Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 16 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Jubilee Campus MMB 42.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Water reflections on Jubilee Campus. Mattbuck 21:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Lack of clarity and numerous image errors. --Steindy 22:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    Those are not "image errors", they're things floating in the water, and, in one case, a reflection! You're being ridiculous. Mattbuck 23:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    :And why do you remove my image notes? These may not see another user? --Steindy 23:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC))
      Oppose too much noisy IMO. --Christian Ferrer 05:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose As Christian Ferrer and CAs (see notes). It seems, IMO, not natural: a bit posterized?--Lmbuga 18:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    It was an oddly lit day, but ok. Mattbuck 18:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Isartor_Panorama,_Múnich,_Alemania.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Isartor, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 20:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment Good picture, but in my opinion, to be QI, the shadow is disturbing--Lmbuga 01:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    OK for me. Mattbuck 21:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good Quality for me --Rjcastillo 12:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support – proper work. -- Felix Koenig 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Weak support--Lmbuga 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:13-06-07_RaR_Amon_Amarth_Johan_Hegg_09.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Johan Hegg of Amon Amarth at Rock am Ring 2013 -- Achim Raschka 05:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion The proportions of the image are unhappy. The haed is okay, but the other parts of the photo are out of focus. --Vassil 20:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • OK for me. Mattbuck 21:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial 12:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Felix Koenig 13:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Budapest_Hungary_08.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Budapest Hungary --The Photographer 03:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Tilted and could use sharpening. Mattbuck 18:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    to me its QI. --Ralf Roletschek 20:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version that should fix the minor problems of this QI, that it was even before my contribution.--Hic et nunc 14:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    New version is better. Mattbuck 17:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Evangelische_Akademie_Tutzing_-_See_-_Sitzgruppen_003.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The palace garden of the Evangelische Akademie Tutzing in Tutzing. Pergola with furniture. --Mummelgrummel 14:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose harsh contrast, blown sky --A.Savin 17:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • blown sky - yes. but the main object is good, for me   Support QI. --Ralf Roletschek 19:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support - ok to me. Mattbuck 17:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Trifolium_hybridum_-_roosa_(rootsi)_ristik.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum). --Iifar 19:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment The flower of the midle is blurry or not sharp. There isn't nothing realy sharp (or significative IMO) in the low area of the image. The flower of the top (very good but with a bit of noise) is perhaps too little to crop it--Lmbuga 19:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  Comment Why does everything have to be sharp? The flower and some leafs are sharp. And I want to show the shape of the plant. --Iifar 07:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  Support In a macro pic not everything can be sharp. Good quality IMO. --Jastrow 08:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  Comment Sorry, the question is not if it's more or less sharp, IMO. The question is if it can be better and what is QI. For me, can be better and with a 5% (or 10%) of the image sharp, it's not QI because this image can be better. But it's only my opinion and I can understand your opinion. No problem if you are right and I'm not. The situation seems important for future decisions: Insects... Sorry, I'm learning always--Lmbuga 18:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
To substantiate my vote: the pic was taken at f/11 and 105 mm on a Nikon APS-C SLR. The EXIF don't mention the distance, but I think it's pretty close. Let's say 80 cm. That's 2.3 cm of DoF. Stopping down one or two stops gets you diffraction but not much more DoF. I agree the crop could be a bit tighter, but it's a matter of taste. Still a good macro pic in my book. --Jastrow 20:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  Question could allow something else in focus if a slight change of perspective or of camera tilt... or the choice of another subject?--Lmbuga 11:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Who is opposed?   Weak support If so upset when I think ... best to leave the dialog previously--Lmbuga 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomorrow we may see a still better image, today this is absolutely ok ;-) -- Smial 13:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Marma läger 07.jpg edit