Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 21 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Ons' Lieve Heer op Solder 2411.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ons' Lieve Heer op Solder chapel, Amsterdam. --C messier 12:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   New version --C messier 12:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've looked at both versions over several days; it's a trade off between noise and sharpness and I don't know if it's fixable -- Sixflashphoto 18:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I mostly changed the color brightenss between the two versions. I'll see what can be done as the ISO isn't too high. --C messier 15:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done --C messier 14:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is tough. At a 10th of second I don't know if the noise can be fixed. But feel free to take this to discussion if you would like more opinions. Sixflashphoto 18:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm moving this to CR to get it sorted out. --W.carter 06:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not sharp or detailed enough. -- Ikan Kekek 07:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --W.carter 09:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:IAF-F-16C-Barak2020--Independence-Day-2017-Tel-Nof-IZE-190.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination IAF F-16C Barak 2020. --MathKnight 13:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Good quality. --Cvmontuy 02:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please remove the black border --Cvmontuy 12:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have changed my vote as I had not seen the ca before sorry --Cvmontuy 12:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Black border is disturbing + strong chromatic aberration. --Gyrostat 08:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong CA. --Smial 12:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Sjövägen_December_2015_03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The ferry Sjövägen at Nybronplan in Stockholm. --ArildV 05:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too dark for me.--Ermell 13:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. Beautiful luminosity--Lmbuga 14:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still too dark IMO but let´s see what others think. --Ermell 18:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good picture, in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 04:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I might complain about it being too dark at FPC but it's not at the point in which I would consider the exposure an actual error. --King of Hearts 06:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support. It's evening, and it's 1/30s and still acceptable sharp. Great shot regarding the circumstances with natural colors and lighting. --Smial 11:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Thuraya XT-PRO DUAL.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Thuraya XT-PRO DUAL registered simultaneously on the Thuraya network and the A1 GSM network in Austria --Florian Fuchs 05:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose IMO this photo has to be extremely sharp, but it's not --Michielverbeek 06:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new sharped version. However, you do have to bear in mind that the ST phone is much smaller than on the picture. Therefore, it cannot be completely sharp at the full resolution. --Florian Fuchs 06:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That is what we have macro photography for. Very small objects can be made extremely sharp. Example: this bug is only 3 mm and still sharp. --cart-Talk 11:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, IMO too much noise. --XRay 06:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Uploaded a new version with less noise. --Florian Fuchs 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, still noisy and unsharp. IMO not fixable. --XRay 18:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. A "studio shot" like this one really needs to have a better rendering.--Peulle 13:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Sharp enough regarding the rather high resolution. Noise somewhat high, but not really disturbing. First upload without sharpening is the best version. --Smial 09:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, judging the photo at about the actual size of the phone. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --W.carter 09:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)