Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 12 2018

Consensual reviewEdit



  • Nomination Portrait of Dom Pedro I --Rodrigo.Argenton 17:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality: harsh light, lack of sharpness. --Peulle 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Harsh light, lack of sharpness? come on. Rodrigo.Argenton 22:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Peulle better? Rodrigo.Argenton 00:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Sorry, but I don't think there's any way this photo can become a QI. As Granada says the light (while I think it's a bit too harsh/glary, not sure how to explain it; it's too white, too much light on the forehead and top left) is not the main problem. The main problem is the lack of sharpness. I know it's difficult to shoot paintings at FP standards (I have not yet managed it myself), but if you take a look at this page, you can see how much sharper the current FP portraits are. That's the level of quality we must expect. I appreciate your contribution of paintings to Commons; we need more such images and if you manage to take a high quality photo of such an historic painting, I'd be more than happy to support its nomination in the future, even for FP in addition to the QI status.--Peulle (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Peulle you are supporting images at FPC that have less sharpness than this, put it at the same size [1]... and we are at QIC. Rodrigo.Argenton 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I was being unclear; what I meant to say was that if this image had sufficient sharpness, I could even support it for FP.--Peulle 18:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very glary, and the picture of the whole painting, though too dark, clearly demonstrates that the glare is not in the painting but from a light source. -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
What's "glary"?
See another picture, not by me File:Oscar Pereira da Silva - Retrato de D. Pedro I, Acervo do Museu Paulista da USP.jpg
The light source was a 10 am sun from a 5 m window passing trough a curtain, so... diffuse soft and big light source, it's from the painting, as you could see if you opened the file page. Rodrigo.Argenton 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The glare on the top left is not the biggest problem I have with this photo. In particular it is just unsharp. --Granada 06:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The glare of the forehead? The painter glare, as here Rodrigo.Argenton 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Granada? And how this is unsharp? Do you know that is a painting in a wood, right? Rodrigo.Argenton 06:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There are lot of cracks in the wood. If the image was sharp you could see a lot more detail in these structures. --Granada 07:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching artifacts, partly doubled contours, cloning/retouching artifacts, lighting unsufficient. --Smial 08:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Doubled contours are from the painting, I fix some issues at the edge. Rodrigo.Argenton 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)