Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 16 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Beundra_from_the_North_(2023).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Beundra tower in Stockholm --ThibautRe 21:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •   Oppose perspective distortion, too dark --Grunpfnul 13:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Compared to the very first version, which was already slightly overcorrected the newest version looks completely absurd. Perspective correction is intended to compensate for minor deviations or inaccuracies in the photographic image, not to compulsively depict everything that was built rectangularly exactly rectangularly and thus completely destroy the natural or "classical" perspective representation. Where are these unsuitable manipulations going to lead? This no longer has anything to do with "quality". --Smial 07:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews, don't think there's much I can do for this picture so I'll leave it at that --ThibautRe (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perini_Sivatandavam_Dance_Of_Telangana_-_Wikiconference_India_2023_-_Hyderabad_2023-04-28_8058.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Perini Sivatandavam Dance Of Telangana --Snehrashmi 16:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too much noise, not a QI, sorry --Poco a poco 06:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very good image: good composition, good lighting and good technical quality. A bit noise is normal with 1250 ISO. Please discuss. - Spurzem 09:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Ktkvtsh 02:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong noise --Jakubhal 04:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Noise level somewhat high (the predecessors of the camera with the 36 Mpixel sony sensor had been better in this respect), but still acceptabel. I think it is better to retain a certain amount of noise in such available light images, which are offered in full resolution, than to destroy details with smearing denoising measures. What bothers me are some hot pixels, which, like the noise, are only noticeable when viewed at the pixel level and are invisible in an A4 print (if fixed, I'd strike the "weak"). The photographer should once use the appropriate maintenance option of his camera to hide the defective pixels. --Smial 09:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Oppose Her face isn't sharp even at full-page size, and the blizzard of white hot pixels are visible at 50% of full size. Not a technically high-quality image. -- Ikan Kekek 21:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a shot of very high artistic value but keeping in mind that this is about the overall quality it lacks in several technical aspects as outlined above. My main concern being the face sharpness as the facial expression together with the body control are the defining points of this well composed but imperfect frame. --Virtual-Pano 09:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)