Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 03 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Bamberg_Hain_Kanadagänse-RM-2148461.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fighting Canada geese on the river Regnitz in Bamberg --Ermell 06:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 08:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you check, if you can remove the chromatic aberations appearing in the water droplets? Debateable is whether the ducks are "sharp" enough. Seems to me that this action scene is nicely captured in 1/1250s but it lacks crispness --Etaped 11:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough, I doubt that editing droplets would make it better, colored droplets look natural, IMO it is already QI --LexKurochkin 09:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I doubt that it is (lens) CA. Water droplets can reflect or diffract many different colors. It is also acceptable and inevitable that these droplets are overexposed. The image shows some visible noise, but this is also unavoidable when a short exposure time is required and therefore the photo cannot be taken at ISO 100. --Smial 11:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 22:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:VistaPlayaLasToscas-feb2021.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View in entrance to Las Toscas bech. The person was pixelized because he didn't want to be photographed --Ezarate 21:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose JPEG compression too strong, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 14:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC) @PantheraLeo1359531:
  •   Comment Reproccessed, thanks!!! --Ezarate 16:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but this feels still unrealistic processing to me. Feel free to move to CR if you disagree --PantheraLeo1359531 16:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Let's discuss so --Ezarate 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with PantheraLeo. Also, the face of one person is censored and that's not something I'm prepared to accept on Commons.--Peulle 12:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Looks strange, especially in the background, and I also agree with Peulle's criticism - that pixellation is very jarring, and if she wasn't OK with being photographed, it would have been better not to upload the photo, I think. -- Ikan Kekek 12:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --GRDN711 04:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 22:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Halbinselpromenade_Park_12022021_8624.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Peninsula promenade, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:47, 22 February 2021
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Basile Morin 04:03, 22 February 2021
  •   Oppose none of the trees are very sharp. Not good enough for QIC. --Geoprofi Lars 08:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --A.Savin 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Commonists 16:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK. --XRay 10:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Some of the trees are certainly sharp. Good photo, and a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 19:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not happy with the composition (I'm missing something at the top...), but technically the image is good enough. -- Smial 11:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Smial --LexKurochkin 21:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 22:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Church_of_Our_Lady_of_the_Assumption_in_Boussac_05.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stained-glass window in the church of Our Lady of the Assumption in Boussac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. too little dynamic range and too underexposed areas --Wilfredor 12:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree. Discuss, please. --Tournasol7 13:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me.--Ermell 08:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Solid to me. -- Ikan Kekek 13:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow --Commonists 19:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Considering the object, I support the nomination --LexKurochkin 09:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Due to the exposure time of 1/40 sec at 100 ISO and 50mm focal length (i.e. 75mm full frame, see EXIF data) this presumeably handheld take has a very slight blur at 100% screen rendering, but still retains a great amount of detail. The pitch-black walls perfectly enhance the well-retained colours of the stained glass windows and verticals are perfectly aligned. More often than not colours are over-emphasized in post-processing - this is not the case here.
    Although I also prefer ISO 100 for best quality in most instances, I do recommend using a slightly higher ISO in similar low-light circumstances, say ISO 200-320, to reduce exposure time and thus minimise camera shake without adding more than a miminum of chromatic noise. Do keep up documenting these fascinating stained glass windows before they crumble away, thanks! -- Franz van Duns 09:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 22:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)