Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 08 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Alba_con_la_nebbia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sunrise with fog --PROPOLI87 13:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Hazy, noisy and not sharp enough. F 1/8 was a bad choice. --Halavar 16:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's OK. f/1.8 is very normal for a phone camera and provides enough DoF. --King of Hearts 18:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Very emotional composition. But I have to agree with Halavar although I think it is not a sharpness issue but due to poor image quality of the mobile phone used to take this picture. There is a low level of detail and intense compression in it. --Augustgeyler 07:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   CommentAs the author of the photo I would like to clarify that the first floor is very detailed, just look at the stones on the road. As for the second floor, you can also see a bale of hay in the fog. It is the thick fog that covers everything. You may like it or not, but more than that, with that thick fog it couldn't be done. I shot with the phone, because I had nothing else with me. They are photos to be seized on the fly. Real carpe diem. PROPOLI87 08:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 08:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Especially at the stones in the foreground the low level of detail due to compression is visible very easily. --Augustgeyler 09:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Again a really well composed landscape photo with beautiful light. But unfortunately also again strong sharpening and compression artifacts, which are already clearly visible at normal viewing distance and even look scary at 1:1... --Smial 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That's absolutely beautiful but the quality is too low. All you need is a better camera. -- Ikan Kekek 00:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment More better ones will come. This I took with the phone while going to work. Thanks! PROPOLI87 14:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 14:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 19:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Le_luci_del_tramonto_sui_condomini_di_Firenze_sud.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The lights of the sunset on the condominiums of south Florence. --PROPOLI87 10:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Oversaturated, spoiling an otherwise fine picture -- Alvesgaspar 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   CommentI have not saturated it, you can see it from the color of the signs and natural cars. Even from the roof of the houses. PROPOLI87 08:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 08:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Normal colours at sunset. I'd prefer to crop out the cars at the bottom, though. --Palauenc05 16:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   CommentThank you.I'd thought about cutting the cars at the bottom too, but the trees would have split in half as well. PROPOLI87 08:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 08:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely overcooked and noisy Poco a poco 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. Too much resharpening, too grainy, halos at the rooftop of the building. Greetings --Dirtsc 09:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Lord_Vishnu_Taal_(Lake),_HP,_India,_D35_7501_nx01_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lord Vishnu Taal (Lake) on a cloudy day, Lahaul and Spiti Dist., HP, India. Elev. ~4,000 m. --ADARSHluck 13:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Halavar 15:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some clouds are burned out. Not a QI for me. --Milseburg 17:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    •   Info added oppose template --Mdaniels5757 23:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very good composition. But I have to agree with Milseburg. --Augustgeyler (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Milseburg. I don't think burnt clouds are necessarily always a criterion to disqualify a QI (e.g. for buildings), but if the subject is a landscape like this, the sky is an integral part of the whole picture. --Domob 13:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

File:BMW_E3_Classic-Gala_2021_1X7A0085.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination BMW E12 at Classic-Gala Schwetzingen 2021.--Alexander-93 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Moroder 05:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support added support template --Mdaniels5757 23:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The burnd out parts in the front are not speaking for a QI. --Augustgeyler 08:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Augustgeyler. The burnt parts on the subject are not really big, but IMHO they are large enough to disqualify this shot from being a QI. --Domob 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad light. --Kallerna 08:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Fagne_des_Malchamps_-_ein_Venn_in_Belgien._10.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fagne des Malchamps - ein Venn in Belgien. 10.jpg --Horst J. Meuter 16:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose It's nice but it could have been shot anywhere, e.a. look at the Composition criteria. --Goran tek-en 17:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. No reason to oppose --Moroder 05:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is blurred. -- Alvesgaspar 16:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It does appear rather unfocused.--Peulle 07:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose main subject in the center blurred --Smial 09:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice layered photo and certainly not all blurred on my 13-inch monitor, but not bad even on my 23.5-inch. -- Ikan Kekek 21:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Plaza_del_Ayuntamiento,_Augsburgo,_Alemania,_2021-06-04,_DD_50-70_HDR_PAN.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Town Hall Square, Augsburg, Germany --Poco a poco 08:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Viewed with whole image visible, it looks good. Zooming in, there is a lot of ghosting of people due to HDR. --Tagooty 09:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, there's, I had expected it and being the main square of a big German city it isn't surprising, is it a killer criteria for you? --Poco a poco 08:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Natural ghosting in camera settings and object like this. --Goran tek-en 17:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ghosting of people is disturbing to me. Let's see other opinions. --Tagooty 15:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a nice shot and I'm sure such ghosting is unavoidable in this situation, but IMHO that's not QI. Perhaps it is not possible to take QIs of such shots, or perhaps it would only be possible e.g. at 3am in the morning. --Domob 13:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Blurred people are inevitable in such a shot. Well, you could use an ND filter to extend the exposure time to a few hours, or take several shots with a long time interval and calculate the differences, but that would have other side effects. --Smial 09:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support There's one bad section toward the right side of the fountain, where the ghosts in the foreground are distracting, but in the context of the entire photo, I'd allow that. It's a good night view of, as Poco says, the main square of a German city, and shooting at an hour when we can also see how people use the square at night shouldn't be disqualifying because it demands a long exposure that will produce ghosts. Ghosts are said to normally come out at night, after all, right? ;-) -- Ikan Kekek 21:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Sentiero_degli_Dei_4_Campania.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sentiero degli Dei trail in Agerola. --Moroder 10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose First it looks nice, but unfortunately in full size we can see that the picture is blurred, out of focus and not sharp enough. --Halavar 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Moroder 13:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent photograph! Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 14:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Halavar: the image is blurred. Even when size is reduced to about 2500 pixels horizontally, it is not sharp as it should. Maybe the lens stabilizer was not on? Moreover, colours are washed out as a result of the non-optimal lighting conditions. Alvesgaspar 12:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment My lens, even if very expensive, doesn’t have a stabilizer, which I guess I don’t need under those conditions. Unfortunately on that day there was little sunshine and colours are accordingly --Moroder 04:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support acceptable seeing the size, at 4000px it is mega-sharp Christian Ferrer 21:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good composition! But the image is clearly unsharp in the outer left part. --Augustgeyler 08:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I am not aware of what the critics have to complain about in the photo. The photo is of excellent sharpness and quality. Only in the left, more distant part does it drop off a little. That is definitely enough for QI.--Steindy 19:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. We do have to consider the size of the photo. Not doing so is unfair and means that we're holding very large photos to a very different standard than smaller photos. -- Ikan Kekek 00:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment Photos offered with such high resolution are obviously intended to be used even at unusually close viewing distance or very high magnification. Assuming this is the case, the image quality must of course be flawless everywhere. If it is not, then one might as well publish an image with six to eight MPixels, which is always sufficient for a printout in any size, if one keeps a "usual" distance when looking at it. If I first have to reduce such a high-resolution image to a small size in order to no longer be able to recognise the errors in the workmanship, then the offer is simply a waste of resources. --Smial 20:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Support per Christian, Steindy, and Ikan. --Aristeas 17:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Christian --Commonists 12:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)