Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 19 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Netzschkau_Schloss_0541.jpg edit

 

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kislovodsk train station front.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Train station building: Vokzalnaya st, 13, Kislovodsk, Stavropol krai --Nino Verde 09:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Question Your images show 8 MP, but your camera offers 21 MP. Where are the lost pixels? --Milseburg 21:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I usually crop and resize images. No need to have all 21 MP if you can print at 30x20 cm with 300 DPI which is totally enough for any purposes. Anyway, the QI need to be at least 4 MP, thus this criteria is fullfilled. --Nino Verde 07:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
      • But it´s possible to make a shot with full resolution from this location, isn´t it? So I think it´s better to take advantage of the full possibilities of the camera. --Milseburg 12:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see any reason why this image should be downsampled. Anyway, the composition is lacking with that tight right crop and the roomy crop on the left.--Peulle 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Crop from right can't be extended. I do not remember properly, but there were lot of stuff, preventing from getting additional space from that side. Whatever. --Nino Verde 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good quality, but perspective correction is needed on the right side of building.
    QI requires at least 2 Mp, not 4 Mp, so it's more than enough. QI guidelines say that downsampling is unwelcome when used "in order to appear of better quality", but there can be other reasons - for example, author may choose not to release high resolution image with an open license or something else. --Shansov.net 16:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment This shouldn´t be: Make an advertisement with an lower resolution version here and sell the high resolution version. --Milseburg 09:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment 30x20 cm 300 dpi is enough for any purpose, as i mentioned before. So it is weird kind of 'advertizing'. --Nino Verde 11:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, such a reason would go against the purpose of Commons. For getting the QI/FP accolades, users are supposed to submit the best examples of their works.--Peulle 10:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 20:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Tortuga_gigante_de_San_Cristóbal_(Chelonoidis_chathamensis),_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_06.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Head of a San Cristobal Island Galapagos tortoise (Chelonoidis chathamensis), Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador --Poco a poco 05:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose The lower part of the jaw is out of focus and has noise --Cvmontuy 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, that area is not as sharp as others, but I am offering a huge file downsampling it would guide without doubts to a QI, is that the solution? Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 17:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not quite sharp (shallow DoF), also looks overprocessed, and I think the top of the head is a bit overexposed.--Peulle 06:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   New version Poco a poco 16:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay 17:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough. --Palauenc05 22:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Palauence05. -- Ikan Kekek 23:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  Comment It still looks overprocessed to me, so my vote stands.--Peulle 14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jebulon 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --XRay 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)