Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 07 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Cathedral_of_Our_Lady_of_the_Assumption_of_Montauban.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption of Montauban, Tarn-et-Garonne, France. --Tournasol7 05:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose The top of the building needs sharpening. --Augustgeyler 06:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but I disagree. --Tournasol7 08:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Augustgeyler --Tagooty 15:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Top of towers and facade really are blurred, especially sculptures on the top of the facade do not look well --Jakubhal 17:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Porsche_Turbo,_Techno_Classica_2018,_Essen_(IMG_0015).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Porsche 911 Turbo at Techno Classica 2018, Essen --MB-one 14:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose For a parking (not moving) vehicle I would expect more crispness and detail, sorry. --A.Savin 15:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done Reworked sharpness. One can almost read the VIN now. That should suffice for QI IMO. --MB-one 18:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well composed, but over-processed. There is so much noise reduction now that every surface is looking very artificial, even the asphalt in front. --Augustgeyler 10:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support It's OK for me --Moroder 04:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I still suggest reducing the noise reduction. --Augustgeyler 11:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMHO August is right, at least the asphalt looks very artifical now; I would suggest to reduce the noise reduction. --Aristeas 12:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Now overprocessed. Full of artifacts. --Smial 12:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Btw: So wirklich verstehe ich nicht, wieso alle diese Schnappschüsse von Autos auf irgendwelchen Ausstellungen, Parkplätzem oder bei Gebrauchtwarenhändlern QI werden müssen. Ich glaube, ich muß mein persönliches Dogma, daß "Gestaltung" bei QIC ein nachrangiges Kriterium ist, dringend überdenken.
  •   Comment decreased global noise reduction and sharpening mask. @A.Savin: is sharpness ok for you now?--MB-one 12:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Thank you MB-one! It improved, but it is still there and the level of detail remained too low. --Augustgeyler 14:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI now. --Aristeas 07:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support OK. --A.Savin 14:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Smart_fortwo_cabrio_Brabus,_IAA_2017,_Frankfurt_(1Y7A1899).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Smart fortwo cabrio Brabus at IAA 2017 --MB-one 12:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose The car looks distorted because the windshield sinks completely into darkness. --Im Fokus 00:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done raised shadows on the windscreen --MB-one 18:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark and unrealisticly distorted. -- Spurzem 08:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question What kind of remaining distortion are you seeing? I'm tempted to support but might be missing something you've seen. -- Ikan Kekek 19:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: Look at the original car than you understand what I mean with saying "unrealisticly distorted". The image is taken with a short lense from too deep position. -- Spurzem 22:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't really tell from looking at image search results in duckduckgo.com. I'm confused, but I guess I'll defer to you two. -- Ikan Kekek 01:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Rostrum_of_the_ship_on_the_Northern_Rostral_column.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Rostrum of the ship on the Northern Rostral column. The old stock exchange, near Stock bridge, Vasileostrovskiy district, Saint Petersburg --Александр Байдуков 02:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Please reduce the exposure correction. There is a strong halo between monument and sky. --Augustgeyler 06:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Im Fokus 23:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Strong halo effect by overdone exposure correction --Augustgeyler 10:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ditto. Rodhullandemu 11:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Same question: Where are the halos? -- Ikan Kekek 19:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 05:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I wonder how one can not see these artefacts. I marked them at the image for convenience. --Augustgeyler 11:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per August and Rodhullandemu; the photo is good, but please reduce the halo. --Aristeas 12:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment This kind of halo doesn’t disturb me at all. I believe it’s visual phenomenon and not an artifact. --Moroder 13:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is no "visual phenomenon". It is a processing result. --Augustgeyler 20:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment It might be enhanced by increasing contrast but it's there? --Moroder 06:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Bratislava,_Eslovaquia,_2020-02-01,_DD_59.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Bratislava Castle, Slovakia --Poco a poco 07:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Review
  • needs persp corr --Tesla Delacroix 13:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Not done--Peulle 13:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, the request came one day before you declined it. What perspective correction is being asked here? verticals look vertical to me --Poco a poco 22:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies, there was a different image I meant to decline as having not been corrected in a week.--Peulle 07:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • So let's wait here for coming improvements. --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As long as I don't know what should be improve, there will be no improvements...Tesla Delacroix, can you help with that? Poco a poco 20:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I personally see two problems: 1st, it's not exacly centered and 2nd the roof looks curved. Not sure if it's fixable, the angle was quite wideTesla Delacroix 00:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • New version uploaded...Poco a poco 19:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Btw, any other reviewers are welcome... Poco a poco 19:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is a very very hard task to review this nomination. I think the main problem is the not centered point of view in combination with the strong perspective distortion of that lens. It gives a very artificial look and leads to an effect as if both towers were of complete different shape. I think this is unfixable – if not taking the picture again. --Augustgeyler 00:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral From a purely technical point of view, the photo is flawless. The question is whether such an extreme wide-angle perspective is appropriate for the subject in question. With a portrait photo, everyone would surely scream bloody murder because of the absurd distortion of the person depicted. Including the photographer's victim. I own a wide-angle lens myself, even if only with a not so extreme focal length of 18mm (35mm equivalent), but I rarely use it. I prefer to look for other possibilities, if necessary for a longer period of time, to adequately depict an object. A photo of a building may show falling lines, this is not a mistake in principle, but a question of conscious image design. The forced verticalisation which has been dogmatically advocated on QIC for a long time is not a model for really good architectural photography. --Smial 10:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  Support I was carefully reviewing the architecture of the place, the angle and the metadata. This seems to have a slight perspective problem, but not too severe to disqualify it. The difference in the size of the towers is because in real life the towers are not the same size [1] --Wilfredor 03:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I checked it on maps and could see that the outer lines are more ore less symmetrical. The image suggests they are not. Considering all arguments of the technically well taken picture I come to the conclusion that a "natural" perspective ways most in this case which can't be achieved with that wide angle at this not centred position. --Augustgeyler 11:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "The outer lines are more or less symmetrical" what do you mean? the building facade is not symmetrical because the left tower is wider, as Wilfredor pointed out. So to get both borders equidistant from the POV I should have gone 2 steps to the left bu then the statue would be off, which wouldn't help the composition at all IMHO Poco a poco 18:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Although the pure technical quality is really good, I think such a wide angle is not appropriate to document this building from this camera position. And perspective correction shouldn't be too extrem, because it's an artificial modification which could distort reality. --Tesla Delacroix 15:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Wilfredor. --Aristeas 12:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)