should be allowed to have a minor flaw and that is imo this slight amount of noise at 100%. --Ikiwaner 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support, 1 oppose >> promoted -Jnpet 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Horse racing --Pharaoh Hound 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Poor image quality: pixelation visible in full resolution - Alvesgaspar 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disgree with declining this image as the subject is well presented, the motion isnt restricted with space for the horses to move into, the legs are clear and the jockeys differing riding positions makes this image QI IMHO Gnangarra 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • i also disagree, pixelation is visible in full resolution, but the image is so big that this is not a real problem. (all images are pixelated if you come close enough) it is not that easy to get such a clear image from a moving object. i think it is good enough to be promoted as QI -LadyofHats 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The picture doesn't lose its documental interest by the fact of not being a QI. Remember that this Quality Image forum is precisely about image quality, not about rarity or difficulty. To ignore the fact is to subvert the main objective of this page. For me it is not acceptable to promote a picture with so obvious flaws. Also, it is a captious argument to say that "all images are pixelated if you come close enough". In this case, the pixelation is obvious at its nominal resolution and size (see, for example, the back and faces of the jockeys). Maybe a downsampling can help. Alvesgaspar 11:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The only flaw that I can see in this image is the cropped tail of one of the horses. You have to consider the term quality as good images on commons that are not up to featured level. The actual technical quality of the image (size, resolution, ...) is very important yet it is not the only aspect of the evaluation. Here the depth of field is good, the horses and jockeys are sharp enough, this document can be reused on a wikipedia article or on a printed document for whatever reason, then IMO it is a quality image. And yes, rarity and difficulty are important in the decision, too: some of the best photojournalism documents are grainy and blurry, but they are still awesome [1] ! CyrilB 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Pixelization at 100% in an image larger than screen resolution is no valid argument against a picture imo. Those pictures get downsampled anyways when viewed on a screen. On a printout resolution is much higher (200-300dpi) so you won't see it there too. CA is a real problem here but good enough for QI. Composition excellent. --Ikiwaner 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From the guidelines: Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. - Alvesgaspar 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 Result: 4 support, 1 oppose >> promoted -Jnpet 17:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Male lions fight for the prey in the Etosha National Park --Leyo 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not sharp, blown highlights in sky, needs crop. --Pharaoh Hound 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. About sharpness: Show me some 500% crop that doesn't look like a sharp downscaled image. It just couldn't be sharper
  2. about highlights: Yes there is a tiny spot at the right where the image is overexposed in all channels. It's a spot where you're looking in the sun of about 10% image with. That isn't really bad exposure.
  3. about crop: I like to see some of the surrounding. On a very tight crop the lions would walk out of the image.
What makes this image so wikipedia-worthy: It shows wildlife lions fighting for food. We should encourage contributors to shoot more pictures like this even if there's some shadow in the lions side --Ikiwaner 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • i also think it is not a quality image. it is not a tiny spot on the right what is overexposed but half of the sky. and that this is so, indicates that colors are out of balance already.
  • about crop, you are right that having surrounding land aboids the lions to "come out" from the image. but your surrounding land is not only space but also trees and dust, and everything is giving you a unstable composition. not only the white sky distract you, but also the eyes jump between the dust cloud and the stones infront. since your main subject are the lions this removes value to the composition.
  • your lions loose already a lot of detail having the light from behind, more being so far away, and even more from the dust cloud . not to mention one of them is looking away, wich takes out compositional "weight" on it.
  • it is surely a dificul subject, and has clearly a lot of value. yet not enough to substitut the missing quality -LadyofHats 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to make a short comment:

  • I know that the image quality is not really good (therefore, I didn't nominate it as a FP). However, it's a snapshot of a very short fight (about 1 second), which made it difficult to take the picture. I also couldn't choose a better position, avoiding back light.
  • The dust cloud is made by the fighting lions and makes part of the scene.
By the way, there is another version with a darker sky that was made in the Graphic Lab. --Leyo 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I currently stand by my review and would like to offer a quote from the quality image page: "Quality images don't have to be particulary extraordinary, impressive or outstanding among pictures on Commons. All they have to do is to meet certain mostly technical quality standards". That being said, I think the subject matter is quite impressive. I will fool around on photoshop elements and see if I can improve on it. --Pharaoh Hound 16:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I vote to promote. If all the flaws mentioned were adddressed, this could be a featured image. As it is, it is a striking and unusual image IMO deserving of the "Quality" category. -- Infrogmation 22:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 3 support, 2 oppose >> promoted - Jnpet 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Young women, Chichicastenango, Guatemala by User:Nanosmile (Reinhard Jahn). --Infrogmation 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I love it but find it a bit grainy. --Diligent 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "A bit grainy" is no valid argument against a Quality image imo. The image performs will up to SVGA resolution. It is very valuable for Wikimedia projects and I'd like to have more pictres like this. --Ikiwaner 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a question though: since these are clearly identifiable people I presume an authorization for the reprodution of their photo is necessary. Forgive me if I'm wrong. - Alvesgaspar 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

unable to answer this right now, maybe tomorrow --Ikiwaner 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Presumably Guatemalan law would be relevent here. Many countries do not require specific reproduction authorization in addition to simple permission to be photographed. -- Infrogmation 05:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes this is the kind of images that shoulnd't be rejected. This is not Featured Images, remember? -- Drini 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a very nice photo in thumbnail size, I agree, I like the compositions and the colouring. But when we enlarge it, the poor technical quality becomes quite obvious: heavy grain and posterization (see the faces). Quite far from QI, IMO. - Alvesgaspar 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree on posterization but not on grain. This is an old scanned image. Grain was a stylistic device in analog photography. It's a nice image for a Wikipedia article. I won't print a poster out of it so it's worth to be QI imo. --Ikiwaner 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From the guidelines: Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. - Alvesgaspar 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Good, so I'll know that I'll have to downsize my images before uploading so any grain or imperfections they have won't be noticeable at full resolution. -- Drini 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Following [2]:
The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.
I went and improved the image, there's a nomination of the new image at top. We shouldn't be just criticizing, we should be improving the images as well and encouraging users telling them how. -- Drini 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: Not promoted, see alternate version

  • Nomination Garden of Five Senses, New Delhi--Kprateek88 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry but if you notice towards the sky/top it is very dusty/grainy which is very distracting. Arjun 16:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Arjun that the original version was very noisy. I corrected this and the slight leaning. To me it's now a quite good night image. Therefore I'd like to relaunch the vote. --Ikiwaner 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is really a nice picture. Unfortunately the sky is still too noisy for QI standards. Alvesgaspar 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I managed to improve denoise level. It's better now. Please also consider it's shot in plain night therefore image quality can't be the same level as for a daylight picture. --Ikiwaner 15:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is better now. May I suggest the removal of those white spots on the sky (unless thay are fireflies....)? - Alvesgaspar 18:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Removing the white spots in the sky would be easy but I think it's stars! --Ikiwaner 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think so... Both the white and black dots on the sky seem to be noise (or artifacts) Alvesgaspar 22:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am still stinking with my original review, I agree with Alvesgaspar on the "stars" as being noise or even artifacts. Arjun 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Your original review is "decline because dusty/grainy". There is no dust or grain now anymore except the few pixels that could easily be removed. What's up Arjun? This image certainly meets basic quality requirements. --Ikiwaner 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont think it meets QI requirements. Its too blurred in my opinion, even for a night shot. -- Simonizer 08:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Checked usage of this image and it's used on English Wiki article as an example of night photography. In the discussion page of said article, it's mentioned that this is an acceptable example of a night photo. Sounds like QI to me. Jnpet 08:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 3 support, 3 oppose >> not promoted  Jnpet 16:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Beach at Progreso, Yucatán Kprateek88 09:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline This image would require at list a rotation to bring the sea level to horizontality CyrilB 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have rotated it slightly. I hope it's better. Kprateek88 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Several flaws affect the quality of this picture, the more serious ones being the composition (no clearly identfied subject, no first plan to suggest depth) and the overexposure (sand too white). Also, the building at left is tilted to the right and the image is blurred (note that the human figures are not sharp enough). The guidelines are a nice help for producing good quality images. - Alvesgaspar 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ack Alvesgaspar on composition sharpness and tilted buildings (no QI) but there is no overexposure at all. --Ikiwaner 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont see the overexposure either, but I agree with Alvesgaspar and Ikiwaner. The picture is far away from QI standards. -- Simonizer 08:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support, 4 oppose >> not promoted - Jnpet 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)