Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 26 2024

Consensual review

edit

File:CH.TI.Paradiso_2021-04-17_Rainbow_1078_16x9-R_8K.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Water Jet of Paradiso, Switzerland. By User:Roy Egloff --Augustgeyler 07:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Terragio67 08:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Oversharpened imho, and somewhat overexposed. --Smial 12:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial --George Chernilevsky 06:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Somehow overprocessed. --Plozessor 08:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:St._Johann_Baptist_(Beyharting),_Innenansicht,_2024-05-20.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Der Innenraum der Kirche St. Johann Baptist (Beyharting). --2015 Michael 2015 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. It's very nice photo, but the right side seems to leaning in. --Tournasol7 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, leaning and blue tint, should be fixable. --Plozessor 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. I don't find the color rendition unnatural, assuming that most of the lighting is through the blue sky through clear window panes. It's just mixed light. If you generally force the white balance to neutral white for the blue-lit walls, other areas will turn out far too reddish. You would therefore have to partially edit the photo, which I consider to be a disproportionately high requirement for QI if you are working with the light available on location. I don't really find the perspective distortion problematic either, because I find some "verticals" that are wonderfully vertical and others that are not perfectly vertical. The only thing I find disturbing is the color fringing around the window in the upper left corner of the picture, which also looks a bit crooked. I don't know whether this is an uncorrected barrel distortion of the lens or whether it is actually a bit crooked. --Smial 12:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial: I usually don't have issues with perspective views, but in this case, the left pillar is perfectly vertical while its right counterpart is not. Would accept it if both were leaning identically. About the blue tint, I find it a bit disturbing on that right white wall but I would not decline the image due that. --Plozessor 14:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've seen it and I accept your opinion, and if the uploader tweaks the flaws we've mentioned (which I think are tolerable, just too big for you) without spoiling the photo, I'm happy to cross out my "weak". My only concern is that FPC criteria are not introduced into QIC through the back door, especially when photos are already quite usable in themselves. --Smial 15:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment General comment: In old churches there is almost never a "correct" perspective correction possible, the floor is not even, the walls are falling in all directions and sometimes even the main altar is decentered to the remaining room. Try yourself and you will agree. Look to other inside view uploads, if you still think my photo is not a quality image, well... --2015 Michael 2015 17:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support --Georgfotoart 17:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sebring12Hrs 19:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 20:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Fireworks_in_Sevierville,_Tennessee_on_4th_of_July_-_1.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Fireworks in celebration of Independence Day in Sevierville, Tennessee, on July 4. --Roc0ast3r 09:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Unsharp (no tripod used?) and under exposed. --2015 Michael 2015 11:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done Upped the exposure and cropped the bottom. Not sure why it looked like that because I did use a tripod but oh well. --Roc0ast3r 05:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Енбекшиказахский_район,_обсерватория_Ассы-Тургень_сверху_(1).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Assy-Turgen observatory photographed from above. Almaty sanctuary, Enbekshikazakh District, Almaty Region, Kazakhstan. --Красный 07:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose The subject of the picture is only a minor part of the picture. --2015 Michael 2015 12:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not sure if this is a valid reason to decline so changed to discussion to hear other opinions. For me this picture shows not only the observatory itself but also a terrain conditions where it is placed. Красный 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Composition is part of the guidelines. --Augustgeyler 05:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Composition is ok for me (as said it shows the observatory with its surroundings), but   Oppose for now because it's tilted and underexposed. --Plozessor 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Rani_Mahal_Astabal_S-MP-28_(6).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination ASI monument numberI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016. --Suyash.dwivedi 06:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky looks   Overexposed and sharpness is too low here. --Augustgeyler 22:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp. (Would probably have been better with lower ISO and longer exposure.) --Plozessor 08:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. f/16 never is a good idea in landscape photography when using a camera with crop sensor and 18 MPixels. Blurring noise reduction and downscaling won't help either. --Smial 12:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_gare_Centrale_-_2024-07-14_-_01.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Charleroi (Belgique) - Le Forgeron de Constantin Meunier devant la Gare de Charleroi-Central. --Jmh2o 18:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Looks promising, but can you improve the perspective and the contrast please? --Mike Peel 19:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done Is it better now ? --Jmh2o 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 15:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the contrast is unrealistically low here. --Augustgeyler 22:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It's usually not a good idea to photograph the shady side of objects in bright sunlight, so that all the surroundings are bright but the subject is dark. --Plozessor 08:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_85.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 10:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Very good image. But a more precise description mentioning the statue is needed here. --Augustgeyler 10:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --ArildV 10:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Info moved to CR. --Augustgeyler 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I copied the category to the description, I don't know whether a CR is required here --Poco a poco 06:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support   Thank you. --August (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would like more or better contrast for QI. -- Spurzem 08:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 20:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Martin_church_in_Cazaux-Villecomtal_(2).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination St Martin church in Cazaux-Villecomtal, Gers, France. --Tournasol7 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 11:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (Weather conditions lead to) underexposed picture. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark. --Plozessor 06:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark -- Spurzem 08:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Thx, good now. --Plozessor 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Now the picture exposure is OK but I don't like the weather with its resulting picture look. --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment 2015 Michael 2015; Well, I like to take pictures in cloudy weather. But that's a matter of taste, but that's a topic for another discussion. Tournasol7 19:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now. --Sebring12Hrs 06:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support I take photos even in bad weather --Georgfotoart 17:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Gall_(Niedermorschwihr).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination St. Gall Church in Niedermorschwihr (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 18:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The object sticks to the bottom edge. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Michael. It is a technically good image. But the composition does not work IMO. There is more or less just the roof and all sticks to the bottom of the frame. But I think the issue is not hard enough to oppose. --August (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I cut differently. Gzen92 06:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Guépier_d'Europe_ichkeul.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination European bee-eater (Merops apiaster) at Ichkeul national parkI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image won the 5th prize in the national contest of Tunisia in Wiki Loves Earth 2017 This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2017. --El Golli Mohamed 21:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Less than 2 MP --Plozessor 04:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not true, it's just over 2MP. ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's 2,018 MP, You are confusing MP and MB El Golli Mohamed 10:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You're right. I did not confuse MP and MB but I didn't calculate correctly. Still it's borderline resolution. Removed my opposing vote, let's see what others think. --Plozessor 05:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice composition. But resolution is at minimum and level of detail too low here. Even the Nikon D500 is capable of 21 MP, if it is necessary to crop in by factor 10, more focal lens was needed. --August (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support The resolution is borderline, but I don't think it's lacking in detail, and I like the composition. ReneeWrites 08:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support not big but good --Georgfotoart 17:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_149.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination MG TD at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 07:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the yellow-green grass and the two scalped men. In addition, the hood is very dark on the right. Please discuss whether the photo is already a QI or whether it still needs to be worked on. -- Spurzem 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • WB and brightnesses tweaked, and cropped to minimise the background men, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 16:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfavorable composition with the beheaded man. --Plozessor 04:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Man unbeheaded, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 06:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment The best thing would be to send the man away or to retouch him. However, that wouldn't change the unsightly yellow grass. -- Spurzem 21:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • There is now a new version of the photo without the man with his hands in his pockets. In addition, areas that are too dark have been slightly lightened and the yellow of the meadow has been slightly reduced. -- Spurzem 10:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Slighty   Underexposed compared to the rest of the series. --Augustgeyler 12:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Due to exposure and because the newly provided version is better. --Augustgeyler 12:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Cyrice_church_of_Broquies_05.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Round window of the Saint Cyrice church of Broquies, Aveyron, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to oppose. As there is no reference to the perspective here it looks distorted. A QI of the rosette could be taken from a much higher point of view (like another tower or a drone) or should include some perspective reference to make it easy to understand that this is a perspective shot from down below. --Augustgeyler 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Church windows are always high up (who has a drone?) --Georgfotoart 17:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 07:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)