Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 04 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Langwies Ammenegg Rheintal Bodensee.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Panorama Lake Constance --Böhringer 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 15:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, there are IMO two small and one severe stitching problem. See notes. Unconditionally, it needs reprocessing. --Hubertl 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose  Not done Schade! --Milseburg 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Orchis Ustulata.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Neotinea ustulata --PetrVod 08:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
    *  Support Good quality. But, I think f/8 or f/11 and ISO200 or ISO400 would give a better DOF and retained quality. Also, it is often helpful to depict the basal leaves, but they are frequently obstructed and the result may not be as pleasing as in this image. --Wsiegmund 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    *  Oppose Good composition but for QI must be a bit more quality IMO. Not sharp, noisy, overexposed and I think to shallow DOF. --Hockei 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    **  Comment Good points, but I see no evidence of overexposure in the histogram and stretching the image reveals ample detail is retained on the white petals. Wsiegmund 19:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the inflorescences are out of focus --Llez 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)