Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 07 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Mariehamn_2016_20.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mariehamn, Åland (Finland). --ArildV 06:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, this doesn't look sharp enough for such a still image, IMO. --Peulle 10:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me --A.Savin 18:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 07:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fortunately User ArildV never overdoes sharpening. -- Smial 10:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I would be happy, if more of the recent nominations had this range of sharpness. --Cccefalon 13:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Buldern,_Schloss_Buldern_--_2016_--_2655-61.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Buldern castle (in the morning haze), Buldern, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted! --Uoaei1 18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    •   Fixed Thanks. It's fixed now. --XRay 04:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
      •   Support Ok --Uoaei1 05:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice framing. --Alchemist-hp 21:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Zeiss Milvus 21-2.8-IMG 1975.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Zeiss Milvus 21mm f/2.8 lens for Canon. Christer T Johansson 10:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support The DoF could perhaps be even better, but overall quite good quality. The whole front side of the object is in focus. --Peulle 12:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, DoF is to small for a studio shot. --Berthold Werner 09:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Somewhat low DOF, but in all other respects the image is QI. We should not demand focus stacking if "normal" clean and proper photography gives us acceptable results, and this image is absolutely acceptable. --Smial 13:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DoF and overexposed. A focus stack will be a better alternative. --Alchemist-hp 12:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DoF and overexposed plus I know the camera and these kinds of shots. Can be done better with ease and no focus stacking.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 04:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Jibea vache highland wasmeer 2016 01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Highland cattle in the Laarder Wasmeer. --Jiel 00:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality --Halavar 00:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Posterization, and what should be in focus is out of focus --A.Savin 00:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Savin here; the main subject is the animal and it should be sharper and not so grainy. --Peulle 12:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The head is not extremely sharp because of moving. But weak support for me. -- Spurzem 18:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Savin. --Alchemist-hp 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 04:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Scotland Argyll Bute Islay Kildalton Great Cross 02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Kildalton Great Cross --MSeses 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dust Spots to be removed (I counted three of them) --Cccefalon 10:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  DoneTanks für the review.Dust spots removed. --MSeses 12:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  Comment Not done! --Martin Falbisoner 06:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Only two of the three dust spots are removed. is this enough for you, Martin???? --Cccefalon 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you're absolutely right, I missed that one - sorry! --Martin Falbisoner 06:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 09:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Scotland Argyll Bute Islay Lagavulin Distillery 01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lagavulin Distillery --MSeses 08:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Good quality. Now there are defects in the sky. (And I didn't see the fringes before). --MartinThoma 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Cyan and reddish fringes (e.g. funnel right and left side house) --Cccefalon 10:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you please mark it in the image?--MartinThoma 11:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment   DoneThanks for the review. Cyan and reddish fringes removed. --MSeses 12:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
        •   Comment I am not sure, what exactly went wrong, but you have now defects in the sky. Do you process from JPEG instead of RAW? --Cccefalon 15:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cccefalon.--Peulle 15:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 09:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)