Open main menu

Commons:Návrhy na kvalitní obrázky

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 37% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Outdated translations are marked like this.
Přeskočit k návrhům
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

Zde najdete obrázky navržené na zařazení mezi Kvalitní obrázky. Prosím povšimněte si, že jde o něco jiného než Nejlepší obrázky. Pokud chcete ke svým fotografiím nějaké obsáhlejší komentáře a kritiku, je vhodnějším místem stránka Photography critiques.

Contents

Cíl

Cílem projektu kvalitní obrázky je podpořit ty, kteří jsou skutečným základem Wikimedia Commons - jednotlivé uživatele, kteří přispívají k rozšíření Commons svými jedinečnými příspěvky. Zatímco Nejlepší obrázky shromažďují to absolutně nejlepší a nejpůsobivější z veškerého obsahu Commons, cílem Kvalitních obrázků je podpořit uživatele v tvorbě obrázků s definovanou úrovní kvality, a identifikovat obrázky ji splňující.
Kvalitní obrázky nejsou soutěž.

Pravidla

Všechny navržené obrázky musí být vytvořené přímo uživateli Commons.

Pro navrhovatele

Níže popsaná jsou přibližná kritéria pro Kvalitní obrázky, podrobný popis je v Quality images guidelines (zatím v angličtině).


Požadavky na stránku s popisem
  1. Autorská práva. Kvalitní obrázky musí být na Commons nahrané přímo držitelem autorským práv s přijatelnou licencí.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.

Kvalitní obrázky musí být zařazené v odpovídajících kategoriích, mít výstižný název a popis. V případě rostlin a zvířat by měl popis obsahovat systematické jméno.

  1. Kvalitní obrázky nesmí obsahovat reklamu či podpis autora v samotném obrázku. Informace o autorovi a autorských právech by se měly nacházet na stránce s popisem, a mohou být v metadatech souboru (EXIF a pod. ), ale neměly by narušovat vlastní obrázek.


Creator

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technické požadavky

Přesnější specifikace je v textu Commons:Quality images guidelines.


Resolution

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.


Image quality

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Composition and lighting

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.


Value

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.


How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Hodnocení obrázků

Kterýkoli přihlášený uživatel může vyhodnotit nominace.
Při hodnocení se užijí stejná kritéria jako při nominace,


Jak provést hodnocení

How to update the status

Důkladně si prohlédněte obrázek. Otevřete si jej v plném rozlišení a zkontrolujte, jestli splňuje jednotlivá kritéria pro kvalitní obrázky

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria splňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Promotion| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | Čím je obrázek obzvlášť dobrý. --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Promotion a přidejte popis, případně velmi krátké zdůvodnění.

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria nesplňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Decline| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | velmi krátké zdůvodnění --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Decline přidejte podpis, případně kritéria na kvalitní obrázky, která navržený obrázek nesplňuje. (Používejte názvy sekcí z kritérií). Pokud obrázek nesplňuje větší množství požadavků, stačí uvést 2-3 nejvážnější chyby, zmínit "multiple problems". Když zamítáte nominaci, je přínosné na stránce navrhovatele vysvětlit důvody - ale vždy přívětivě, žádné kousavé poznámky.

Prosba: Hodnoťte nejdřív nejstarší nezhodnocené obrázky.


Zhodnocení a

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.


How to execute decision

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 21 2019 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.


Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 20:09, 21 červenec 2019 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
If there are terms you are unfamiliar with, please see explanations at Photography terms.

Thank you.



July 21, 2019

July 20, 2019

July 19, 2019

July 18, 2019

July 17, 2019

July 16, 2019

July 15, 2019

July 14, 2019

July 13, 2019

July 12, 2019

July 11, 2019

July 9, 2019

July 8, 2019

July 4, 2019

July 3, 2019

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add   Oppose and   Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review

File:Sweets_of_Tunisia_02.jpg

 

  • Nomination A selection of sweets offered for a small Eid al-fitr celebration in Tunisia --Kritzolina 08:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 11:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Too blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 19:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO too dark, a little bit noise and blurry. --XRay 05:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Seven Pandas must not have checked this thoroughly.--Peulle 07:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low DOF and probably blurred by noise reduction. --Smial 18:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sonneneinstrahlung_in_Wald_6146421054.jpg

 

  • Nomination View into the outside of the forest with tree shadows. --PantheraLeo1359531 20:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   CommentSchönes Foto, aber die Perspektive sollte korrigiert werden, weil sich die Bäume nach innen neigen. --Manfred Kuzel 09:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice picture, but CA too strong for a QI --Dktue 13:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Dktue.--Peulle 06:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 06:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Vslaeum,_Ulm_(_1050055).jpg

 

  • Nomination Potted plants at Verschwörhaus Ulm --MB-one 13:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Die Blätter der linken Pflanze müssten schärfer sein, und die rechte sieht nicht gesund aus. Außerdem wirken die Plastiktöpfe nicht gut und der Hintergrund ist leicht schief. -- Spurzem 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Diskutieren kann man hier einzig und allein über die Schärfe der Blätter. Ob eine Pflanze gesund ist oder nicht und ob sie in einem Plastiktopf oder im Garten steht, hat nichts mit der Qualität eines Fotos zu tun. Ähnliches gilt bei einer Nahaufnahme für den ohnehin unscharfen Hintergrund, weil es hier einzig und allein um das Motiv (die Pflanzen) geht. --Manfred Kuzel 08:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    *
  •   Comment Volle Zustimmung zu Manfred. Hier geht es um die Fotos. --Aristeas 06:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Aristeas: Worum sollte es sonst gehen als um Fotos? Qualität von Fotos ist meines Erachtens aber nicht allein eine Frage von Schärfe, abgesehen davon, dass sie in dem zur Diskussion stehenden Bild nicht einwandfrei ist. Und noch eine Frage, auch an Manfred Kuzel: Warum habt Ihr dem Foto hier kein Pro gegeben? Vergessen? -- Spurzem 09:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low DOF, distracting background. --Smial 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   ----Ermell 07:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-01_(105)_Argynnis_paphia_(silver-washed_fritillary)_on_a_Phedimus_aizoon_(aizoon_stonecrop)_at_Bichlhäusl,_Tiefgrabenrotte,_Frankenfels,_Austria.jpg

 

  • Nomination Argynnis paphia (silver-washed fritillary) on a Phedimus aizoon (aizoon stonecrop) at Bichlhäusl, Tiefgrabenrotte, Frankenfels, Austria.--GT1976 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Gorgeous colors. Great composition. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Is this really a QI? Everything and nothing is in focus. No butterfly is really sharp. Some are flapping their wings. Colors seem a little off. --Pro2 19:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Somewhat blurry. There are several overexposed areas. Colors look unnatural, especially the greens. --Stoxastikos (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   ----Ermell 07:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:AMW.svg

 

  • Nomination By User:Poznaniak --Piotr Bart 12:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry but I think this is not similar enough to the original. Small details like the shadowing on the wings and legs might be forgiven, but the letters, crown and lines in the structure the eagle stands on - these are all different.--Peulle 17:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be similar to be a quality image. --Piotr Bart 08:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I feel it needs to be an accurate depiction of the logo. This, then, becomes a CR discussion about how dissimilar the image can be from the original.--Peulle 21:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 21:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Asphalt_crew_Drammen_2019_(8).jpg

 

  • Nomination Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Maybe you should try pushing the shadows a litte --Dktue 13:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I can try that. Don't know why this is in CR, though.--Peulle 06:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   ----Ermell 07:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:OutDoor_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(1X7A0535).jpg

 

  • Nomination Model tent at OutDoor 2018 --MB-one 13:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Tilted --Poco a poco 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Try to cut a little on the left, maybe --Dktue 13:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Why do you move it to CR? if changes are applied I see no need to start a CR --Poco a poco 17:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Dktue, trimming the dark strip on the left would help but this image would still not be QI to me. --GRDN711 12:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   ----Ermell 06:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Delmas_Yvan_in_Rallye_de_Marcillac_2018.jpg

 

  • Nomination Delmas Yvan in Rallye de Marcillac 2018 in Saint-Cyprien-sur-Dourdou, passing between stages. --Tournasol7 05:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment The uninteresting foreground should be cropped a bit. --Ermell 07:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. --Tournasol7 13:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would suggest tighter cropping yet to better focus on the car. Recommend cropping out the tree shadows on the bottom right and re-balance the image. --GRDN711 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think now is not bad. --Tournasol7 21:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Ermell 06:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Item_on_display_on_the_outside_of_the_museum_at_Utica_02.jpg

 

  • Nomination Capital of a Roman column on the outside of the museum at Utica --Kritzolina 07:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   SupportGood quality. --Manfred Kuzel 07:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree with this one. I think the photo could have been better. It's quite soft, you could have used smaller aperture to produce deeper DoF. Also, the background seems to be blown, perspective fix would be good --Podzemnik 07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Bezüglich der Perspektive muß ich widersprechen! Hier geht es um das dargestellte Motiv und nicht um den Hintergrund! Und wenn man das Motiv von oben oder unten fotografieen muß, damit es korrekt dargestellt wird, dann kann die Perspektive des Hintergrundes niemals stimmen. --Manfred Kuzel 04:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I fully agree with Podzemnik. @Manfred: grundsätzlich richtig, trifft hier aber nicht zu. --Uoaei1 06:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Uoaei1: Wenn Du links die Perspektive korrigierst, dann schneidest Du das Motiv ab. --Manfred Kuzel 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ich hätte hier eine andere Version als Vorschlag. Leider ist die Tärfenschiefe unnötig gering. --Ralf Roletschek 18:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Asphalt_crew_Drammen_2019_(7).jpg

 

  • Nomination Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Light comes from the wrong side, especially the front of the truck is too dark. -- Spurzem 07:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've seen images with similar light conditions promoted before.--Peulle 14:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me.--Ermell 07:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 07:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Asphalt_crew_Drammen_2019_(6).jpg

 

  • Nomination Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Light from the wrong side, poor description of the image -- Spurzem 07:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree.--Peulle 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing wrong with that.--Ermell 07:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Gotta go w/ Ermell here. --Fluffy89502 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Fluffy89502 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:The_Northeastern_Corner_Round_Tower2.JPG

 

  • Nomination The Northeastern Corner Round Tower, Tobolsk Kremlin, Russia. --СССР 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hmmmm I think we should discuss this; the image seems a bit underexposed.--Peulle 07:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The image would definitely be (even) better if it was a bit brighter. Should be easy to correct, just dont’ clip the highlights. --Aristeas 07:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done: brightened --СССР 02:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still too dark for me. --Rbrechko 23:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done: brightened more --СССР 04:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me now. --Aristeas 06:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Aristeas 06:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Hudson_Hornet_de_1954,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_01.JPG

 

  • Nomination Hudson Hornet of 1954, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 13:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 17:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The black grease on the bonnet (meanwhile removed), the blackened, probably already fictitious license plate and the information sheet in the windshield are very disturbing. Besides, the car is unnaturally distorted. For me, the photo would not be a quality picture. -- Spurzem 21:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment As it's obvious that you, Spurzem, cannot handle a criticism (or a contra to one of your images) I already stated, that I wouldn't review any of your images. I expect though the same from you otherwise I consider this a provocation! Don't play with me. Poco a poco 18:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 07:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must say that I find those black smudges a bit disturbing.--Peulle 08:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Peulle, one of them was there by mistake, I removed it. Poco a poco 18:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I still feel that the other one should be fixed too, though. What I mean by "fixed" is that if you're going to anonymize license plates, it should be done in a way that looks a bit more professional.--Peulle 13:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peule. Also somewhat low DOF. --Smial 10:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Kaldari asked in the talk page of the file why I smudged the license plate. My motivation to do that was this, whether it's a must and why I cannot really say. Poco a poco 17:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't object to the changing of license plates per se, but the way it has been done in this case.--Peulle 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 06:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Please provide a reason. --Smial 11:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question was ist mit dem Nummernschild passiert? Irgendwie zu weitwinklig... --Ralf Roletschek 21:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The image looks good to me overall. As for the plates: the background of the frame is gray with the (presumably) white letters and numbers. If that particular shade of gray was used instead of black to cover the symbols, the result would be much more pleasing to the eye. Just my two cents. --Stoxastikos 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Tournasol7 06:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Préfecture_du_Haut-Rhin_(1)_-_sans_lumière.jpg

 

  • Nomination Prefecture of Haut-Rhin without light in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 12:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   SupportGood quality. --Cvmontuy 01:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      OpposeI disagree This image is underexposed by at least 1/2 f-stop, probably one f-stop. --Smial 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      Neutral Smial is right that the image would be better (nicer) if lifted by about 1/2 to 1 f-stop. On the other hand, this seems to be a blue hour photograph, and the blue hour is dark, so one could argue that the brightness (darkness) of the image is just reality. --Aristeas 07:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment It's a series of photos taken at one minute intervals (with File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (2) - avec lumière.jpg and File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (3) - avec lumière bleue.jpg), the settings are the same, actually the first is less exposed because no light on the building. Gzen92 [discuter] 06:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done I changed the brightness. Gzen92 [discuter] 09:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Smial 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:PuertoPuntadelEste-jul2019.4.jpg

 

  • Nomination View of Punta del Este, Uruguay --Ezarate 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion *  OpposeOverall insufficient quality. Dark, noisy, perspective not corrected, maybe tilted. --Dirtsc 06:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    *@Dirtsc: see now, please Ezarate 22:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ezarate should have put this image to CR by himself after it was first rejected by me and then reworked. As this was not done, I put it to CR, to have more opinions. I'm still not convinced, it is better now, but now has slight CAs on the edges of the buildings. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
CA fixed, thanks Ezarate 11:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support looks good now --Dirtsc 08:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I appreciate the rework done but IMO, the image still seems dark and a little soft to me. --GRDN711 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose there is a stitching problem on the building on the left --Moroder 06:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The perspective is skewed (the buildings on the left and right sides of the picture are leaning outwards). The image lacks contrast. --Stoxastikos 16:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 21:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


Časový rozvrh (kdy uplyne 15 dní od nominace)

so 13 7. → ne 21 7.
ne 14 7. → po 22 7.
po 15 7. → út 23 7.
út 16 7. → st 24 7.
st 17 7. → čt 25 7.
čt 18 7. → pá 26 7.
pá 19 7. → so 27 7.
so 20 7. → ne 28 7.
ne 21 7. → po 29 7.