Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 31 2013

Consensual review

edit

File:Luxembourg_City_rue_des_Glacis.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Street in Luxembourg City. --Cayambe 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
  • Promotion Noise reduction overuse or just unsharp, not sure --Nino Verde 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
    •   Comment No noice reduction at all, sharpness is there: please read the info panel at the very right side and see also the road sign and the car plaque at the right side of the street. --Cayambe 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   OpposeOk. I've noted some points with lost details, probably you should tune your camera settings or shoot in RAW and process later. Currently this is not QI. --Nino Verde 16:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • All my images are processed from RAW files. But let's hear what others say. --Cayambe 16:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      Sure, i'd like to hear other opinions too. --Nino Verde 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support A little bit unsharp, but enough quality for a QI --VT98Fan 06:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support There are no typical noise reduction artifacts. The high resolution of the D800 shows us the limits of every lens used with it. Scale the image to 18 or 12 MPix and it will appear perfectly sharp. -- Smial 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • So, why it is not resized yet? The QI is quality image, not "it may be quality image after some manipulations like resizing, sharpening and probable WB correction", isn't it? --Nino Verde 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Biopics 07:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Elisabeth_Kaufmann-Bruckberger_23-05-2013_06.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Elisabeth Kaufmann-Bruckberger, member of the Lower Austrian gouverment. --Geiserich77 20:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Unfortunate lighting with double reflections in the eyes and reflections on the skin --Smial 00:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      Support That is one possible portrayal lightning (with a strong fill), imho no reason for decline. --Tuxyso 05:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      Support The counterpoint is not traceable. Good quality. --Steindy 19:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Biopics 07:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Val_Lasies_Holzner_Rinne_Ausfahrt.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The SellaGroup in the Dolomites --Moroder 10:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Rather soft (not to say blurry). Can you improve this? --Kreuzschnabel 22:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)   Done Sharpened, thanks --Moroder 17:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
      Weak oppose Still not convinced. I tried to do some sharpening with RawTherapee myself but that makes the rocks look unnaturally posterized. Too soft for QI IMHO. Let’s have another opinion. --Kreuzschnabel 18:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined Biopics 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Église Saint-Mathias Fingig 10.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Church of Fingig, Luxembourg --VT98Fan 17:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality --3uclides64 18:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} The perspective distortion is disturbing--Lmbuga 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  Done --VT98Fan 21:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Perfect now --3uclides64 21:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  Done I uploaded a 3th version with stronger correction. Better? --VT98Fan 06:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  Comment Perspective is ok now, but the main problem is lack of fine detail. --Iifar 06:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  Comment ok, but the criteria is 2 MP, and not 16 --VT98Fan 06:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of detail and   chromatic aberrations--Lmbuga 08:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise and compression artifacts on sky and at shadows. Details lost. (If you talk about 2 Mp criteria - just change dimensions) --Nino Verde 10:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined Biopics 07:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Trier - Aula Palatina.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Trier, Germany - Aula Palatina --Pudelek 22:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality -- Arcalino 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. The perspective correction let the building look as if its right side leans to the right and as if it is wider near the roof than at the base. Can you correct this? --Dirtsc 06:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. --Christian Ferrer 17:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me --VT98Fan 08:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Biopics 07:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Passer_domesticus_-_10.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) in Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Why hello there. --Mattbuck 19:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    Very shallow DOF. Biopics 12:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Biopics 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Auer_Dult_Mai_2013_-_Antiquitäten_und_Topfmarkt_026.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Glassware at a market stand at Auer Dult in May 2013. --Mummelgrummel 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Moroder 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Snapshotty, poor crop/framing and rather soft. Biopics 11:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp. --Nino Verde 10:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Biopics 06:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Auer_Dult_Mai_2013_-_Antiquitäten_und_Topfmarkt_024.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Aerostats at a market stand at Auer Dult in May 2013. --Mummelgrummel 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Moroder 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Snapshotty, poor crop/framing and rather soft. Biopics 11:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurry, bad categorized. JFYI: aerostat is an aircraft --Nino Verde 10:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Biopics 06:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Daslook (Allium ursinum).JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination: (Allium ursinum) along a path in the shade garden.--
    Famberhorst 15:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Proper categorization is mandatory for a QI. Biopics 19:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      Comment Would you explain what you mean? Because I do not understand you The plant is called: Allium ursinumIk snap niet wat ik verkeerd doe. De Latijnse naam staat er bij.Allium ursinum--
    Famberhorst 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      Done
    De categorie is Allium ursinum --
    Famberhorst 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 23:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boehmeria nivea 02.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: May 16. Young leaf of the relatively unknown Boehmeria biloba.--
    Famberhorst 05:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review   Weak support OK for QI --A.Savin 15:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Wrong species. B. biloba has no serrated leaves. Biopics 13:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      CommentWe bought the plant as Boehmeria biloba! It will bolgens Google Boehmeria sieboldiana are.--
    Famberhorst 07:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Graag in Nederlands antwoorden. Uw Engels is onverstaanbaar. Dank u. Biopics 20:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      Comment
    We kochten de plant als Boehmeria biloba! Het kan volgens Google de Boehmeria sieboldiana zijn. Ik beheers de Engelse taal niet. Sorry.--
    Famberhorst 18:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Je kan altijd de taal gebruiken op Commons die je best beheerst. De anderen passen zich wel aan... Wat de foto betreft is een correcte determinatie een vereiste voor een QI. Soms is de soort niet echt nodig (of zelfs mogelijk, zie het vliegje een paar plaatsen hoger), maar in de meeste gevallen is een (gestaafde) identificatie toch wel nodig. Het is ook erg handig om dit te doen alvorens te nomineren. Mvg, Biopics 09:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ik ben er achteraan gegaan. Het blijkt Boehmeria nivea te zijn. Ze zijn op de kwekerij verwisseld. Moet ik nu de foto opnieuw uploaden onder de goede naam? Mvg.--Famberhorst 17:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Nee hoor, die hernoeming doe ik wel voor je. Biopics 22:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wasserturm Biebrich.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Water tower Wiesbaden-Biebrich, Germany --Arcalino 22:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Tilted? --Ikar.us 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    it is not tilted, the tower narrows to the top, the mast of the street lamp is upright --Arcalino 14:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    The left edge has 4° inclination, the right 3°. The Blitzableiter in the center 0,5°. This is enough deviation to be visible. The lamp post isn't a better vertical reference than the tower, because of reality, and perspective correction. --Ikar.us 17:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
      Done I am convinced! Rotated the tower. Better now?--Arcalino 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Looks good. Can't examine details here, setting back to nomination. --Ikar.us 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    I´d like further opinions and setting to discuss -- Arcalino 07:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • for me its too strong distortet. --Ralf Roletschek 15:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment needs a CA correction (see annotation), otherwise ok for me. --Carschten 12:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Although I had already removed CA it is still in the leaves on the left. I tried again to get rid of it but it didn´t succeed. The only chance would be a crop that destroys the format (2:3). I think I can leave it as it is. CA appears at a magnification of 2:1 in an insignificant part of the image. The main motive is free of CA. Suggestions?--Arcalino (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Habe die CA selbst korrigiert und die neue Version drübergeladen –   Done und   Support --Carschten 19:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Vielen Dank! Wie hast du es gemacht? Mit welchem Programm? -- Arcalino 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Kein Problem. Ich habe die entsprechenden Bereiche via Photohop markiert und lediglich die Sättigung der entsprechenden Farben der CA heruntergefahren. Grüße --Carschten 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Vielen Dank! Grüße -- Arcalino 20:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Clevere Methode, irgendwie logisch ;) Ich versuche es immer mit einer teiltransparenten s/w-Ebene. --Ralf Roletschek 22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wenn Ihr eh Photoshop nutzt, könnt ihr dafür auch die automatische CA-Enfernung von CameraRaw nutzen. --Martin Kraft 09:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support It's ok for me.
    • Signature please! Thanks! Arcalino 17:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry :) It was me. --Nino Verde 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support now. --Cayambe 18:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted A.Savin 23:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)