File talk:Church of Holy Trinity in Korolyov (fragment of gate and bell tower).jpg

For QI review

@Cccefalon: I see where you have found the posterization, these problem areas weren't quite, so to say, sudden for me, though I considered them as a minor issue. Thank you very much for your review and comments, I take them as very useful. But at the same time I think that sometimes your quality requirements are... e-e-e... surplus, redundant. The quality of a photo has to be determined in accordance with possible use of the photo and with its significance. This photo never will be printed in an art album (enamel paper, large size and so on), the most of viewers, who will have a look on it, never heard about monitor adjustment etc... So we require the quality for sake of the quality. I am not quite sure that this is a good idea...

But, well. I am not ready to reprocess this photo from a RAW: it is a rather problem photo, it needs laborious perspective correction, noise reduction in selected areas... I have no time for it now, so let’s review the photo as it is. If it isn’t a QI, then it isn’t a QI. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC).