Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2010

< Commons:Quality images candidates

Contents

Consensual reviewEdit

File:Brachypelma_klaasi_2009_G01_cropped.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Mexican Pink tarantula Brachypelma klaasi. Cropped and awarded version of photo --George Chernilevsky 05:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Congrats on FP, it is also a clear QI. --Iotatau 06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a new crop to photo that is already QI. I see no point in promoting also this photo... --kallerna 16:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment COM:I "There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images." --Iotatau 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I know that, but IMO this is ridiculous because the crop is so similar... --kallerna 15:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not only crop, also some tiny details retouched. --George Chernilevsky 17:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support The image is the issue I think. --Herbythyme 19:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iotatau 16:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Felis catus 02.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Felis catus --Crusier 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Dobra. I like it. --PetarM 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice pose and good angle but strong incandescent light (orange) tint. Maybe I am too picky. --Iotatau 18:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
If you don't mind I'd try to fix the tint and upload a new version. [Note: in the meantime Herbythyme moved the image to "Discuss".] --Iotatau 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok Crusier 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, uploaded. If you don't like it just revert it. I'd support this one but as an editor I have to stay   Neutral. Good job to "freeze" the cat for two seconds! --Iotatau 12:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hot pixel on X:975 Y:657 :( Can you delete it? (the hot pixel) --Crusier 15:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Iotatau 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Good work --Herbythyme 16:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. -- Avenue 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iotatau 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Image:Kumbum Gyantse.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination The kumbum in Gyantse monastery (Tibet) --Antoinetav 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice. Meets the QI-criteria. --High Contrast 19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree it is a valuable, colorful subject and I thank Antoine for having uploaded many images of her travel to a remote place. But on this page it's about QI criteria and I see these issues: (1) anti-clockwise tilt of about 1.5 degree, (2) major perspective distortion, (3) oversaturation, (4) CA along several high-contrast edges. If the first three are fixed I would tolerate the CA. If Antoine agreed I'd try an update. --Iotatau 20:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course no probleme. Do the best for wikipedia Antoinetav 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  Neutral Ok, I have uploaded a new version. If you don't like it just revert it. Having changed the image I am now partial otherwise I'd promote the new one. --Iotatau 07:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rédacteur Tibet 19:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question Is the top really leaning so much, or is it still distorted? --Ikar.us 14:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult to find vertical references in the image. For my correction I used the window frames of the window at the left and the vertical gaps of the wall in the background. I specified the transformation parameters in the image comment - feel free to try your own parameters. --Iotatau 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I tried to correct the perspective distortion but the main tower might be affected by barrel distortion. For correcting that Antoine would need to specify her lens. Then the question is if PTLens knows about it. If not it's a trial and error process to find the degree of barrel distortion. Typically standard zoom lenses exhibit a significant amount of barrel distortion at the wide end. On the other hand I wouldn't be too strict in this case. Rectangular shapes don't seem to be a top priority in Tibetan architecture so the image shouldn't mainly be judged by its straightness. --Iotatau 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made one where the main tower looks less tilted. Don't know if it's better. --Ikar.us 17:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iotatau 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Monument du souvenir Gëlle Fra 2010a.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Luxemb. City, fortress, historic picture: The statue on top of the monument will be removed tomorrow, to be presented in the Luxembourg pavilion at the Expo 2010 in Shanghai. --Cayambe 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good and useful -- Archaeodontosaurus 06:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Resolution is only 1.4 megapixels, well below the minimum 2 megapixels requirement. --Elekhh 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For such a wide scene, the resolution requirement should be met. --Ikar.us 22:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iotatau 16:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Sculpture on column, Sanchi.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sculpture on column, Sanchi, India. Yann 05:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Unluckily cropped on the right side. --Ikar.us 21:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I cropped it and ajusted the contrast. Yann 05:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support now. --Ikar.us 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iotatau 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Tempodrom_im_Winter_(2010).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Berlin Tempodrom in winter. --Iotatau 07:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Sehr gut! --George Chernilevsky 08:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise visible even on thumbnails. --kallerna 11:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  Comment New version uploaded. --Iotatau 13:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  Comment Good! I'll support it now (my first "oppose" was just comment, not really a oppose-vote). --kallerna 11:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Performance_art_2009_G2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Living statues, performance art. Europe Day celebration in Vinnitsa --George Chernilevsky 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Colorful street scene, handsome actor and costume. --Iotatau 19:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very distracting background. --kallerna 12:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support First I thought the same, bacause of the same coulour on subject and background, but then I reasoned that on a black-and-white picture I would find the texture contrast good, and that it's the same for blue-and-white. --Ikar.us 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It will be better without this horrible roadsign. --Aquilae 22:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    •   Support I removed the sign to the best of my ability and support the image now. Please review! --MichaelBueker 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a street scene, the picture is especially interesting confrontation between the statue and bystanders.--Archaeodontosaurus 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would crop right, above and a bit more on left side so putting it in center. --PetarM 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --MichaelBueker 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Saint-malo-spring-tide.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Low water at Saint-Malo (France). --StephaneMartin 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      CommentTilted. Only slightly, but very obvious on the long horizon. --Ikar.us 00:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      Comment Well, I don't agree : houses are straight, and Saint-Malo's surroundings are not flat. Yet I'll be glad to make the correction if you point me the right angle... --Stephanemartin 00:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    The shore line should be flat. And the church tower seems not vertical. However, in the right part there's a perfect horizontal line. I'm not sure any more. --Ikar.us 00:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with Ikar - the right third of the picture looks nice and flat, but left of this I see cues (church, verticals in nearby buildings, rooftops left of the headland) that it is tilted CW about 0.5°. Could it be a stitching error? -- Avenue 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    You were probably right. Rotated CCW 0.5°, and it looks better now. As you can see on File:Parame-shore.jpg, the shore is not straight, which could explain the look&feel of the right side. --StephaneMartin 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine.--Ikar.us 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Good.Ankara 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tilt now seems fine, but I see half a dozen dark spots in the sky that should probably be cloned away. I can annotate them if it would help. -- Avenue 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thank you, I removed some spots. Tell me if you see any other. --StephaneMartin 21:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      •   Support There is one left worth removing IMO, about a steeple's length right and up a little from the top of the church steeple. Very nice image, thanks. -- Avenue 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support a bit underexsposed (maybe HDR would be perfect here), but good scene. --PetarM 13:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikar.us (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Vuosaaren sillat metro.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination A Helsinki metro train crossing the Vuosaari metro bridge, between the stations of Rastila and Puotila. --kallerna 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Very good composition -- Archaeodontosaurus 04:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilt CW --George Chernilevsky 09:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question Where? Everything can't be straight. The bridge is not tilted, I corrected it with photoshop. --kallerna 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the composition and it is reasonably sharp but the tilt needs sorting. --Herbythyme 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment The bridge isn't horizontal in this perspective, of course. But the water surface seems tilted to me, too. In the new version even more than before. --Ikar.us 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info Edited version uploaded. --kallerna 11:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK, the new file looks fine. --Ikar.us 12:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Tilt not fixed in this photo. Look ImageNote now --George Chernilevsky 12:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Now? --kallerna 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. Geolocation is missing. --Ikar.us 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Added. --kallerna 12:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Finally fixed. --Elekhh 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, fixed. --George Chernilevsky 05:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Better now. --High Contrast 13:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Cmentarz wojskowy nr 11a.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination World War I Cemetery nr 11, Wola Cieklińska, Poland --Pudelek 17:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Underexposed background. --Elekhh 05:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Dark background detaches subject. --Ikar.us 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting - I was going to work on it but the histogram shows it is pretty much correctly exposed (it might be lightened a fraction). QI to me --Herbythyme 12:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd support if there wasn't CA at the white cubes and circular plates (purple at the left, green at the right), also many white stones are overexposed. --Iotatau 13:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with your point on the ca and that should be fixed before promotion. As to the stones the clipping is very very slight and fixable easily? --Herbythyme 13:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Children bebek water 1220956 nevit.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Child in Water, Cartwheel --Nevit 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Nice action shot, quite sharp apart from some acceptable motion blur on the feet. Busy composition, with distracting side edges. It would work better with 100-150 pixels cropped off each side, IMO. -- Avenue 14:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Other views would be interesting (IMO!)--Herbythyme 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is a cropped version to show what I meant. -- Avenue 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment If the author had time to stop by and adopt Avenue's version I'd promote it. --Iotatau 12:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree that is too "busy" composition, apart of capturing an interesting movement from a funny angle. For so many things happening in the forground a calmer background would be much better. Particularly the background behind the upper leg is unfortunate. Avenue's crop improves it significantly, but still not a very good composition --Elekhh 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC).
  • No one appears to be actually voting...:) So - I like Avenue's crop too, it is better than this if not perfect so I'll   Oppose this one --Herbythyme 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Aye,   Oppose original. -- Avenue 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Herbythyme 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Sculpture on pillar, Sanchi.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sculpture on pillar, Sanchi, India. Yann 10:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Very interesting subject but it has some composition issues: not well framed, subject in shadow while background is bright. --Elekhh 02:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is on the North side, so it will always be in shadow. Do you mean that it should be cropped? Yann 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment By "not well framed" I mean the legs of the people in the bottom scene are croped, while on the top of the image one sees some legs only. Crop would help eliminate the bright and irrelevant background but would not solve the framing. --Elekhh 21:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine, I understand what you mean. Yann 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iotatau 13:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Св Наум.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Church of St. Naum at Ohrid, Macedonia. --PetarM 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose perspective distortion, noisy sky --Pjt56 21:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Distortion fixed! Sorry, I found sky noise much more lower than on most pics which are promoted.--PetarM 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment The submitter may challenge a review, just change the "Decline" to a "Discuss". --Iotatau 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (After bot move to discuss:)   Support Sky noise is acceptable, otherwise good after perspective correction. --Iotatau 12:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support too. --Ikar.us 16:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:TopazeRose.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Pink Topaz Pakistan--Archaeodontosaurus 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  •   Support Good and useful. --Cayambe 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not enough DOF. Most of the subject is unsharp.--Elekhh 06:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "One shot with f/22". From me   Support, or you must use focus stacking. It isn't possible others. --Alchemist-hp 07:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question Can you correct the blue CA inside the top left of the triangular facet? --99of9 13:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    I think this isn't CA because the prism effect on the uneven crystal surface. --Alchemist-hp 12:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank to Alchemist-hp for explaining this point. In mineralogy we have often this problem of light diffraction on the edges or uneven surfaces. The anomaly covers the entire spectrum range.Looking good: there is for each blue spot a red spot at the bottom. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm sorry, perhaps I'm not fully understanding Alchemist-hp's explanation, but to me these little rainbows seem more consistent with CA from the camera optics than with the crystal acting as a prism. For instance, with CA I expect to see the blue fringes pointing outward from the centre of the picture, and if you look around the bottom of the object you can indeed see a few bright spots with blue fringing underneath. This contrasts with the blue fringes appearing above the bright spots in the upper part of the picture. I don't understand why crystal prism effects should show this pattern. -- Avenue 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think Avenue is correct since the radial nature is visible all the way around the image. The prism effect might apply if this were transmitted light, but it appears to be a reflection to me. Your argument about a red spot for each blue spot is also applicable to CA around small bright spots (e.g. either side of a thin branch). Is the 60mm lens a zoom lens? If so, is it near the center of its range, or far from it? --99of9 00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to CA. -- Avenue 06:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination OK I'll redo ... I'll try. That's how we can progress --Archaeodontosaurus 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Iotatau 12:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Volucella September 2007-3.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination A Volucella zonaria, one of the largest hoverflies -- Alvesgaspar 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion   OpposeThe basic object is much more dark than the minor --Doomych 06:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course it is, flies are darker than white flowers. -- Alvesgaspar 08:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I think its good enough for QI.--PetarM 09:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support And light parts of the insect are really light, it's exposed very vell. --Ikar.us 12:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support It's not the fault of the fly, nor the photographer :) Elekhh 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Good. --High Contrast 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support May be, I was mistaken... --Doomych 06:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
  •   Support per Elekhh. --Pjt56 09:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iotatau (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Xanthoria parietina on elm.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Xanthoria parietina growing on elm. --Von.grzanka 22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Nice specimen, but not enough DOF - blurry on left side. -- Avenue 01:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support It is tiny object and some part is in focus --George Chernilevsky 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree the bulk of it is in focus, including the most important part (the cups). But some of it is blurry - about 25% of the yellow lichen is soft, I think, and 10% blurred significantly. How fussy should we be about this? -- Avenue 20:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no information on the subject in the out-of-focus area beyond the sharp part which is lost due to missing DOF. Aperture is already at f/11, beyond that diffraction starts. In the weighting of sharpness and DOF I lean towards sharpness of the central parts. All in all   Support. --Iotatau 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm convinced. I do like the sharpness of the cups.   Support. -- Avenue 15:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Pfaffensee im Winter.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Lake Pfaffensee near Stuttgart, Germany --Harke 21:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice winter landscape. --Cayambe 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The trees in the background are tilted towards the middle axis. Given the center of the image high in the sky, I presume they aren't grown tilted, but it's perspective distortion. --Ikar.us 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    Improved version uploaded. Better now?--Harke 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bottom crop is too tight. --Pjt56 21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Persepctive corrected. --Ikar.us 09:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support good --George Chernilevsky 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Pobednik na Kalemegdanu 3.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Different view of Pobednik monument and Kalemegdan fortress in Belgrade. --PetarM 10:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Good. --Ikar.us 11:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks a little tilted to me (good image tho and worth fixing if I am right) --Herbythyme 14:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perspective distortion, I think. Didn't mind because it's composed as view upwards. Fixing would be fine though. --Ikar.us 15:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment My mistake, yes there was some. Fixed. Beware of conical column. --PetarM 15:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not precisely fixed, left side still isn't vertical. --Ikar.us 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Don't mind that small tower, it's under angle. Check lantern and white block underneath.--PetarM 16:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Lantern head has same angle as little tower, that made me think they are vertical. Anyway, not critical for me. --Ikar.us 16:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Ikar.us Much better photograph than the first one on the same subject, IMO. The "lines" of the base, and the bartizan are very interesting for the composition --Jebulon 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition but too noisy. --Mbdortmund 05:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

*   Oppose per Mbdortmund. Sorry again, Petar; you see that I'm not alone. You're a good photographer. Do you have a chance to get a better camera? --Pjt56 09:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Good now, and congratulations for the new camera! --Pjt56 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

  •   Info Noise level lowered. @ Pjt56 : I passed to DLSR Olympus recently. --PetarM 13:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Herbythyme 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Botik-storojka-01.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Lodge and a box office. Veskovo village. Botik museum.--PereslavlFoto 13:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Beautiful illumination, but besides motion blur, subject seems out of focus, focus is on the grass. --Ikar.us 15:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment The motion blur is because of the long exposure time. Nothing can be out of focus with 28mm focal length; maybe it's a noise reduction effect. I will check, thanks.--PereslavlFoto 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness is acceptable. (Did you use mirror lock-up? If not there may have been a mirror slap effect.) Personally I also don't mind motion blur in night shots. --Iotatau 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it --Mbdortmund 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done. --MichaelBueker 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Herbythyme 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Karlsruhe_Theaterbranddenkmal.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination memorial --Ikar.us 10:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Sculpture is overexposured and the pedestal is too dark. --High Contrast 13:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Details are visible everywhere. That's how it looked. --Ikar.us 17:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is notable chromatic aberration in the treetop (the worst of which could probably be cropped out). Also, in the tree and in the sky, I see some pretty strong JPEG compression artifacts. --MichaelBueker 16:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-11055-Lampe-Oranienburg.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination traditional lantern at Oranienburg castle --Mbdortmund 08:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Interesting object --George Chernilevsky 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition is very good,but so unsharp bottom and top of lantern,wrong setting; f/4,5 is more for portrait. --PetarM 09:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image. No reason at all to take the aperture into account if the image is ok. --Herbythyme 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Aperture has very visible results. --Ikar.us 13:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, the bottom is blurred, but the main part of the lamp is very sharp. Lighting is very well done! --MichaelBueker 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Castle of Belfort (by).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Inside the castle of Belfort --ComputerHotline 18:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice light. Yann 09:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So this gets waved through despite heavy whitebalance issues, and these don't? Makes no sense to me. --Dschwen 13:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Two different reviewers, (at least) two different opinions. This an example of the fundamental weakness of the QI review process. It is a major challenge to find a review model which ensures a homogenous application of quality standards. --Iotatau 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well, what I find interesting here is the contrast between two sources of light, therefore the colors. Yann 15:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry if I wasn't clear, Yann. Your review is ok, I simply used Daniel's remark as an excuse for a meta comment (which probably doesn't belong here). I am not sure how to count Daniel's statement, please correct if it is an "Oppose". --Iotatau 12:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question It appears tilted to me? --Herbythyme 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Rather perspective distorted. Unnessarily in this place,I think. With the coulour effect I would agree. --Ikar.us 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Original enlightment. If the perspective is distorded, it is the fault of the architect, I mean... I may stay for a long time watching, fascinated, this mysterious "distorded" corridor. Only my opinion...----Jebulon 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment To me this looks like normal perspective distortion of otherwise vertical structures which should be corrected. I have no problem with the lighting. --Pjt56 09:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose at least until the perspective is corrected --Herbythyme 11:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I absolutely love the colors and the perspective. Someone please fix the slight distortion, and I think we're good to go here. --MichaelBueker 16:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  Support Very good now :) --MichaelBueker 23:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Done Coarsely fixed the heavy distortion. Would support now, neutral because of own contribution. --Ikar.us 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support good now --Mbdortmund 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Tower of Lozoya, Segovia.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Tower of Lozoya. By Bgag --Ikar.us 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support QI to me. --Cayambe 09:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      Oppose ccw tilt. --High Contrast 13:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilt, too tight crop. --kallerna 17:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose tilt and too tight crop, clouds overexposured, slight CA on the left. --Elekhh 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:BelleOfLouisville.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Belle of Louisville --JMSchneid 17:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support No doubt.--PetarM 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Actually there is doubt, quality is only so so with lots of bunt highlights and general lack of detail. But the composition kills it for me, it screams tilt the camera up. --Dschwen 23:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    •   Support new version. Nice. --Dschwen 21:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Indeed. To rescue it, bottom must be cropped. --Ikar.us 00:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. --MichaelBueker 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Dschwen is correct on both objections. I went back to the originals and found that the next image was taken with the camera tilted up. I uploaded that image as a replacement. --JMSchneid 17:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now. Like the effect above the chimneys. --Ikar.us 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Good result --George Chernilevsky 08:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! --High Contrast 18:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Walkway Over the Hudson Poughkeepsie side.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Walkway Over the Hudson. Juliancolton 22:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Tilted. Not geocoded. --Ikar.us 17:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks. Juliancolton 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Not exact (house on the right), but OK. --Ikar.us 02:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose imo overexposured, lack of details --Mbdortmund 05:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)'
  • I tried toning it down a bit. How's it look? Juliancolton 22:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Mbdortmund. --Pjt56 09:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA, snapshot. --kallerna 17:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:SF Chronicle Wine competition Public tasting 2010-02-20 30.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Wine bottles at the Public tasting event of the San Francisco Chronicle Wine Competition 2010. --guillom 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment DOF too short to me, most of the image is blurred. Elekhh 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, that was kind of the point... Guillom 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I know, but still too short, if the blur would be more progressive would be better... anyway second or consensual review required. Elekhh 08:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please correct the CCW tilt, otherwise very beautiful! --MichaelBueker 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Tilt corrected. I think this should be voted upon now. --MichaelBueker 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the discussion so far:   Oppose from Elekhh,   Support from MichaelBueker --MichaelBueker 15:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Odd composition, sorry. --kallerna 17:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition. Maybe DOF short, but it is the choice of the photographer. Interesting idea. Even if I much prefer Bordeaux--Jebulon 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting idea, yes, but the apparent break in the line of the white cloth under the bottle at our furthest left spoils the execution for me.--Avenue 09:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The idea with low DOF is OK, but the actual blurring looks odd, as pointed out by Elekhh. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Toukat.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Maggots used in ice fishing. --kallerna 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Maybe the upper part is dispensible. --Ikar.us 16:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Upper part with distracting shadow should be cropped. Main subject not really sharp. Unfortunate light: Most maggots are in the shadow, the bucket is brighter. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - For an easy shot like this it shouldn't be too difficult to get a better quality -- Alvesgaspar 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

File:ВДНХ 58.jpg