Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 05 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Cemoro-Lawang_Indonesia_Statue-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cemoro Lawang, East Java, Indonesia: A statue in front of a religious building. --Cccefalon 04:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Huge unsharp building is a distraction --Daniel Case 04:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment: As it is a common photo technique to use an open aperture to get the background blurred while the foreground is pinsharp, I want some other opinions. --Cccefalon 15:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but you do that when the background is relatively indistinct anyway, not when it could easily be the subject by itself. Perhaps if this had been cropped more tightly ... Daniel Case 16:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 05:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support The result would have been better with a white building in background, however it stay a good and nice image. --Christian Ferrer 17:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment Looking very closely, I think the foreground statue is a bit oversharpened (thin sharpening line), and the bg is manually overblurred (some parts along the statue are not so blurry). Just a comment.--Jebulon 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
        •   Comment There was no partial sharpening or partial blurring. --Cccefalon 07:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
      •   Comment Are photoshop blurring tools nowadays as sophisticated they can emulate a lens with somewhat bumpy bokeh? That's a real question, because I do not know lightroom and all it's features. (Well, I do not like the composition at all, but that's not enough to decline the image, technically it is ok imho, so   Neutral) -- Smial 06:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Smial: Photoshop have indeed very good selection tools that allow to apply different good filters and create different visuals effects. Lightroom although is a very good edition software and is more intuitive allow much less freedom of adjustments than Photoshop. I use both for all my images : in first lightroom, because more intuitive, and Photoshop to end for all its excelent possibilities. --Christian Ferrer 08:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I consider the background, that uses the same color as the main object, as very disturbing. So i agree Smial concerning the composition. So, weak   Support concerning the technical aspects. -- DerFussi 06:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • While this image was entirely postprocessed with LR, I added an alternative File File:Cemoro-Lawang_Indonesia_Statue-01a.jpg with a quick level edit in PS to get the background de-saturated. However, the original one is still my personal favourite. --Cccefalon 07:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The colours of the head are kind of "melting" into those of the roof. More or less blur is not the main flaw, but this makes it hard to recognize the subject. Denis Barthel 17:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Burg-Freienfels.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Freienfels castle upon the river Wiesent --Ermell 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Oversharpened IMHO, and tight crop at the right. Fixable? --C messier 08:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadow parts are too dark. Need to be brightened. --Hockei 19:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversharpening emphasizes the noise artifacts. Somewhat too high contrast. -- Smial 06:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Peulendorf-28.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Former episcopal horse stable in Peulendorf --Ermell 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Blurry, perspective --Moroder 07:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp IMHO, and also, IMHO, this perspective works. --C messier 13:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurriness is OK for me, the building is sharp enough. Surely the weather was critical and I've seen worse pictures here. The noisiness is borderline but also not my problem. But the perspective must be corrected IMO. --Hockei 11:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness acceptable, very nice lighting and composition. No need for perspective correction, it would mess up the composition completely. -- Smial 12:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. In this case there is no need for perspective correction -- DerFussi 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Green peafowl (female).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Portrait of a female green peafowl, Miami MetroZoo. --Clément Bardot 09:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Feathers on the head unsharp. Sorry --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 10:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC).
  •   Comment Yes, some feathers are unsharp but I don't see the problem about it, especially on an animal picture. This concern a minor part of it... --Clément Bardot 16:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Well than lets discuss. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 13:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Feathers are not the problem from my point of view --Nino Verde 12:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support It would have been better with all feathers in focus, but ok for me. --Christian Ferrer 20:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Katholische-Pfarrkirche-St.Jakobus-Burgwindheim-73.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination church of St. Jakobus Burgwindheim --Ermell 19:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Ok --Poco a poco 08:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Needs perspective correction and the windows are completely blown. Strong magenta CA on the right side. Top is not really sharp. Not sure if that can be repaired. Poco, what's up? Didn't you see this? --Code 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Code. Nice place nevertheless.--Jebulon 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Malladora_conectada_tractor-Festa_Malla_Doade_2015.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Threshing machine at Festa da Malla at Doade in 2015. --Elisardojm 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Sky blown out. --Cccefalon 06:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image for me though the sky is not blue. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   SupportGood for me --Σπάρτακος 15:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I wonder what this picture should make a QI. --Elrond 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment No offense, but an "oppose" should be better motivated...--Jebulon 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky is not blue, but blue sky is not a mandatory. Anyway, here it is overexposed and too white.--Jebulon 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could be improved with some program, like Gimp? The sky was not blue because it was partially with clouds and sometimes with sky clearings, you can see it at the other uploads of Category:Festa da Malla de Doade 2015. Thanks for your comments, --Elisardojm 08:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree, concerning the sky. -- DerFussi 12:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi, I think that RaboKarbakian has fixed the sky. Could you review it, Cccefalon, Jebulon, DerFussi?. Bye, --Elisardojm 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:2015.07.07.-13-Mulde Eilenburg--Uferschwalben Kolonie.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Uferschwalben - Riparia riparia, Kolonie (colony) --Hockei 10:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose needs a better crop, hardly anything to recognize. --Ermell 07:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
      Comment What a crop should that be? This is a big distance. It's not the intention to show a single bird but the environment where and how they are brooding. This is the natural river bluff of the Mulde (a river in Saxony). That you hardly can recognize anything I can lend you my glasses.     --Hockei 13:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Could be any river. Thanks I`ve got my own glasses. --Ermell 20:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
OK. --Hockei 05:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 07:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but everything looks pretty blurry --Moroder 11:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as for moroder. Too strong noise reduction? -- Smial 11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Coesfeld,_Lette,_St.-Johannes-Kirche_--_2015_--_5764.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination St. John's Church in Lette, Coesfeld, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   OpposeUnfortunate crops, and perspective distortions. Harsh highlights in the glass. A third opinion is needed, please.--Jebulon 20:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective is OK for me. But the light reflex and the crop are not good. Sorry. -- Spurzem 08:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unpicturesque crop. A wider angle would be beneficial --Elrond 15:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Reflections are very small and not disturbing, but support the very nice composition. -- Smial 15:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree Smial. the crop is not a disadvantage here. I like it too. -- DerFussi 11:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support, i also agree Smial. --Ralf Roletschek 20:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)