Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 28 2014

Consensual review edit

File:Lake Windermere MMB 23.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lake Windermere. Mattbuck 07:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too dark --Pleclown 12:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    It was fairly late evening, fairly thick foliage, and the aim was to have the lake properly exposed. The darkness is therefore intentional. Mattbuck 15:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark --Archaeodontosaurus 14:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 23:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Chaumukhji Tonk 03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A temple in Palitana, India --Bgag 15:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose very nice colors and contrast, but not sharp enough at full size I'm afraid.--Jebulon 15:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      Support Acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 16:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      Support QI for me too --Halavar 19:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perhaps blur by somewhat too strong noise reduction? -- Smial 01:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Morchella elata group 38336.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The fungus Morchella angusticeps Peck. Photographed in Peace River Area, British Columbia, Canada. By User:Sasata --Themightyquill 14:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Subject is focused, well done. --The Photographer 16:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry but It is not from a commons user. --The Photographer 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not by a common user--Jebulon 17:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Day2-korely-granary-ust-nizma.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Granary in Malye Korely, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia (photo by Freetrack Expedition 2013) --A.Savin 14:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support --Iifar 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Temporary
  •   Oppose Is the author a User of "Commons"? Seems to be a "consortium" of photographers, in this case we have a problem with the copyright...--Jebulon 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"Freetrack Expedition" is obviously a Commons account and the licensing is correct, so may I please know what's your problem? --A.Savin 22:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 23:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Gm-gate-2798.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Pereslavl museum, the passage gate, unique night shot. --PereslavlFoto 23:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Very little detail. --Mattbuck 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC) This is the night shot in darkness. Maybe someone else may consult? --PereslavlFoto 18:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I must agree with Mattbuck, detail is low and there is some nasty noise in the dark areas. --DXR 22:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 23:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Kuala_Lumpur_Malaysia_Bangunan_Parlimen_Malaysia-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Houses of Parliament, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia --Cccefalon 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Chromatic aberration (red/green) in trees --Ll1324 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no relevant CA. The more: *If* there were one, it is good practise here to give a chance to the author for removal. --Cccefalon 23:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It's there. Look at 100% magnification, especially on the right side. That sometimes can be fixed in photoshop. Otherwise it is hard to see (microstock reviewers find these things all the time) --Ll1324 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support There might be some CA there, I can hardly see it, and I think it wouldn't be reasonable to reject on the basis of tiny traces of CA when the rest is pretty good.--DXR 08:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 16:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me too. --Cayambe 11:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 23:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Joshua Tree National Park (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 5679.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Joshua Tree National Park, California, USA --XRay 04:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Comment nice compo, but why f/5? Background stones are not sharp. --Iifar 15:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
      Comment Personally I think that having the rounded stones somewhat blurred is really, as they make the sharp pointy desert plants in the foreground stand out more. Mr.choppers 05:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    I think it's way too unsharp. Mattbuck 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stones should be sharp and definitely are not. Shame about the large aperture. --DXR 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  Comment Sometimes mistakes just happen. Sorry.--XRay 17:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I hope you do not take it personally! Didn't want to attack you at all, just meant that everything else was set up perfectly and just that one thing kept it from being QI, still a good shot. --DXR 22:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's OK. Sometimes my own mistakes are resentful, but fortunately I always learn new things.--XRay 12:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 23:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Alte Donau Blick vom Donauturm DSC 4292w.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Recreation area Alte Donau seen from Donauturm, Vienna --P e z i 20:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline several dustspots (easy to erase), but it has a serious issue with sharpness (I guess it´s not correctable) --Taxiarchos228 20:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Compression also seems really high, perhaps a more HQ version would look better --DXR 20:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)   Comment thanks for review. New version uploaded please have a look --P e z i 21:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Sorry to say, but sharpness really is a bit on the low side --DXR 21:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 23:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Olympiaturm_in_Munich,_2013_--(1).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: The Olympiaturm in Munich. --High Contrast 22:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad light (back light) and bad dynamic --Taxiarchos228 22:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 08:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
For me not QI --Taxiarchos228 19:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Kreta_-_Bucht_von_Malia1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Crete: Bay of Malia, as seen from the twisting road to Molos (new version) --Taxiarchos228 19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Here we go again: curved horizon, cloning traces and banding on the sky, stitching issues on the bottom right corner. --Iifar 19:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    no cloning errors in sky visible, no significant problems on bottom, curved horizon is not valid argument but personal taste --Taxiarchos228 19:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 22:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Stadler GTW Thurbo Rheinfall.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stadler GTW at the Rhine Falls --Linie29 11:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose Too low resolution. --Halavar 14:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
      Done Fixed Resolution to 2500px. --Linie29 09:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lewis Hulbert 15:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- QI for me. --JLPC 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Neues_Rathaus_Leipzig_Süd-Fassade_2013.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: New Town Hall of Leipzig, south fassade --Tuxyso 10:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Tilt/perspective correction needed. Mattbuck 12:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    • can you Plesse add a note where do you think the perspective is wrong. --Tuxyso 00:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
      •   Done, Mattbuck. Please take another look. --Tuxyso 11:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Left side is leaning considerably outwards. --Cccefalon 07:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done, Cccefalon. Please take another look. --Tuxyso 08:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the left topwer is too much different of the right one. Here is the main distortion IMO--Jebulon 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You are right, the shooting position was rather extreme. But you have no chance to do it better if you want a complete photo of this front of the town hall. Look at Category:Neues Rathaus, Leipzig, also take a look on Street View. --Tuxyso 21:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
      •   Comment (Ultra-) Wide angle shots with forced perspective correction often look shitty. That's life. -- Smial 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
        •   Comment Just take four shots (or a few more for added overlap) and stitch them together. --Mr.choppers 11:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Which problem do you want to solve by stitching? Perspective is only determined by distance and angel of view, if you want rectangular projection. So it does not matter if you use an extreme wide angle lens or you stitch some images to get a similar wide angle view. Of course there is a difference, if stitching allows a better camera position. -- Smial 14:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:59 via del Babuino, Rome, Italy.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Facade of a palace in Rome, Italy.--Jebulon 10:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry but it is a bad crop. In Rome they say "ne carne ne pesce" - no chica no limona --Moroder 18:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) "ni chair ni poisson" ? I don't understand why it is a bad crop...--Jebulon 20:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)  Comment IMO you have to decide: is it a façade? Is it a portal or is it a façade... In pieces? :-)) --Moroder 22:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality is good enough for me. A crop showing the whole facade will look far worse. Just look where the top bar will extend. --GMLSX 03:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Semi close up on the façade, acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support The crop is ok to me- --Cayambe 13:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Helmsley_Castle_English_Heritage.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Helmsley Castle. By User:Barkmatter --Nev1 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 05:30, , 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Very noisy due to tonemapping, probably also perspective problems. Nice candidate for FP. --Smial 07:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Vignette is no-go IMO, that is "inappropriate vignetting", as mentioned explicitly in the guidelines --DXR (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   SupportI think noise is good and the perspective is also ok from my point of view --PetrVod 11:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because of flaws mentioned above.--Jebulon 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Tanum 405 kalleby-laangemyr musicians IMG 8893 ID 10160604050001.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Bronze-age rock carvings, Tanum in Sweden. Long numeral is the national heritage ID number. --Bjoertvedt 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment English description missing.--XRay 13:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)   Comment Fixed. --Bjoertvedt 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose - hard to identify the subject, not that sharp. Mattbuck 22:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
      SupportThe sharpness seems quite OK to me, the subject can be identified easy. Lets discuss it. --Dirtsc 17:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Somewhat high contrast, but in all other matters ok. -- Smial 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good contrast --High Contrast 22:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 22:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Kakerdaja raba laudtee talvel.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kakerdaja Bog at winter --Urmas83 15:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Really a great view, but sadly heavily oversharpend/denoised (almost looks like a painting). Consider a Downscaling with more conservative sharpening. --Martin Kraft 18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC) It has not been heavily oversharpend/denoised. Don't agree with your suggestions. --Urmas83 22:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unsharp + blown sky --Christian Ferrer 06:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    •   Comment Well, which one is it then oversharpened or unsharp? There is not a singel pixel burned. Tell me what you really don'd like. --Urmas83 09:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice composition and place but only the bottom half have a good quality IMO (for the top half see my first comment) --Christian Ferrer 11:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Clearly this image exhibits the weakness of the Nikon 24-70 at 24 very well (trust me, it annoys me, too). I struggle to understand why it would be almost 52 MP though. Is this stiched? Otherwise it must have been upscaled which really is not the way to go with the softness of the lens. Unfortunately it really is oversharpened. Sorry. Anyways I'm sure it would actually be better at approx 10 MP or so, but at the current state it's hard to give it a promotion.--DXR 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is merged from several pictures and the top is unsharp because of very strong perspective correction not because of the lens. Closest trees are 3 m away and 6-7 meters high. The distortion is huge at so close distance. You are talking about 24-70 f4 or f2.8? My 24-70 f2.8 does not annoy me at all. It is an excellent lens at 24 mm. Ok let it be then. --Urmas83 20:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  •   Comment - in full scale it becomes a mite weird looking, agreed, but it is a very good image to look at from an artistic viewpoint. Would make a fantastic 5000-piece puzzle, too. I say keep it at this size and screw the QI (and no offense intended to anyone). Mr.choppers 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:14-01-13_Grafitti_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Graffiti at Ehrenfeld station, Cologne --Achim Raschka 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support QI --Rjcastillo 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blown sky --A.Savin 15:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Barrel distortion, mediocre details --DXR 19:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 22:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Poznan 10-2013 img10 Town hall.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Old town hall of Poznań, Poland --A.Savin 17:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Comment The tires of the cars are more gray than black. I think there is black missing in the image.--XRay 10:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)  Oppose As I'm really not a fan of the HDR images, I'm afraid this one is overdone, colors look unnatural (to me. I'm interested in a discution about that). The perspective correction (verticals) is not perfect left and right (small issue), and the persons look a bit too "large" (small issue too)--Jebulon 09:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Wrong, it is not HDRI, no perspective done and the lines are correct to me. --A.Savin 15:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Left and right are leaning in a bit (right more than left) --Christian Ferrer 06:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment If it is not a HDR image, it looks like (to me). Sorry, but I find the "washed" colors very unnatural in many of your current pictures, that's why I don't assess them in general, because I'm quite surprised, actually, by your photographical choices, my friend.--Jebulon 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 22:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Yatton railway station MMB 31 43XXX.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination HST at Yatton. Mattbuck 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Impressive but I am not sure if it can be QI, since there’s hardly anything rendered sharp. Better discuss it. As for the effect, if it was achieved by zooming, the blur would have to be centered. I am quite sure you were just tracking the train. 1/60 s is quite a long exposuring time. --Kreuzschnabel 10:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 22:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Bač (Bács) - gate.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bač (Bács), Vojvodina - gate --Pudelek 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment Poor detail and little size. I think that it's not QI for me. Can you improve the detail?--Lmbuga 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    Are we looking at the same picture? It's above 2MP though yes not massive, but detail is exquisite. It's the best photo I've seen all day. Mattbuck 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support There may be motion blur on the right tree, but QI over all for me. --GMLSX 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 22:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Kloster_Neustift_Kirchturm_01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Campanile dell'Abbazia di Novacella --Uoaei1 21:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support Good quality. --Bgag 01:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose It's tilted --Pudelek 12:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)   Done Corrected by slight rotation --Uoaei1 17:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Something wrong with the light (contre-jour), and the kind of halo around the tower--Jebulon 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is not "contre-jour", the light (late afternoon) is coming from the left. And the halo is just a cloud. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective correction not properly applied, it's still tilted, see annotations. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Kloster_Neustift_Hof_02.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Abbazia di Novacella, il Pozzo delle Meraviglie --Uoaei1 21:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose cropped, tiltet --Pudelek 12:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      Done I compensated the tilt. Unfortunately there was no room to go a few more steps back, and I also wanted to show the yard. So I could not avoid the crop.--Uoaei1 18:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too tight crop, bad tilt, CA, lacking sharpness. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose...and barrel distorsion.--Jebulon 17:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 22:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Bixa_orellana_in_Venezuela.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Bixa orellana in Venezuela --The Photographer 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose loads of compression artifacts --GMLSX 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      Done Fixed --The Photographer 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dirtsc 17:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - noisy, looks like the overexposure was remapped. Mattbuck 21:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --PetrVod 11:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Wraxall 2012 MMB 72.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Christmas tree in Wraxall. Mattbuck 11:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose dark image, poor composition not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 05:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    It was night, the point was it would be lit only by Christmas lights. Mattbuck 21:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice sharpening and DoF. Of course yes, it was night--The Photographer 16:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Christian Ferrer 06:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Angkor_Wat,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_085.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 11:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Opposedark and blurred image not a QI to me, sorry --Alberto-g-rovi 05:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    Brighter now, I haven't seen any blur --Poco a poco 20:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    You are supporting it but don't think it's QI? Mattbuck 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  Support QI --Christian Ferrer 12:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  •   Support I cant underestand how this image cant be QI --The Photographer 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 22:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)