Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 18 2018

< Commons:Quality images candidates

Contents

Consensual reviewEdit

File:Inndyr_seen_from_the_outer_parts_of_the_port_area.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Inndyr seen from the outer parts of the port area. --Frankemann 06:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion Left side is leaning out --Poco a poco 07:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm trying to enlarge the image and parallel offset rooftops in the middle of the image to the screen, then it does not look so lopsided. --Frankemann 20:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Yann 13:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tilt was not addressed --Poco a poco 06:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sad to see that in the meanwhile authors and some reviewers don't care about a clear tilt as prerequisite for QI. Poco a poco 17:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Аэрофотоснимок_морпорта_г._Сочи.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sochi Lighthouse, Sea port of Sochi. Hight of aerial photograph: 69 m. By User:Elodyanov --Niklitov 15:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Seriously deformed, please look to the horizon --Michielverbeek 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Yes. This is fisheye lens 140°. And this is good, right? — Niklitov 05:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done Original barrel distortion uploaded. — Niklitov 08:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very interesting view, but there is heavy CA, noise, and JPEG-Artifacts. Also too high colour saturation. --Smial 09:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done dear Smial and Peulle! ("heavy CA and JPEG-Artifacts. Also too high colour saturation").   Comment Yes. There is little noise due to the quadrocopter with DJI PHANTOM VISION FC200 camera. — Niklitov 17:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done (→ "noise"). — Niklitov 15:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 15:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC))

File:Adina_Mosque_at_Malda_district_of_West_Bengal_05.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Interiors of Adina Mosque,Malda, West Bengal (by Amitabha Gupta) --Atudu 11:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 06:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   CommentSharpness is OK, but it needs a perspective correction at right. --Yann 12:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective correction not done. Yann 11:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:WLM-DE-BE-2018-Charlottenburg-Städtische_Badeanstalt-20171102_133316.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Städtische Volksbadeanstalt, Obj.-Dok.-Nr. 09096277, Krumme Straße 10, Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf, BerlinDieses Bild wurde im Rahmen des Wettbewerbs Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 hochgeladen. By User:Rainer Halama --Wuselig 11:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ArildV 15:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree, it´s bandy. Normally they discuss here prozents and millimeters...pls check horizont lines! --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 00:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Gun to my head, I'd probably vote for this photo, but User:Rainer Halama, you can make the vote easier by de-noising a bit (and my standards for QI are not as high as they are for FP). -- Ikan Kekek 10:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tweaked the horizontal line and denoised. --Rainer Halama (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Now good enough, IMO, and my previous comment was not a vote, let alone an opposing vote. But Hans-Jürgen Neubert, didn't you intend to oppose? -- Ikan Kekek 22:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Acceptable. --Smial 09:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Now good enough for QI. I will not say weak one, and will not oppose it in FP review. Absolute beautiful colours, really damn good Lights (Electric Lights, too) but I still think there is a issue with tilt, lens or horizon. The floor tiler was making a perfect job, should be one reference, from left to right something hangs to the left (water line). Maybee only mens are member of this review (the look just the nudeː). We don´t need guns here (for Ikan) let him swim ː)) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 15:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really get your joke, but you can't vote for and against the same picture in the same thread. Please make a choice. Ikan Kekek 07:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Done, joke is sign of peace. "Waffenfreie Zone" is sadly, old german term. Leicht krumm bleibt das Bild leider... --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 11:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hans-Jürgen, do you want to check the alignment once more?
  • ̈*  Comment Hi Rainer, it´s fine now.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 09:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Kloster_Marienthal_001_(Dernau).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Klosterstraße 3-5, 53507 Dernau, Deutschland --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 05:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry but it's tilted, light is quite poor there, column annoying and overall quality could be better --Podzemnik 15:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done new DNG 10.5 Poor Light in Winter Morning, with frost at the grass?? I love side lights to see structure.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 06:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 07:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 15:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Lemur_catta_2018.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Lemur_catta_2018 --Architas 18:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, oversharpened and too much jpg-artefacts, espscially in the background --Llez 05:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    I disagree.Sorry but i think is fine --Architas 19:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Support Better now --Llez (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment A real cool animal imageǃ Groovy - For my eyes it´s not oversharpened (object), but shoot with a cheap lens and generated with not the best jpg-engine. Background looks like C41-film with pucker grain. Can you upload a DNG-file for workout (Version 10.5, it´s a free PS plugin)? It´s easy to repair, only too big for mail --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 08:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Cheap lens? 1200 dollars ;( ....however i upload a new version,thanks --Architas 15:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This image have for me base quality for FP, not only QI. But not with this bokeh. What You expect? I don´t talk about money what U have payed. Highest Sensor Reso, and then 28.0-300.0 mm f/3.5-5.6 taken at 300mm (end of lens) f/13? and 1/80sec?? (Automat) (tip try one day 2,0/200mm) ISO 800 is really not the issue- Right now, it´s ok for me for QI, but not more and you have some small spots at dark background area. The crowd should give more votes, I overhand...--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The animal is sharp at 6 Mpx, OK for me. If you could reduce the highlights, it would be great! Yann 09:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done Greetings --Architas 14:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI. Charlesjsharp 16:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not all of the fur is equally clear, but it's a good photo and QIs don't have to be perfect. Me like. Good composition, too. -- Ikan Kekek 07:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 07:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-AMG_GT_63_S,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(1X7A1868).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination: Wheel of a Mercedes-AMG GT 63 S, Geneva International Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Outside of wheel and tire are unsharp --Daniel Case 04:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Unsharp? Individual dust particles are clearly visible --MB-one 10:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
It's more noticeable near the top. Daniel Case 19:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Der Reifen ist superscharf. Dennoch hat das Bild massive Fehler. Der Radkasten ist beschnitten, die Felge aus der Perspektive, geht für mich gar nicht. Und mit dem Lack würde jeder Prüfer sagen es ist vorbei. Pixelfehler entweder in meinem Monitor oder im Sensor--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 00:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment Das was Du da als “Pixelfehler” siehst, ist tatsächlich Staub (auf dem Auto, nicht dem Sensor); nicht unbedingt schön, aber Teil der abgebildeten Realität. --MB-one 11:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Yann 06:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Quality is good enough for documentation purposes. Some burnt highlights, but not really disturbing. This is not a promotional or advertising photo... --Smial 10:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Milseburg 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Physikzentrum_Bad_Honnef_2018-05-05_23.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Hölterhoffstift, aerial view --Birds-eye 14:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose unscharfe Ecken --Ralf Roletschek 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree, object is shown on QI-level, a little crop and the image is fine! --Sujalajus 18:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Mir wäre es zwar zu hell (Schiefer-Kacheln und Sandstein) aber für Drohne ok für mich.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 08:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 15:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)