Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 07 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Blutenberg_Castle.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Castle Blutenburg in Munich, Germany --Sumitsurai 12:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Underexposed imo. --ArildV 14:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Not IMO --Daniel Case 01:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It IS underexposed. Just have a look at the histogram. This is easy to fix, but it has to be done. --Zinnmann 08:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
People look at pictures, not histograms. If you would like to take a screenshot of the histogram, upload it and nominate it, go ahead. I might even be the one who promotes it. Daniel Case 19:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 09:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed, some remains of CA and over all not very sharp, esp. at the corners. Why f/3.5 wide open? --Smial 12:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 12:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Castillo,_Sisamón,_Zaragoza,_España,_2018-04-06,_DD_21.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Castle of Sisamón, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 06:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Kind of soft and some CA visible --Daniel Case 02:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  New version Poco a poco 18:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Daniel? Poco a poco 09:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
hello? Poco a poco 17:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. IMO OK (now). --XRay 05:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think it could be better, but now I won't oppose. Daniel Case 18:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 08:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Bontecou_Lake_aerial_overview.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Bontecou Lake, New York, USA from a drone Juliancolton 03:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Ercé 05:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    Insufficient sharpness, even for a drone --Uoaei1 14:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It isn't tack-sharp like you'd expect from a 5DS R and L-series lens, but for a drone I think it scrapes by. No information is lost, and it only gets unsharp around the edges, which is normal – the "problem" is that the middle of the image is entirely featureless water, so the sharpness there is wasted. Juliancolton 20:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think it's good enough for a drone picture. -- Ikan Kekek 22:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I understand your points, Julian, and am glad to see pictures here from you again (you have a drone now? Get in touch with me! There are some great things we can do around the Hudson Valley with one), but Uoaei1 is right. Someday we'll be able to take DSLR pics from a drone, so at least this shows that our reach exceeds our grasp. Daniel Case 01:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful view and lighting, but strong colour noise, and sharpness at best mediocre. --Smial 12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Basotxerri 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Breil-Brigels._Katholische_Pfarrkirche_Maria_Himmelfahrt._(d.j.b.)_07.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Breil-Brigels Catholic parish church Maria Himmelfahrt. Mural.
    --Famberhorst 15:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. The viewing angle is too extrem. --Zinnmann 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    Note: This was the only way to photograph the mural without the disturbing balustrade above the door.See --Famberhorst 16:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    I totally understand your dilemma. But I don't think we should lower our standards due to technical difficulties. If it's not possible to shoot a good picture, so be it. An alternative would be to take multiple shots with different perspectives and to reconstruct the image with e.g. Gimp. --Zinnmann 17:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    The question is: what is the norm? The wait is for multiple opinions.--Famberhorst 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      Support - Good quality and not too extreme an angle, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      Oppose I totally agree with Zinnmann. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support, because technically ok. But why the tight crop? With some more surrounding this view would appear more plausible. --Smial 12:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 12:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Lailaha-resto.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lailaha Restoration. By User:Mohammad shahidullah --RockyMasum 06:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 09:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Perspective not corrected, distorted. --Basotxerri 14:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Baso.--Peulle 08:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 12:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Interiors_in_wider_view_of_Magen_David_Synagogue,_Kolkata.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Interiors in wider view of Magen David Synagogue, KolkataI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Indrajitdas --Bodhisattwa 05:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 09:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Perspective not corrected. --Basotxerri 14:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri.--Peulle 08:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 12:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)