Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2009

< Commons:Quality images candidates

Contents

Consensual reviewEdit

File:Sommerhausen BW 25.JPGEdit

Sommerhausen BW 25.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Sommerhausen, Flurersturm ("Flurers" tower) --Berthold Werner 08:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong chromatic aberration in the tree top. -- JovanCormac 11:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this --Berthold Werner 06:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Berthold, please look at the violet fringe around the tree branches on both sides. --Cayambe 12:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per JC. CA also visible on the top edge of the dormer. Otherwise, this is a nice shot. --Relic38 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, CA is quite strong. Also tilted clockwise. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Relic38 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Pont Napoléon (Luz-Saint-Sauveur).jpgEdit

Pont Napoléon (Luz-Saint-Sauveur).jpg

  • Nomination Napoleonic bridge at Luz-Saint-Sauveur in Hautes-Pyrénées, France.--Herbythyme 10:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong tilt and blown sky. Landscape is very nice, but not QI, really sad --George Chernilevsky 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't actually see the tilt (the bridge is level?) but the blown sky I accept :( Thanks George --Herbythyme 10:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • At first glance I was tend to agree about the tilt, but then I looked at the trees in foreground and realized that there's no tilt, but rather an illusion of the tilt. Of course the sky is blown, but IMO the image could be improved, if most of the sky is cut off. --Mbz1 17:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilt CW 1.5-2 - look trees at foreground and background and vertical elements of this bridge -- George Chernilevsky 17:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per George. Using the lamp post on the left and the house on the right, there is definitely a tilt/distortion of some kind. The blown sky is probably worse than the tilt. --Relic38 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the tilt was corrected and the picture was slightly cropped (cut a bit of left and top) I would support, because I can see this picture being used (e.g. in an article on Wikipedia). --NormanB 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sutro bath11.jpgEdit

Sutro bath11.jpg

  • Nomination Sutro Bath --Mbz1 18:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline nice details, interesting people, but isn't it tilted ccw when you look at the buildings? geo-coding would be nice --Mbdortmund 20:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review. I thought it was OK because the standing people look OK to me. It is why I nominated it on QI to find out, if it is tilt because I am not sure. It will be interesting to see what other people think. I will add geo-coding now.--Mbz1 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with Mbdortmund. -- H005 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    I suppose it's more a perspective distortion, due to the fact that the camera was pointed downwards - so the buildings at the left side are slightly CCW tilted, but those at the right side are not. -- MJJR 20:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. Of course anything is possible with that image. I took pictures from a very narrow {one person) staircase just above the breaking waves. One leg of my tripod was put to a lower step while two otheres to the upper, and btw that staircase is prohibited to go to because it considered to be unsafe. I tried to do my best, but with such conditions...--Mbz1 21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Considerated the difficult shooting conditions and the general quality of the picture, the very slight and almost invisible tilt is negligible. QI! -- MJJR 08:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I have to disagree. I see a strong tilt. Not sure whether one can use the buildings as a reference, these have apparently suffered a lot from their environment, but the water in the basin is clearly not level. This could easily be fixed, no matter how hard the conditons of taking the image were. -- H005 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong tilt ccw. Red channel is overexposed at the rock on the left. Besides huge file size is inappropriate. (Could be less than half as large without visible quality loss.) --Johannes Robalotoff 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see the "strong tilt" at all: unless one can see the horizon (which is not the case here), the vertical lines in a picture are the true guidelines for evaluating a tilt, and the verticals here are almost not tilted. By the way, it's also the first time I see a huge file size - which is normally considered as a quality - used as a negative argument. This is not only a pretty strange reasoning, it is also in contradiction with the Commons image guidelines where is stated: "Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that our best pictures have as high a resolution as possible." -- MJJR 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Concerning the strong tilt: Look at the water surface, as H005 wrote before. In our world water surfaces are always horizontal, if the water is not flowing fast. The basins show water in a static condition, but the surface is not horizontal at all on the picture. Concerning file size: I opposed against QI because of the tilt and the overexposure. I just mentioned the unfortunate file size, but this was obviously misunderstood. The image guidelines have quality in mind. Higher quality may increase file size, of course. But larger file size does not necessarily increase quality. There is a point where a picture does not win any more from larger JPEG file size. You can even open any JPEG file and store it again with larger file size, but this does obviously not increase quality, because you cannot add information this way that was lost before. Therefore my remark did not aim to "too much JPEG quality" but to "inappropriate JPEG compression". It does not damage the picture and it is no reason to oppose against QI. But it is something that should be corrected nevertheless, because large files cost storage, bandwidth and download time. Hope you understand me now. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with your remark about the "inappropriate JPEG compression" and the uselessness of too big files. But I still disagree about the "strong tilt" of the water surface, which is IMHO mainly an optical effect. -- MJJR 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Don't know what you mean by "optical effect", but it is very clearly tilted. Compare it to File:SutroBathsandCliffHouse.jpg, this one is more or less straight. I'd fix it if I had the full image, an absolute no-brainer. -- H005 19:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Brela's beach02.jpegEdit

Brela's beach02.jpeg

  • Nomination Rock beach in Brela, Croatia --Jos. 10:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. Juliancolton 05:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horizon is tilted and distracted --Berthold Werner 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cropped it. What do u think about it now? --Jos. 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A crop can't help for the tilt issue, it can only conceal it. But anyway, I oppose because of CA. (Look at the purple fringes on the rocks.) --Johannes Robalotoff 18:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Strečno - view from castle2.jpgEdit

Strečno - view from castle2.jpg

  • Nomination View from Strečno castle --Pudelek 14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good in my opinion --Jos. 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not as sharp in the background as the other one, and since this is about the view, I have to oppose. --Relic38 03:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Relic38 --NormanB 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Admiral, Vanessa atalanta 3.JPGEdit

Admiral, Vanessa atalanta 3.JPG

  • Nomination Vanessa atalanta --Böhringer 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine with me.--Mbz1 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the black splotches in the background distract me too much to recommend this. The butterfly itself is beautiful!--99of9 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Controversial angles (viewing angle is difficult to identify a butterfly), dark shadows, a narrow DOF. - Darius Bauzys 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Campanile di Duomo di Lucca.jpgEdit

Campanile di Duomo di Lucca.jpg

  • Nomination Campanile di Duomo di Lucca, Italia. -- H005 21:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unless this is a leaning tower, the image should be rotated (I'd say CW, 1-2 degrees). -- JovanCormac 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure this wouldn't make it better, 1 to 2 degrees is much. Please check, the wall borders of the tower are exactly vertical. -- H005 08:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The tower is perfectly vertical as you can check with the ruler guides in gimp. But in my eyes perspective is overcorrected here. It makes me think that the tower gets wider towards the top, although you can measure with a ruler that this is not true. A similar visual effect might also have lead to the leaning impression for JovanCormac. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Second glance: The front wall of the tower is perfect. But the perspective correction had inconsistent effect on horizontal lines on the right wall that point away from the image plane. Hence my impression that the tower gets wider at the top and JovanCormac's impression that it is tilted. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibly. I'll upload a new version as soon as the current upload bug is fixed. -- H005 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I did check the sides with rulers, and the right edge is not perfectly aligned, but tilted counterclockwise. But Johannes is probably right that this is due to a perspective correction error. -- JovanCormac 13:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded, better now? -- H005 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sky with error, look it at top right --George Chernilevsky 07:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ooops, indeed, what an oversight, I'll fix that tonight. But apart from that, do you feel better about the tilt / perspective issue? -- H005 08:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The tilt / perspective are ok, but sky noised at blue areas --George Chernilevsky 08:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The geometry problems (tilt and perspective correction artifacts) are removed now. The noise in the blue regions is no problem for me. It is not really visually disturbing. You have already noticed the black upper right corner and said you will correct it. But why are the clouds now overexposed? This was not the case in the previous image version! --Johannes Robalotoff 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fixed flaw in sky, exposure corrected, noise reduced. Anything else? ;-) I have no idea what happened to the exposure, hugin must ave done this when I restitched it. -- H005 21:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not want to get on your nerves, but although the last version is better than the previous one it is such a pity that the cloud is still blown out around the pinnacle. Compare it with the first version (the one with the geometry problems). It was so well exposed. Why does hugin do this to your picture? I never experienced that hugin touched my exposure, if I just stiched and did not click anything on the exposure tab. I am eagerly waiting to promote this picture one day ... ;-) --Johannes Robalotoff 20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I do not know, apparently I accidentally fiddled around with the exposure setting, but I corrected it back to the original value. If I set the exposure any darker, the whole image is getting too dark. It seems that this is just because of the different projection. I don't think the small spot of white around the pole is really an issue. Btw, it's dominant only on thumbnail view, not in full size view. -- H005 21:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great detail. 99of9 04:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Duomo di Lucca back.jpgEdit

Duomo di Lucca back.jpg Duomo di Lucca back a.jpg

  • Nomination Lucca Cathedral viewed from the back -- H005 23:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Good.--Mbz1 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clockwise tilted --Berthold Werner 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice subject but I do see tilt -Herbythyme 12:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, it looks tilted. If you measure it, the walls on the right are nearly vertical (tilt < 0.3 degrees). But the campanile at the left is tilted by about 1 degree, which is clearly visible. Can you rotate counter-clockwise by 0.5 degrees? Then it looks visually OK for me. I would not try to make all lines exactly vertical with perspective correction, because this could have visual side effects. --JRff (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have restitched it and will upload the new version as soon as the current upload bug is fixed. -- H005 09:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded, any better now? -- H005 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The tilt of the Campanile is gone now. A bit less of perspective correction could even further improve the picture, as it has improved the Campanile-only image. Is this possible?--Johannes Robalotoff 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • This isn't a result of perspective correction, but of Hugin. To me perspective looks just right, but if you think it'll be better I've slightly changed the viewing angle for a try, please have a look. -- H005 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You are right, it is not the perspective. I had this bent effect with hugin before. The third version does not make it better, but only makes the tower more leaning. Symbol support vote.svg Support I recommend the second version and give you support for this now. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I have nonetheless tried something else and believe this is the best solution. Do you agree? -- H005 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, keep this one. It is the best. --JRff (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you think of my proposal? --Mbdortmund 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Jeez, this must become FP when we're finished, after all those debates and edits. ;-) Thanks for your proposal. I see pros and cons. The rooftop is more straight and the tower less leaning, but the tower looks skew/distorted and the right end seems to be leaning now - more or less the same issues that I had in the first versions of this image and of the tower-only image above. Geometrically correct, but somehow it just doesn't look right. -- H005 20:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but crop at bottom is very unhappy. I regret for the big done work -- George Chernilevsky 08:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with George. If only we could see the bottom of the building. --99of9 04:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Which image are you referring to? We're voting for the first one here, and on this we can see the bottom of the building. Everything of it you can see in real life standing there is visible, just the surrounding grass strip can be considered too narrow. -- H005 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the one on the right. The one on the left still seems to have a tilt. If we're voting on the left hand one, why is the right hand one here at all? 99of9 06:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Mbdortmund added it as an alternative. I do not believe it has a tilt anymore, see discussion above. -- H005 10:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sharp Tor, Bolt Head.jpgEdit

Sharp Tor, Bolt Head.jpg

  • Nomination Rock formation in South Devon, UK--Nilfanion 00:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp tor is really sharp :)--Mbz1 04:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of details despite oversharpening (haloes). Also some disturbing CA (viz. left). Lycaon 20:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC) That looks a lot better. Lycaon 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    I've got the CA sorted now, and I think the haloes too (which must have been caused by the camera not post-processing).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image & good quality now. --Herbythyme 16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good QI for me.--Cayambe 19:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me.--99of9 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Cormorant at Seaton.jpgEdit

Cormorant at Seaton.jpg

  • Nomination A Great Cormorant resting in Cornwall --Nilfanion 00:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not bad, but (IMO): there is not the central composition, dark shadows, the lack of sharpness. - Darius Bauzys 05:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and detailed --David Perez 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened (haloes) and few details for the size. Lycaon 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. --kallerna 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much of the bird is in the shadow so that you can't see much of it there. -- H005 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:ViewFromKingsCanyon.JPGEdit

ViewFromKingsCanyon.JPG

  • Nomination View from Kings Canyon, Northern Territory, Australia. --99of9 00:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice rocks formation.--Mbz1 04:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Lycaon 18:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Tilt is fixed. Lycaon 00:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for noticing Lycaon, I wasn't sure whether to go with my hand or the horizon. I've just uploaded a tilt corrected version. --99of9 04:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good QI now. --Cayambe 19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Back-scattering crepuscular rays panorama.jpgEdit

Back-scattering crepuscular rays panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Back-scattering crepuscular rays panorama (stitched manually) --Mbz1 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wood for elves. Fantastic! -- George Chernilevsky 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeStrong posterization and awkward use of DOF. Lycaon 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    I am not sure what does it mean "awkward use of DOF", but here's one of the original images (not postprocessed at all) that was used for the panorama File:Back-scattering crepuscular rays original.jpg. As you could see from the setting I've used F10 with Aperture priority. So what "awkward use of DOF" we are talking about?--Mbz1 19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This is Q(quality)I. Strong posterization should not be allowable. That is not quality. WOW is for FP. Lycaon 16:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! Yann 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good - Darius Bauzys 10:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Yann -Herbythyme 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. Support levels indicate promotion. --99of9 14:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterization visible even on thumbnails. --kallerna 21:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for QI. I like very much the picture, but for FP. As Lycaon said "WOW is for FP".--DPC (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Budapest_Gellért_R01.jpgEdit

Budapest Gellért R01.jpg

  • Nomination Budapest (Hungary): Gellért Hotel seen from Szabadság Bridge -- MJJR 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good QI and value --Mbz1 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    perspective should be corrected --Mbdortmund 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see a significant perspective distortion. Could you specify your remark, please? -- MJJR 19:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    Street lights on the left lean to the right side, walls of the buildings on the left, too, but not so strong --Mbdortmund 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Perspective corrected -- MJJR 18:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Left side much better now. But street lights and walls on the right side still lean slightly outward, i.e. to the right. Otherwise very good. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
      • In fact, one of the poles of the tram overhead wire at the right side is really leaning to the right; otherwise I think that the verticals are almost OK. It was never my intention to take a perfect picture, I am happy with a "very good" one ;-) -- MJJR 15:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. It is very good. --Johannes Robalotoff 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Hrad Strečno - window.jpgEdit

Hrad Strečno - window.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Strečno - window --Pudelek 11:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Sorry, but the window is tilted. --Alchemist-hp 16:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Your are right, the window ist tilted, not the photograph ;-) --Berthold Werner 18:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the castle windows often are tilted :) --Pudelek 22:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, not because of the tilt, but because of the cleanliness of the window. -- H005 08:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)~
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:San Francisco with two bridges the fog and superior mirage.jpgEdit

San Francisco with two bridges the fog and superior mirage.jpg

  • Nomination San Francisco with two bridges the fog and superior mirage --Mbz1 04:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Cayambe 10:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CW tilt. Lycaon 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC) ~- Tilt has been fixed but on closer viewing, sharpness of the bridges seems insufficient. Lycaon 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
That's why I took the image of the bridge with most of it bellow the fog that nobody would see how unsharp it really is Face-smile.svg.--Mbz1 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded a new version. Is it fixed now? Thanks.--Mbz1 23:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think Lycaon is a little too used to subjects where it is possible to get ultimate sharpness. This is quality image to me. --Herbythyme 16:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Again, this is not quality. If you think it has enough wow, then try FP by all means. You seem to be confusing FP, QI and even VI lately. Lycaon 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An impressive scenery, really nice, good light and and very low noise for such conditions - but I agree that sharpness is an issue, maybe a side-effect of de-noising? Really a pity for this great image! -- H005 09:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact the bridges that are seen as a silhouettse are really sharp enough, and they were not denoised. It is strange to say that the bridges are not sharp. The city is behind the bridge and it is sharp, and the bridges are not? Bay Bridge of course is far away, but is still sharp enough to see each individual cable. Besides one should take into accound atmospheric conditions. There are some layers above the fog that might be an issue. I aslo wonder, if opposers read the description of the image. There was a superior mirage at the hills. Seeing superior mirage is possible only, if something is going on in the atmosphere.--Mbz1 10:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The city isn't sharp either. Usually a sharp edge sould span two or three pixels, here it's five to six. It may be an effect of the stitching, too, I've noticed several times that stitched images lose sharpness. I read about the superior mirage, but it's hardly visible, I couldn't tell whether it's not just the usual hills. As I said, it's a great image that I really like - but our guidelines do not say anything about atmosphere. Anyway, I'm not really feeling strictly wrong about it being promoted, thus I change my admittedly weak oppose to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. -- H005 17:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see this image File:Two frames image of superior mirage.jpg and compare the hills in two frames. Do you see how different they look? It is what superior mirage does with lanscape. Thanks.--Mbz1 21:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this was just a photo of a bridge, it would fail badly (as you can not see much of the bridge ;-). But it is a photo of atmospheric conditions, fuzzy things like fog, and distortions caused by atmospheric layers, and the scene as observed under those conditions. Do we complain a reproduction of a black and white photo lacks colour? Similarly can you complain that photographs of clouds are not sharp, when in fact clouds are not sharp edged objects. "Quality" is in terms of the scene - how well the photographer depicts the subject. --Tony Wills 11:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 04:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Strandkörbe Eckernförde.jpgEdit

Strandkörbe Eckernförde.jpg

  • Nomination Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image was discussed during the past couple of weeks; some didn't like the DOF and crop, others did, overall it was a straw. Thus I'm renominating it together with the uncropped version (as a separate nomination). Please note: The idea about the crop and DOF is that the row of strandkorbs should seem to have no beginning and no end, that reach from some indefinite place close to the viewer until the horizon. -- H005 12:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I certainly see this as a quality image. --Herbythyme 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too far not QI for me. Low DOF, too blue -- George Chernilevsky 05:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I told you about the colour, it's end of season, cloudy, cold, the strandkorbs have become useless - that's the point of the image - see its description. I don't think a sunny shot or manipulating white balance would improve the point here. -- H005 09:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Personally I am happy to accept the fact that the image is what the photographer saw (within reason). As such changing the colour to "unreal" would seem wrong. As to DOF I think it adds something to the image in the the foreground is in sharp focus & the distant object less so emphasising the quantity? -Herbythyme 09:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
        • My voting is my sincere fair decision. I did not wish to offend personally H005. But promotion of photo with avergade quality is not well for customers. -- George Chernilevsky 10:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I value your opinion, it's just not mine, thus I wanted to comment on it. :-) -- H005 16:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI don't like the crop on this one, but I don't mind the DOF, so I will support the other version. --99of9 11:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Kirche-Habenscheid-JR-G6-3792-2009-08-06.jpgEdit

Kirche-Habenscheid-JR-G6-3792-2009-08-06.jpg

  • Nomination Medieval church at Habenscheid, Germany. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspektive should be corrected, could be crisper at full solution --Mbdortmund 23:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info You are right. I will try to correct it tomorrow. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just uploaded the corrected version. Please review again. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective looks OK now, but I don't see the crispiness. By the way: I liked the previous crop better. --NormanB 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Viewpoint is not good: object looks flat and empty: there are only some colored areas (blue, gray, dark gray, green) and nothing else. Too much cropped.--Kae
    Explanation. IMO the most problem is too flat view: object looks like 2 pieces of plywood. I'd suggest to take a shot from other point of view to avoid flatness, in softer light, probably with some clouds on background sky. --Kae 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info According to the history, the anonymous decline came from user Kae. Please sign correctly next time.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find the color argument strange. If the purpose is to show a very old church and this object is not more colourful, I cannot add colours just to make it look nicer. I have seen QI images here that did not envolve more different and more saturated colours. Concerning the "crispiness": I used rather low sharpening parameters, because I liked it better this way. But I can try to add more sharpening this evening, if crispiness is really an issue for you. --Johannes Robalotoff 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just uploaded a "crispier" version with wider crop. Please review again. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The crop is a lot better now and the crisp is there too. IMO good enough for QI now. --NormanB 00:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The top crop is a bit tight and generally I liked the crop of the first uploaded version more, but nonetheless I think it's a QI as it is now. -- H005 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 15:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Image:Pine Siskin Female (10776)-Relic38.JPGEdit

Pine Siskin Female (10776)-Relic38.JPG

  • Nomination Female Pine Siskin --Relic38 03:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Around bird and feeder visible light bar. - Darius Bauzys 07:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll have to check the original, as I didn't do much sharpening at all, as it didn't need much. --Relic38 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Moving to Discuss. It is in the original from the camera as well. It's 1-2 pixels wide around the bird's breast and other areas to a lesser extent. Until it was pointed out I didn't notice it. --Relic38 02:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good for me.--UrLunkwill 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality -- George Chernilevsky 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpening haloes and CA (check legs for instance). Lycaon 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Lycaon. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mostly because of CA. --kallerna 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA and halos are hardly visible. -- H005 08:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --David Perez 09:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree the CA is minimal, QI has never been about perfect images --Tony Wills 11:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overall quality is good IMO. Agree with H005 and Tony Wills. --Cayambe 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Radiotélescopes du Plateau de Bure.JPGEdit

Radiotélescopes du Plateau de Bure.JPG

  • Nomination Radio telescopes of Plateau de Bure (France) --Qdou 16:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting & clear picture. --99of9 02:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the telescope near the left edge is cropped, spoiling the composition. - Till.niermann 10:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am missing a geocode. -- H005 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Geolocation added. -- Qdou 16:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I just noticed that I've been just a few hundred meters from there in spring and didn't know of those telescopes being there! Interesting ... If I return there I'll have a closer look! -- H005 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do like the image however the crop is a little unfortunate, reflecting on this one. -Herbythyme 10:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unusual subject. ----Archaeodontosaurus 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The crop is indeed bad, but the rest is really good. -- H005 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 17:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Piper L-4H Grasshopper Góraszka 2008 2.JPGEdit

Piper L-4H Grasshopper Góraszka 2008 2.JPG

  • Nomination Piper L-4H Grasshopper --Airwolf 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. I'm glad someone cares about planes more than I do :). --99of9 13:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject is far too dark, features can hardly be seen. --Eusebius 16:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Eusebius above. - Till.niermann 11:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the same reason. -- H005 16:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To dark indeed. -- Ichneumon 14:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


File:Strandkörbe Eckernförde.jpgEdit

Strandkörbe Eckernförde.jpg

  • Nomination Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image was discussed during the past couple of weeks; some didn't like the DOF and crop, others did, overall it was a straw. Thus I'm renominating it together with the uncropped version (as a separate nomination). Please note: The idea about the crop and DOF is that the row of strandkorbs should seem to have no beginning and no end, that reach from some indefinite place close to the viewer until the horizon. -- H005 12:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I certainly see this as a quality image. --Herbythyme 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too far not QI for me. Low DOF, too blue -- George Chernilevsky 05:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I told you about the colour, it's end of season, cloudy, cold, the strandkorbs have become useless - that's the point of the image - see its description. I don't think a sunny shot or manipulating white balance would improve the point here. -- H005 09:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Personally I am happy to accept the fact that the image is what the photographer saw (within reason). As such changing the colour to "unreal" would seem wrong. As to DOF I think it adds something to the image in the the foreground is in sharp focus & the distant object less so emphasising the quantity? -Herbythyme 09:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
        • My voting is my sincere fair decision. I did not wish to offend personally H005. But promotion of photo with avergade quality is not well for customers. -- George Chernilevsky 10:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I value your opinion, it's just not mine, thus I wanted to comment on it. :-) -- H005 16:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI don't like the crop on this one, but I don't mind the DOF, so I will support the other version. --99of9 11:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Kirche-Habenscheid-JR-G6-3792-2009-08-06.jpgEdit

Kirche-Habenscheid-JR-G6-3792-2009-08-06.jpg

  • Nomination Medieval church at Habenscheid, Germany. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspektive should be corrected, could be crisper at full solution --Mbdortmund 23:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info You are right. I will try to correct it tomorrow. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just uploaded the corrected version. Please review again. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective looks OK now, but I don't see the crispiness. By the way: I liked the previous crop better. --NormanB 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Viewpoint is not good: object looks flat and empty: there are only some colored areas (blue, gray, dark gray, green) and nothing else. Too much cropped.--Kae
    Explanation. IMO the most problem is too flat view: object looks like 2 pieces of plywood. I'd suggest to take a shot from other point of view to avoid flatness, in softer light, probably with some clouds on background sky. --Kae 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info According to the history, the anonymous decline came from user Kae. Please sign correctly next time.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find the color argument strange. If the purpose is to show a very old church and this object is not more colourful, I cannot add colours just to make it look nicer. I have seen QI images here that did not envolve more different and more saturated colours. Concerning the "crispiness": I used rather low sharpening parameters, because I liked it better this way. But I can try to add more sharpening this evening, if crispiness is really an issue for you. --Johannes Robalotoff 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just uploaded a "crispier" version with wider crop. Please review again. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The crop is a lot better now and the crisp is there too. IMO good enough for QI now. --NormanB 00:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The top crop is a bit tight and generally I liked the crop of the first uploaded version more, but nonetheless I think it's a QI as it is now. -- H005 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 15:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Image:Pine Siskin Female (10776)-Relic38.JPGEdit

Pine Siskin Female (10776)-Relic38.JPG

  • Nomination Female Pine Siskin --Relic38 03:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Around bird and feeder visible light bar. - Darius Bauzys 07:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll have to check the original, as I didn't do much sharpening at all, as it didn't need much. --Relic38 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Moving to Discuss. It is in the original from the camera as well. It's 1-2 pixels wide around the bird's breast and other areas to a lesser extent. Until it was pointed out I didn't notice it. --Relic38 02:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good for me.--UrLunkwill 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality -- George Chernilevsky 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpening haloes and CA (check legs for instance). Lycaon 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Lycaon. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mostly because of CA. --kallerna 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA and halos are hardly visible. -- H005 08:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --David Perez 09:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree the CA is minimal, QI has never been about perfect images --Tony Wills 11:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overall quality is good IMO. Agree with H005 and Tony Wills. --Cayambe 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Inside Balconies Cave at Pinnacles National Park.jpgEdit

Inside Balconies Cave at Pinnacles National Park.jpg

  • Nomination Inside Balconies Cave --Mbz1 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks like you added too much blue (?) -- H005 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    Do you mean to the sky or all over?--Mbz1 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    All over. Those blue spots on the rocks look like what happens if you play around with saturation, luminance and tone of the blue channel to make the sky look more blue. I might be wrong, but what else could they come from? -- H005 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    I did not do any of the things you mentioned. It is my first HDR try. I did not do anything manually in HDR and let the program to figure out what to do. It was very dark inside the cave, yet the sky overhead was very bright. It was a hard image to take. I have no idea what real colors of the rocks were, but maybe a long exposure and HDR done something to add those blue? So know you know what was done to the image. Do you still believe the blue color should be reduced? Thanks.--Mbz1 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    I corrected the colors. Is it better now?--Mbz1 23:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, no. It's an interesting image and might even run for FP, but for QI it just looks too wrong to me. But I'd be interested in more opnions. -- H005 17:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    You are right, there's something wrong with the colors. Thank you for review Pictogram voting delete.svg --Mbz1 03:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Kirschblüte mit Hummel.jpgEdit

Kirschblüte mit Hummel.jpg

  • Nomination Bumblebee. --Ichneumon 22:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline *Symbol support vote.svg Support The insect itself is not the sharpest, but the overall image is very nice and of good quality. -- H005 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Full ID and correct category need -- George Chernilevsky 09:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Tree has full ID and bumblebee is not the main object. I do not think you can get much better than the current category here. -- H005 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not worried about the ID, but I'd want the bee sharper, because even if it's not the main object, it's pretty central to the image! --99of9 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ID and category now OK, but i fully agree with 99of9 after second look -- George Chernilevsky 05:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sbots.jpgEdit

Sbots.jpg

  • Nomination Two S-bots mobile robots on a glass table. --Stéphane Magnenat 08:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent, though I do not understand what these robots are capable of :-). --Cayambe 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • A succinct description of these robots can be found here. Abeyeler 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Sorry, I would like to understand the reason for the low DOF. -- H005 19:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The picture was originally made to illustrate the behaviour of a scientific experiment whereby robots are attracted by other robots when they signal a source of food (original paper). The limited DOF is meant to illustrate the distance that the attracted robot is about to cross toward the food token. Abeyeler (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File: VespaFrance.jpgEdit

VespaFrance.jpg

  • Nomination European Hornet. Vespa crabro (Head 6mm) --Archaeodontosaurus 14:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC).
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive and good. --Cayambe 08:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp. --kallerna 17:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    Depends what you are focussing on - the eyes are sharp for example. I would not expect the whole of such an image to be sharp so I Symbol support vote.svg Support -Herbythyme 16:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed nothing sharp and also quite noisy. Lycaon 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Damülser Mittagspitze Herbst.JPGEdit

Damülser Mittagspitze Herbst.JPG

  • Nomination Autumn on Damülser Mittagsspitze --Böhringer 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would benefit a lot if cropped at the top, so that mountains gain more weight relative to the sky. Otherwise good. --Johannes Robalotoff 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood idea and good execution . --Archaeodontosaurus 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportI think it's good as is (peak positioned according to rule of thirds), although I wouldn't object to the suggested crop. --99of9 06:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support good clear image, crop if you like but I'm happy. -Herbythyme 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Seestern Wendemanöver.jpgEdit

Seestern Wendemanöver.jpg

  • Nomination Seestern beim Wenden --Böhringer 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Very Good Naturalist Work--Archaeodontosaurus 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not identified. Lycaon 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is illustrating starfish motion, not illustrating a particular species, as such I don't think species ID is crucial. --Tony Wills 00:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeIf it is about the locomotion, why is the first picture rotated with respect to the second two? --99of9 00:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    For locomotion it should be a film or more frames. --Estrilda 10:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 06:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Barbar.jpgEdit

Barbar.jpg

  • Nomination Belgian shepherd dog - Malinois --Multimotyl 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the flash is distracting, first of all concerning the eyes --Mbdortmund 09:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For a posed shot, the composition is poor : the tree looks like it's growing out of the dog's head. --Ianare 03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Fort du Salbert (by) (11).jpgEdit

ComputerHotline - Fort du Salbert (by) (11).jpg

  • Nomination Inside the Salbert hill fortifications. --ComputerHotline 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mess, bad light Multimotyl 19:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to understand what you mean with 'bad' here. Why is it bad? There could be a white balance problem and a tilt, as far as I can see. But just 'bad' is too simple for me to decline a serious effort. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wall structure isn't fine, no contrast there. I don't see the texture of the wall (as on the ceiling) Its just a point and click photo, not "quality photo".
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colors are good for me. The problem is the crop at the top IMO. Yann 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What's wrong about the "mess"? That's a natural part of the scene. And preparing a tone-mapped HDR whose colours still look somewhat natural is anything but "point and click", it's a serious effort, well-documented and geocoded. If the tilt is removed, I'll support it. -- H005 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just expect of a quality picture quality. If this picture's purpose is to illustrate the mess in the Fort du Salbert, then it does in good way. But if it's purpose is to show us what such a fort looks like, then it is not good.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors are not right, looks like too much yellow. Mess is fine for me, it's an accurate reprensentation of the fort in modern times. --Ianare 03:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bothus mancus in Hawaii.jpgEdit

Bothus mancus in Hawaii.jpg

  • Nomination Bothus mancus in Hawaii --Mbz1 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very Good Naturalist Work- --Archaeodontosaurus 07:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks like color balance is a little off (too blue), should be easy adjust. --Ianare 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
How one could tell what color that fish was, if the fish himself was not sure about that :) This is a very, very unusual flounder. He should not have been bi-color as he was. I have seen many flouners in the wild, but not a single time like that one before. About the blue, here I uploaded a close up image of his head, the original one, the one that was not post processed at all File:Bothus mancus in Hawaii close up.JPG. How about blue now? Face-smile.svg--Mbz1 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Didn't mean the flounder in particular, but the sand on upper right seems a bit blue shifted. In any case it's not sufficiently pronounced for me to oppose. --Ianare 03:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Shalechet (Fallen leaves) installation.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Fallen leaves-installation in the Jewish Museum Berlin --Kemmi.1 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Powerful image!--Mbz1 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    I get the impression that nothing is actually in focus here and that there is quit a bit of color noise? --Estrilda 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    - The image was taken with ISO 5.600, so of course there is some visible noise. Noise reduction via software may have caused the loss of absolute sharpness and some details.--Kemmi.1 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why ISO 5600? Why not tripod + long exposure? --kallerna 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    - You're right - But the use of Tripods is not allowed within the Jewish Museum...Kemmi.1 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because the picture shows something of the atmosphere under difficult conditions --Mbdortmund 22:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 17:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Seal Rocks from Cliff House before sunrise 1.jpgEdit

Seal Rocks from Cliff House before sunrise 1.jpg

  • Nomination Seal Rocks from Cliff House before sunrise --Mbz1 18:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Ianare 05:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    Nice, out-of-this-world effect with the mist, but it also looks very much over saturated. --Estrilda 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not over saturated at all. The Exposure time was 110/1 sec (110).--Mbz1 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support -Herbythyme 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI didnt know that kind of camera could have so long exposure time. Did you hold the button down in manual mode for two minutes? Or how did you do?--Korall 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My camera has "bulb". I'm using cable release in order do not disturb the camera, and I could do the exposure for as long as I like or untill the battery lasts anyway :)--Mbz1 19:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentGood thing with the forums here is that I learn a lot about photography. Cool thing with cable release, i think ill look around for one. --Korall 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You could even get remote control I guess.--Mbz1 03:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys 12:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No question about it, this is QI. --NormanB (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Duomo di Barga from below.jpgEdit

Duomo di Barga from below.jpg

  • Nomination Il duomo di Barga from below -- H005 20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Nothing special, bad composition. Multimotyl 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review, but can you elaborate on what you dislike about the composition? (Btw, "special" is a requirement for FP, not QI.) -- H005 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that "special" is no requirement for QI. But the composition does not please me either. Therefore I was neutral for a long time. The bulky wall in foreground is very dominant, yet it is cropped. It also hides the lower part of the main subject, the church itself. Moreover, the very dark bush at the lower right corner, with even totally black pixel regions is somewhat distracting. So if have to decide now if I support or oppose, I would rather oppose, sorry. --Johannes Robalotoff 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. These are at least some reasonable arguments (although I do not share your opinion for various reasons, but I don't want to argue about it, I just wanted an explanation. -- H005 19:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Walkway Over the Hudson 5.JPGEdit

Walkway Over the Hudson 5.JPG

  • Nomination Walkway Over the Hudson, a footbridge over the Hudson River in New York, United States Juliancolton 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not convinced of the composition --Mbdortmund 22:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    Can you explain what exactly is wrong with the composition? Juliancolton 14:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    the boy on the left is cut in half, and its not clear what you want to show, main object in this composition seams to be the balustrade which is not so interesting. Other opinions? --Mbdortmund 20:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAm I right that you were trying to capture both the walkway and the river? In the end you didn't have the field of view to capture the whole walkway, and the balustrade spoils the river. If only you were 15 feet tall. --99of9 22:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per 99of9. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Lehtiä tuulessa.JPGEdit

Lehtiä tuulessa.JPG

  • Nomination Birch in wind. --kallerna 17:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Sorry, even in windy conditions the bark should be sharp. --Cayambe 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would really like to hear another opinion, because this is not about the tree, it's about the wind. The bark is just OOF, the focus is on leaves. --kallerna 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question If the tree is not important, why not remove it from the picture? And how is the wind visible in this picture? --NormanB 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Zygaena lonicerae.jpgEdit

Zygaena lonicerae.jpg

  • Nomination Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet (Zygaena lonicerae) - Darius Baužys 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Excellent, with a slight regret for the relatively small file size. --Cayambe 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stark processing haloes. Details also suffered. Strong composition though. Lycaon 21:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This photo could have been so good if there were not the sharpening halos and, above all, strong posterization effects. The file size alone is no sufficient explanation for this defect. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I upload new version. Maybe now problems are fixed ? - Darius Baužys 12:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Not improved: Sadly to no avail. Quality is still very poor. Lycaon 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with Lycaon and still oppose. Far too much is still lost in posterization. Noise should be no problem at ISO 100. Why did your camera software kill the image? It is really a pity because the image would have been an excellent shot otherwise. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • About posterization - or I do not see it here, or do not understand what is it. Can you define with NOTE, where you see posterization. Thank You. - Darius Baužys 19:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • For what it is, see here. I have marked one of several regions in your image now, where I see a loss of detail characterized by flat spots in the same colour without colour gradients between. But maybe the pixels were just washed out by your overly-eager noise reduction in the camera software, and this might have caused something like local colour quantization. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good result -- George Chernilevsky 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely fine with me.--Mbz1 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support small picture, great effect.--Archaeodontosaurus 20:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. --kallerna 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Multimotyl 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose oversharpened --Ianare 03:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is way better than the spiders directly above. QI for me. 99of9 08:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Inside Balconies Cave at Pinnacles National Monument 1.jpgEdit

Inside Balconies Cave at Pinnacles National Monument 1.jpg

  • Nomination Inside Balconies Cave at Pinnacles National Monument. --Mbz1 20:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Cayambe 07:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strange colours and weird DOF fluctuations (OOF alternates with IF). Lycaon 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The place is very hard to take an image of. It is even hard to simply carry a tripod. The light is very, very uneven. Here's one of the images I found on Flickr to give you an idea how it looks.--Mbz1 00:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

File:SydneyUniversity_MainBuilding_Panorama.jpgEdit

Sidney University Panoramic

  • Nomination Sydney University Main Building and Great Hall, morning. --99of9 03:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective needs correcting, plus there are some pretty strong halos on the left and right. It appears that the left and right-most images were not in good focus. --Relic38 15:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Thanks for your review. Perspective was corrected with ShiftN at 100%, what do you see as wrong with the perspective? Regarding the focus, the originals are all in equally good focus - I think the extremes look a little stretched because of the rectilinear projection. Perhaps I need to shoot this image with more than 3 frames? --99of9 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lack of sharpness at both ends of the panorama are created by Hugin; in my experience the problem can be reduced by playing around with Hugin's paramters a bit. -- H005 22:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is an interesting discussion thus I move this review down here. When you are experimenting with multi row panoramics I recommend to use PTGui instead of Hugin. The newer versions of Hugin are called PTGui but unfortunately they are not free.
The main critique I have for this picture is that there is no tone mapping. The dark building is too dark while the sky is just right. Tools like PTGui have such an option alternatively one can do this in Photoshop with shadows/highlights adjustment.
I agree with Relic38 on the perspective. The vertical lines on the side of the image are tilted ~2°. Don't correct this until they are perfectly straight but leave about 0.5-1.0° to avoid overcorrection.
When using a mediocre kit lens one can partially compensate for this by shooting in raw format and correct chromatic aberrations afterwards.
Otherwise your pictures have potential to become really excellent. I'm looking forwart to your future projects. --Ikiwaner 06:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Zaltbommel - Sint Maartenskerk - Panorama van de toren final medium.jpgEdit

Zaltbommel - Sint Maartenskerk - Panorama van de toren final medium.jpg

  • Nomination The tower of the Saint Martin church in Zaltbommel, the Netherlands. A vertical panorama of 6x5 segments. --NormanB 19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice details on the tower but why don't you crop the lower parts which are underexposured and not important for your main object? --Mbdortmund 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have uploaded that as a separate version, but I like the detail of the sunlight shining through the old fence in this one. Other people I showed it to said the same. That's why. --NormanB 21:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Mbdortmund likes this one better, but does that mean that this one is not QI? --NormanB 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
no, it is possible that someone promotes this picture, too --Mbdortmund 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lower region too dark. I'm not convinced the shadows add anything. --99of9 03:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that it is a matter of taste whether someone likes the foreground or not. But I wonder if the picture should be declined QI-status because of that. More opinions would be welcome. --NormanB 15:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Composure and exposure are certainly declinable criteria, but I'm not particularly experienced here, so I'm also happy to hear other opinions.--99of9 10:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with others that the shadows in the foreground do not add any value to the image. --Cayambe 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lower > 25% of the image should be cropped away, when this is done I'd support it. -- H005 11:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 12:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Two Eobania vermiculata shell.jpgEdit

Two Eobania vermiculata shell.jpg

  • Nomination Eobania vermiculata shell --Butko 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThis is good image, but to be usuable in the encyclopedic article, it should be rotated left 90 degrees. Then it would be good for an article. But it is an ordinary photo, it is taken in sharp, but there are shadows. If there can be any quality image of an EMPTY shell, then it must be taken without shadows. --Snek01 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I rotate image --Butko 14:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Yann 10:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me, too --Mbdortmund 02:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 02:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

File:San Francisco with two bridges and the low fog .jpgEdit

San Francisco with two bridges and the low fog.jpg

  • Nomination Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco --Mbz1 14:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice shot, but sharpness could have been better I think. Did you use mirror-lockup? --NormanB 20:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    No I did not. It was windy and foggy. Even, where you do not see the fog on the image, it does not mean it was not present, very thin, but it was there. The city was rather far. So I guess I am happy with the sharpness under such conditions :)Thank you for the review.--Mbz1 20:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good imo. --Cayambe 12:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good one. - Till.niermann 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Fort du Salbert (by) (13).jpgEdit

ComputerHotline - Fort du Salbert (by) (13).jpg

  • Nomination Inside the Salbert hill fortifications. --ComputerHotline 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Yann 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like there is a yellow cast. Lycaon 09:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is some colors of old leaves of trees. --ComputerHotline 15:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The following might be of interest to some of us. In bright sunshine, when positioned on A (Automatic), the Nikon SLRs (at least the D300 and D700) produce images with a yellowish cast. You get used to it and won't see it anymore... The solution is to position the camera on 'bright sunshine'... or to shoot in the RAW-mode with later adjustment of the white balance. --Cayambe 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Lyacon. At Cayambe: Canons don't perform better in the forest. Forest pictures are a typical situation where a grey card is very useful. --Ikiwaner 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 17:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Pettingen Luxembourg 20090918 01.jpgEdit

Pettingen Luxembourg 20090918 01.jpg

  • Nomination Pettingen chapell next to castle ruin, Luxembourg. --Christian Ries 16:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThere are five dustspots that should be removed and IMHO perspective should be corrected --Berthold Werner 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seriously underexposed. (Can be probably corrected with curve tool.) Perspective correction needed. (Church seems to lean strongly back.) --Johannes Robalotoff 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I fixed the problems mentioned above. Now it's OK to me but pictures with chromatic aberrations of 8 (Photoshop scale) in red/cyan channel should normally not become QI --Ikiwaner 17:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As far as I understand things here, you should not upload your image as a new version, if you fix the work of another author. You have to upload it as a separate derivative work with according license. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As far as I see it this is a Wiki. The idea is that you can edit the content may it be a text an image or a sound file. Several current versions of basically the same image should be avoided since i.e. this image without dust spots replaces the one with the spots. --Ikiwaner 20:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a wiki, but the image page is not a normal wiki page because it names a single person, in this case Christian Ries, as the author of the image and the licenses demand to cite his name. Editors of the wiki page are not included in the image license. The image license is seperate from the page license in the page footer. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment removed dust spots do not create a new copyright. --Ikiwaner 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment C:ownership: "There is usually no need to say anything about subsequent versions uploaded over the top of a file as long as it's under the same as the original licence and the file history at the bottom of the page fully identifies all those who have worked on the file." --99of9
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the guidelines citation. I did not know that different authors from the history are not in contradiction with the license above, as it looks very much so. (And I was not talking about dust spots alone.) I remember that some weeks ago someone else raised the same question on this page and there was no answer. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But let us come back from the license discussion to the image itself, which looks quite good now. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner 08:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. --Cayambe 12:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --99of9 13:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 14:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Паук_в_Донецке_3.jpgEdit

Паук в Донецке 3.jpg

  • Nomination The Wasp spider by User:Butko nominated by --George Chernilevsky 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. - Darius Bauzys 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low DOF. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF is pretty good actually. It's a point and shoot, so it doesn't need a small aperture. --Ianare 03:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient DOF to get feet of spider. Model of camera is irrelevant to QI, we are judging the quality of the image, however it was created. --99of9 03:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine with me.--Mbz1 22:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? 99of9 01:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

File:SydneyUniversity_InstituteBuilding_DarlingtonCentre.jpgEdit

SydneyUniversity InstituteBuilding DarlingtonCentre.jpg

  • Nomination Institute Building at the University of Sydney --99of9 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Rectilinear projections don't work since the building is not flat at the front. --99of9 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposedistortion too strong --Mbdortmund 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) better now
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Wouldn't a counter-clockwise rotation help? --NormanB 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done You're right, thanks NormanB. --99of9 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some distortion is unavoidable here. --Cayambe 10:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentYes. Also, stepping back any further to get a better angle would lead to all kinds of distracting stuff in the foreground. 99of9 10:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The strong distortion of the towers is disturbing. It may be true that this subject cannot be done better. (I assume that you tried different projections?) But then it probably cannot be done at all. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support As far as I can see the only real 'problem' with this picture is that it was not taken from the exact center of the front of the facade. One could argue that the crop at the bottom is too tight, but neither issues are enough for me to not support. I don't see any major distortion. Maybe 'deformation' (as a result of the projection) was meant, but if I compare this picture to this one I don't see that either. Maybe someone can point it out? --NormanB 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Whether you call it deformation or distortion (that results in a deformation) and whether it comes from a projection or from anything else, it does not change the outcome for me: The tops of the towers look disturbingly unnatural in my eyes. The comparison with the unprojected reference image even confirms this impression. One could only argue that all architecture pictures with extreme field of view more or less will look like this, and hence it is no point against the image. There are even people who like the effect. Yet, I do not share this opinion. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think another 0.5 degree of counter-clockwise rotation would be nice. The pilars next to the front door should both be as vertical as possible, or at least equally vertical. --NormanB (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the effect that the distortion produces. The image is illustrative and exposure is very goot. There are two obvious stitching errors: Left of the I of institute and above and below the l of building. --Ikiwaner 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for pointing out the stitching error, I'll look into that. 99of9 21:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've restitched, and hopefully addressed some of NormanB's remaining criticisms as well (crop & vertical). --99of9 03:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure why this isn't going away. Is it because I recorded the promotion? Was I supposed to leave someone else to close it? 99of9 12:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Puerto Banús Dusk Panorama, Andalucia, Spain - Sept 2009.jpgEdit

Puerto Banús Dusk Panorama, Andalucia, Spain - Sept 2009.jpg

  • Nomination Puerto Banús at dusk, by User:Diliff. —Maedin 07:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Excellent -- George Chernilevsky 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not really opposing, it's a great image, but this image has been declined in September (see here), don't know if renominating it is ok? -- H005 11:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry, I completely forgot that it had already been nominated. Lycaon pointed out some stitching errors that were too small for Diliff to fix. Thanks for reminding me. I've withdrawn. Maedin 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bucharest - Village Museum 7 - old CoA.JPGEdit

Bucharest - Village Museum 7 - old CoA.JPG

  • Nomination Bucharest - Village Museum. Old coat of arms of Romania on wine barrel --Pudelek 23:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • low resolution < 2Mio --Grez 12:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Size is OK. Quality IMO acceptable for QI -- George Chernilevsky 13:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Cerastoderma glaucum shell.jpgEdit

Cerastoderma glaucum shell.jpg

  • Nomination Cerastoderma glaucum shell --Butko 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Annoying shadows. This could be better on white paper instead of sand. --Snek01 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportImo Ok, sand is the absolute natural surrounding --Mbdortmund 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The shadows are OK for me, because they do not hide any detail from the shells. Of course perfect lighting would be better, but it is still good enough for QI in my opinion. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Палач у экспозиции орудий пыток (ретушь).jpgEdit

Палач у экспозиции орудий пыток (ретушь).jpg

  • Nomination Executioner in Peter & Paul Fortress --Butko 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Striking image, well executed. Can you geocode the fortress? --99of9 09:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Butko 10:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Strong halos on the left shoulder from oversharpening. I like the image, but these should be removed. -- H005 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    I apply Gaussian blur 0,4 px and upload new version --Butko 10:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    By this you sacrified sharpness for halo reduction. Don't you have the original, unsharpened version anymore? -- H005 20:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    Original is here --Butko 06:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    Hmmm, then probably the camera screwed it up when creating the JPG. Anyway, it's not a bad image overall, and a good edit job, thus Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- H005 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)