Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 26 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Nationaal_Park_Drents-Friese_Wold._Locatie_Fochteloërveen_01-09-2020._(actm.)_10.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Drents-Friese Wold. Location Fochteloërveen. Biotope in the upland moor area. --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 04:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing is sharp, sky is overprocessed, wb off. --Kallerna 07:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks like bad highlight recovery on a blown-out sky. --King of Hearts 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 21:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Jankar_Nala_Rarik_Oct20_D72_18292.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Autumn colours at Rarik village along Jankar Nala, Himachal, India. Elev. 3,650m (11,975') --Tagooty 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too soft --Podzemnik 06:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done Adjustments (sharpening, haze reduction, CA) to reduce softness. Please review the latest version. --Tagooty 07:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It improved, but the level of detail is still very low, especially at the foreground. --Augustgeyler 07:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for 24 MP. --King of Hearts 22:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done @Augustgeyler: Cropped out a small part of the foreground to remove blurred trees. --Tagooty 16:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think copping did not change the detail issue. --Augustgeyler 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Place_Royale_at_night,_Vieux-Québec,_Quebec_ville,_Canada.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination cultural heritage site in Canada --Wilfredor 02:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Motion blur from camera shake (see person in red jacket and poster on church).--Peulle 08:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done Plase take another look, Developed again from the RAW and with the right White Balance --Wilfredor 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • My oppose vote remains, I'm afraid; the person in the red jacket is now missing a head. And yes, CA is now an issue as well.--Peulle 07:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Some questions: What are the two shades of purple on the top of the steeple? (2) Are the colored fringes on the lamps high up on the building to the right CA? (3) Do the other lamps have green CA? I'll await the answers. Otherwise, the photo is good, and I'd like it to become a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the question, the lens I usually use does not generate chromatic aberration at that focal length, however I always apply lightroom chromatic aberration correction. That said, I took your comment seriously and started to reveal again in lightroom and observe in detail what was happening and I think there is a purple chromatic aberration possibly generated by the HDR combination, I have uploaded a new version and I appreciate your feedback --Wilfredor 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The photo looks good now and would be a QI, except that I'm troubled that you removed an entire bench because of the challenges from a person being a ghost. Would you consider restoring that section? -- Ikan Kekek 01:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  Done @Ikan Kekek: Thanks --Wilfredor 14:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The actual version looks very good. Greetings --Dirtsc 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The last version looks good to me, too. --Lion-hearted85 22:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm alright with the bench with no person, as the person is more transient than the bench. Good quality! -- Ikan Kekek 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Improved. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)