Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 04 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Raschötz_winter_aereal_view.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Resciesa and Secëda in Urtijëi, in Val Gardena. --Moroder 08:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Peulle 09:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Eine wunderbare Landschaft, leider zu dunstig, kein QI für mich --Fischer.H 08:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - In my opinion, the haze in the background is not a bug but a feature, and I mean that almost literally, as I see this photo as borderline featurable. I do have one problem with the photo that could be remedied, though: the brightest areas in the sky are blown out. But let's be honest: If you looked at them with your naked eye, they'd probably look blown out to you, too, and overall, the light and dark in this photo are IMO wonderful, dramatic and rather Romantic. -- Ikan Kekek 09:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Small burnt areas don't disturb in this case. In all other aspects very good. --Smial 21:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Burned areas are usually not accepted at QI why in this case? And apart from that they are repairable.--Ermell (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment We have lots of QI with small burnt areas, e.g. nightshots or stage photography, where the light sources themselves may be burnt. In this photo by Moroder we look diretly into the light source, the area is very small and it is not completely burnt, but has parrtly still detail. I tend to be very critical of such burned-out highlights and have often rejected such photos in the past when key areas of the subject are affected. In this photo, I think it is not only tolerable, but in my opinion it contributes positively to the image effect. --Smial 09:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   CommentI am of the opinion that in a quality image no burned-out image parts should be present. A QI should usually be a flawless image and have no disturbing parts of the picture --Fischer.H (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
      Support I disagree, capturing the light source is often/nearly impossible with current technology (sometimes one wouldn't even look at it with the naked eye) and it often makes for beautiful pictures. QI are based on what we can achieve now (that's why we reject noisy stuff that would have been fine before current algorithms came along) and we don't have yet that kind of crazy dynamic range. --Trougnouf 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 01:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Trougnouf 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arcades. Bologna. Italy.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Arcades. Bologna. Italy --Ввласенко 09:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support A bit noisy, but a beautiful picture and QI for me -- Spurzem 12:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition is fine, but I think it's too noisy for QI. Let's have some more opinions.--Peulle 13:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree with Spurzem. Too much noise unfortunately. --Halavar 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn't say: „Too much noise“! -- Spurzem 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment My mistake, sorry. I thought about Peulle, not you. --Halavar 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The noise is hardly visible to me at 300% of full screen size; it's only when I look at the photo at full size that I really see the noise, and even then, it's not severe, though Ввласенко might want to resolve this disagreement by correcting it. -- Ikan Kekek 18:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done -- Ikan Kekek, thank you for your advice. There is always a struggle between noise and sharpness, I hope that now the image is not worse. -- Ввласенко 22:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment - Looks better to me. -- Ikan Kekek 01:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of detail, unsharp, artifacts of noise reduction. As Ввласенко says, it's a struggle between noise and sharpness. I like the grainy version better but IMO neither of them is good enough for a QI. --Basotxerri 14:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment Only a comment...Not my style and my biggest matter is to understand

the reviewers. Technical noise reduction is not wealthy (and limit for this sensor is 16000 ASA/ISO) and now the question marks:

a) What´s the sense shwowing peoble to sepeerate a snap from an image in architecture? It´s the rear side of an old men, and it´s not composite, see next T-Shirt behind....

b) I do not like grain, but if someone will this convert it to b&w , we can see it´s not graphic enough

Conclusion: It´s warm, it´s a base for refuge. I miss a body with face or an idea for the picmakers idea. Still think, it´s just a random snap.

  • weak   Support for the denoised version, full support for the first. --Smial 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)~
  •   Support--Moroder 07:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support QI IMO --PJDespa 12:11, 01 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Alt_Duvenstedt_Mühle_001.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Mühle in Alt Duvenstedt im Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde in Schleswig-Holstein --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too blue! --RaboKarbakian 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It´s not blueish and not to warm. If some one wanna critize, then it´s to bright. Pls Check the time stamp, 15 Minutes later it´s real dark, because night dew at a winter day.(Frozen Times) I see no sense to drift every image to a sunny High-Noon Level. Looks like the audience wanna see more tombs and toilet rooms from my side, I added one todayː-D With the hard job to take a pic from ugly but sensefull places with open apperture. Daily Pic is warmed up, over 2200K, no reality but North Side--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
  •   Support per photographer's explanation. -- Ikan Kekek 06:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark. Underexposed foreground, per Commons:Image_guidelines#Quality_and_featured_photographic_images. The light is just not good. The fact that this was nearly night is not a valid reason to accept dark pictures here. The result is more important than the originality, and if we have no underexposed images among our QIs, the reason is not because the users never attempt to shoot in the evening, but rather because such shots too black are not successful, sorry -- Basile Morin 04:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I too think that it hasn't quite succeeded, especially when looking at the borders between the mill tower and the sky.--Peulle 07:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I do agree with the author of this picture, it is not too blue --PJDespa (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy 03:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is not the most easiest photo to shoot, but the result is for me not good enough for Q1. Especiallty the righ part photo; the branches are blurring a bit and the sky colour is not well done; a darker sky and the other part brighter might give a nicer photo to look to --Michielverbeek 07:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Qualitätsbild mit Blaustich??? --Fischer.H 08:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 15:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)