Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 03 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Cologne_Germany_Aggripabad-01.jpg edit

 

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hubert_Nasse_Berlin_alphafestival_3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dr. Hubert Nasse, Staff Scientist at Carl Zeiss Camera Lenses --Denis Barthel 01:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Weak pro. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 11:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Bad crop of the left hand. Right hand - though important for the motif - out of focus. --Cccefalon 15:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC) -
      Comment Thank you both. I guess we are on aesthetical issues here. For me arm and hand are the parts of Nasses body, that are leading out of the focus area, which is Nasses torso, to the lesser important background. As such it is not important. This are different approaches, one can prefer the one or the other, but it's not an absolute thing. Denis Barthel 07:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. Focus is on the face, which is perfect IMO. The crop doesn't bother me so much. --Code 07:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree Code -- DerFussi 11:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Teterow_St._Peter_und_Paul_Orgel.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Orgel der Teterower Kirche St. Peter und Paul, Pipe Organ of St.Peter and Paul in Teterow --An-d 21:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment The description should be better.--XRay 12:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I changed the description. --An-d 20:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective correction needed, please.--Jebulon 20:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Jebulon. The lost getting small part of the ceiling would be bearable. --Hockei 07:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective correction would make the image unreal. I don't understand why a distorted image for vertical lines should be better. -- Spurzem 08:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You don't support a picture, you just vote to make a point. It is forbidden.--Jebulon 10:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what should be forbidden. Is it not allowed to disagree? -- Spurzem 11:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
        • You understand very well.--Jebulon 19:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
          • The rule says (image guidelines):Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant. It is not allowed to disagree, indeed. What is allowed is to try to change the rules.--Jebulon 19:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I read: "should usually" and not "must be". -- Spurzem 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Bad faith !! Already discussed since a long time and already decided.--Jebulon 22:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
.:I try to correct the perspective, hope you like it. --An-d 19:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect but OK for me now. --Hockei (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective is acceptable, but there's CA all around. Will change to support if you fix that. You should also add some more sharpness, I think. --Code 07:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dirtsc 07:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now.--Jebulon 22:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Lambertikirche Innenraum Münster.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Inside of the Lamberti Church in Muenster. --Pro2 17:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Please check your image. The windows at the right and left are overexposed, CAs at the windows and the image needs perspective correction.--XRay 17:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think there's much that can be done about the overexposure on the right. --Pro2 15:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, it's better now. But there are still a lot of CAs at the window top left.--XRay 06:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I give this image a weak pro, but send it to Consensual review for more opinions. --Hubertl 16:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I find the crop a bit confusing. But as described the interior is displayed here and not the colored window which sticks too far up for me.--Ermell 07:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit distorted but weak QI for me -- Spurzem 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Tartu_Küüni_3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tartu, Estonia: City centre. Renominated after various corrections. --Cayambe 11:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distorted, see windows, should be horizontal. A third opinion, please.--Jebulon 20:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Jebulon, sorry. --Dnalor 01 08:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Eggplant_stew_persian.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Eggplant stew --مانفی 05:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Compo not convincing (sharp object bottom left quarter). The position of the main object leaves the compo unbalanced. I had at least expected the entire stew pinsharp. It looks distorted. imo not a QI --Cccefalon 15:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I have the full frame and I can change the crop but I won't. This crop (cropped plate) is very popular in food photography genre.مانفی 15:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same opinion as Cccefalon--Ermell 09:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Fiord Bay 00 (30).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Fiord (fjord) bay, Taba, South Sinai, Egypt.--لا روسا 22:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC))
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. For me the best one out of your serie. --Ermell 08:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Heavily tilted ccw and a blue fringe line around the hill ridges. --Cccefalon 15:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilt, CA. -- Smial 09:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Fiord Bay 00 (46).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Fiord (fjord) bay, Taba, South Sinai, Egypt.--لا روسا 22:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC))
  •   Support Not bad --Pudelek 08:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose I disagree, sorry: Blue fringe around mountain tops, horizon not straight. --Cayambe 18:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cayambe --Cccefalon 15:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Abbaye-du-Lys-DSC_0055.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Abbey Notre-Dame du Lys in Dammarie-lès-Lys, Seine et Marne, France --Pline 10:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 10:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp, especially upper part. Crop too tight. Please discuss. --Kadellar 11:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, sharp enough and the crop is ok for me.--Ermell (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC) --
  •   Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 06:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Color channel clipping in the sky, many overexposed highlights, unsharp at top. Some sharpening artifacts resp. halos. Sharpness issues can be fixed by scaling down somewhat after perspective correction. Overexposure needs new developement from raw image data, if possible. -- Smial 12:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with the excellent and very detailed review of Smial.--Jebulon 22:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree -- DerFussi 11:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)