Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 31 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Pivoine0068.pp.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Peony --Paulparadis 16:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Quality is good but the crop isn't, either you show the whole flower or you zooom in a bit --Poco a poco 17:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Stepro 06:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As already said and just overrolled, not a QI to me like this --Poco a poco 14:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco.--Peulle 12:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 17:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dirty_mug_(IKEA_VARDAGEN_30cl_8cm_after_a_mocha_DSCF2649).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dirty mug (IKEA VARDAGEN 30cl 8cm after a mocha DSCF2649) --Trougnouf 21:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Apart from the uselessness of such a motif, the quality ist too low for something similar to a studio shot. --Palauenc05 10:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree. This isn't a studio shot but a photo of the item where it was being used (a wooden dining table/workspace). I find it beautiful and as such I would display it on my user page, and I think the picture was well taken (sharp focus on the mouth yet enough details on the content using a tripod to obtain as wide of a focus as possible and "natural" indoor lights, ie lines are visible where the first sip is too hot therefore tiny then it was happily chugged once it cooled down enough and there are chocolate residues still visible, that's pretty much as much emotions as an unbroken dirty Ikea cup gets and by definition not a studio shot). I would like to know if there is something I could have done differently to improve this mugshot and for the review to be based on this. --Trougnouf 08:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Dear Trougnouf, one might discuss the sense or nonsense of taking a shot of a dirty cup. But that is not the point here. This image lacks sharpness, that is to say that maybe 20 % of the image is sharp enough (handle and front rim), whereas the rest is unsharp. Hence, IMO it cannot be a QI, sorry. Other reviewers may have different opinions. --Palauenc05 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment it indeed lacks depth. Thank you two for your reviews! --Trougnouf 21:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only considering the quality, not at all the subject, that can be interesting. Most of the image is out of focus, unfortunately. There is only a very tiny part which is sharp, but the very large rest is really blurry. For such kind of picture, a better lighting is essential. From my experience, there's a limit of darkness where the camera doesn't get the details, whatver the settings. Maybe an artificial light would have solved the problem, or a more sensitive captor, but we can't consider the quality of this picture is good just because the difficulty was high -- Basile Morin 04:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the idea and the mug makes a good shot, but I agree that there's too much unsharpness in the current picture. Daniel Case 02:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 17:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)