Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 24 2023

Consensual review edit

File:20170818_Friedhof_von_Maimara.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cementerio de Maimara--MVmath20 21:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Needs a perspective correction, oversaturated sky --Grunpfnul 19:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • New version with perspective and sky correction is uploaded   Done--MVmath20 16:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp to me or overprocessed. Sebring12Hrs
  •   Oppose Seems very oversharpened to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 06:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversharpened --Jakubhal 04:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but this is not a QI --Sandro Halank 16:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Sandro Halank 16:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Münster,_LVM,_Korkfigur_--_2023_--_062528.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cork figure at LVM insurance in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but not the usual XRay quality - cellphone image with lack of details --Uoaei1 19:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • If you only have a cellphone with you, this is a solution. As a QI, the picture is good enough in my opinion, but certainly not more. --XRay 05:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality - neither the photographer, nor the camera should really be a reason for promoting or declining an image, we should always look at the quality of the image in question. And I see sufficient quality for a QI here. --Kritzolina 10:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. The photo is "good enough" for an A4 print. Exposure, colours, lighting, composition are ok. However, these ever-advancing internal "optimizations" used in these smartphone noise generators seem to me to make it increasingly difficult to distinguish what is real and what is not in the photos shown. While the more or less successful noise reduction measures are still relatively easy to recognize for homogeneous background surfaces outside the depth of field, it is now difficult to do so for structured surfaces. Is it marble or even plastic with noise artifacts? Or is it light granite, which should just look so grainy? It is often no longer possible to distinguish between the two, unless you take a forensic approach and look for clues at the pixel level. --Smial 12:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version
  •   Support per Smial --Sandro Halank 05:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per Smial --Jakubhal 04:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Cigogne_blanche_et_juvénile_(Ciconia_ciconia)_(4).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: White Stork and juvenile (Ciconia ciconia) in Cernay (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 09:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
      Support Good quality. --Satdeep Gill 11:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose too dark --Charlesjsharp 09:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Strong shadows, but the parent and child that are the subjects of the photo are clearly depicted. -- Ikan Kekek 07:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment. Unfortunate lighting. Perhaps it could be improved. The presented version is no QI for me. -- Spurzem 11:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I must agree to Spurzem. Though the composition is very nice, colours and sharpness are fine, there are burnt areas, and loss of detail in essential areas due to extreme high contrast. --Smial 12:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Ikan Kekek --Sandro Halank 05:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose by Charlesjsharp --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support The object is well outlined--Moroder 18:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Smial and Spurzem --Jakubhal 04:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta interno 2023 Manerba del Garda.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Interior of Manerba's Assunta church --Moroder 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Review   Oppose Center is sharp enough, but unfortunately the borders are blurred --PantheraLeo1359531 16:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Fotos with no blurred parts don’t exist--Moroder 20:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
      •   Question Could these be stitching errors? Especially on the right edge of the image, there are some double contours that, if it were motion blur, should actually appear everywhere in the image. But they do not. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how they came about. Because of the high image resolution, the quality is still sufficient for a print in A4 size and for me the photo would therefore actually count as QI. But it is a bit disappointing and somehow unsatisfactory for an image with well over 100 MPixels. --Smial 10:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
        • It depends. I sometimes have blurred/shaked areas in the corner in my images. Other images are fine. These effects might differ from camera model and lens to other models. If the image border areas can be corrected, then it is a pro for me --PantheraLeo1359531 13:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
          •   Comment Thanks for your comments. This is not a stitched image. I insist that, if you have a object which is deep like this church and not flat, you cannot have parts of the image which are not blurred, specially if you have to work with a high aperture f/4.0 because of the little light. This is one of the first shots with my new camera, which has image stabilization and I bought it to work in churches and museums where tripods are generally forbidden. Imho quality here is very high and beyond my expectations, considering the object and the working conditions. --Moroder 16:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
            • Yeah it is really a pity. For me, it seems like it looks like camera shakes with a direction to the corners near the image borders. I would recommend taking two example images in a room, one taken per hand and one taken with a tripod. Then we can examine more where the blurred areas come from. Sometimes even very small hand shakes lead to this blurred parts (I have it sometimes). I think f/4 is enough as aperture here and I think the unsharp areas would look different. I assume it is some sort of camera shake and/or poor coverage of the lens in border areas --PantheraLeo1359531 13:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
              • Sorry but I think it’s neither camera shake, which you’d see all over the picture, neither a problem of a 3000 $ lens but simply a matter of DOF, cheers--Moroder 14:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support My personal conclusion from what has been said and assumed is that there are several factors at work here. The anti-shake mechanism has reached its limits, there is also a slight edge blur and the usual effects of subsequent perspective corrections. All together this causes the somewhat unbalanced sharpness impression when using the full sensor resolution. Despite the shortcomings, the image is usable for pictures well over A4 size, has natural colors in my opinion and the contrasts are also well managed. Overall, this is enough for me for a pro. @Mododer: I find comments about the price of photographic equipment counterproductive. There is photographic equipment that is quite expensive, and when used wisely, delivers excellent results, but like this 50 MPixels Canon DSLR, for example, has terrible quality at high ISO settings. Every instrument has its limits, no matter how expensive. One shouldn't try to shoot down obviously factual arguments by referring to the expensive equipment. That poisons the discussion climate. (Conversely, this also applies to devaluing photos from phones just because they are phones. Under favorable circumstances, they take "good enough" pictures.)-- Smial 14:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)