Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 28 2017

Consensual review edit

File:01-21-2017_-_Women's_March_on_NYC_(10715).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Protesters holding signs at the Women's March on New York City. --Rhododendrites 20:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support We'll see if anyone disagrees, but to me, this is a QI because it's sharp enough in the foreground, especially the woman in the leather jacket, and really gets across what the scene looked like. -- Ikan Kekek 21:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm leaning to oppose and we should hear more opinions in CR. For me, the DoF could be higher but the other problem is the noise, which I find a bit too high for a daytime photo. The composition is fine since it captures the chaotic scene as it is, i.e. realism.--Peulle 08:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an aside, but you think it looks chaotic? It was a huge, peaceful crowd. -- Ikan Kekek 10:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Composition wise, any shot from within any crowd is going to look a bit chaotic. :) What I mean is that there's bound to be some cut-off heads in the front etc.--Peulle 15:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood. -- Ikan Kekek 21:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I left this message at User talk:Peulle after the above comments, but as this has moved down to CR I may was well repeat. I took a pass at removing some of the noise from the mid/background. I've uploaded two new versions. This is the denoised version, and this one (the current default/primary) is the same as originally nominated but with some CA removed (i.e. it was tweaked a little bit since the above comments were made). --Rhododendrites 05:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
      Comment I prefer the denoised version. As we vote in QIC, as I understand it we must look at the current version. The current version is still suffering from the problem that too much noise becomes very visible in an image with such shallow DoF. Looking at the faces in the middle, this becomes very clear. So at the current version my vote remains opposing.--Peulle 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Woman march, but i see man in the middle. Seems like "Bird protecting" meeting. --PetarM 09:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
      Comment - Are you opposing the photo for sexist reasons? The march was called the "Women's March" because the original impetus for it was to fight against the debasement of women by Donald Trump, as in his famous remark about grabbing women's pussies, and policies threatening women's rights. The march became a unified one fighting against all forms of bigotry and discrimination and for the environment and other progressive priorities, but the very large number of men who marched were expressly marching and chanting for women's rights. Now, what you mean by "Bird protecting", I'd like to know, but I would suggest avoiding negative votes based on your political or social views, to put it politely. I'll look forward to an explanation and/or your striking your vote. -- Ikan Kekek 09:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. Please evaluate all images purely on their technical merit. Yes, there is a man in the picture because men participated in the march as well. Men are campaigning for women's rights too, you know.--Peulle 09:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Should any action be proposed? There are many valid reasons to oppose a photo, and some have been given in this thread. However, it's unacceptable for people to oppose a photo of a demonstration because they don't respect the politics of the demonstration being depicted. I demand that PetarM explain himself and/or strike his vote and pledge not to engage in this kind of behavior again. -- Ikan Kekek 22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Since Ikan indicated he was indecisive on the matter (as am I), while Peulle expressed a preference for the denoised version, I've restored the denoised version. Rhododendrites 14:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, quality is OK for a dynamic scenery like this --A.Savin 22:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support +1 --Ralf Roletschek 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to   Neutral for the denoised version. I still think the shallow DoF is a bit of a problem in a shot like this since so much of the content is lost when large parts of the crowd are out of focus. Hope you'll keep this in mind for future shots.--Peulle 23:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I will certainly keep it in mind in the future. In this case, since I was moving (or rather, I could only stop for brief moments without getting in the way), the crowd was moving, and the weather was a bit foggy, I was in shutter priority mode to keep to a reasonably consistent fast shutter without cranking up the ISO. There may have been a better way to do it... --Rhododendrites 00:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It's definitely challenging. Perhaps a better position would be to climb an object like a few feet up a lamp post? Or just setting the ISO higher while upping the aperture... Hope you'll keep experimenting. :)--Peulle 12:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Valuable. but not QI. Charlesjsharp 19:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 20:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

File:ISDT_SC-608_output.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Battery charger for RC use --Lucasbosch 19:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. bad crop sorry --Cvmontuy 19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Obvisiously intended composition. --Smial 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I was really unsure about this one; I'm not convinced about the depth or sharpness since it's a studio type shot. But I don't think the composition is a problem since it's intentional, so since nobody else has voted for a few days I'll break the tie and go with Smial for a weak support.--Peulle 10:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 08:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)