User talk:Virtual-Pano/Archive 3

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Neustr. 42.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Neustr. 56.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Neustr. 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Brotstr 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mathieu Kappler 21:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Brotstr 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mathieu Kappler 21:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Sternstr 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mathieu Kappler 21:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Brotstr 42.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 20:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier John the baptist.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Useful to add a CAT for John the Baptist. --Tagooty 01:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Hercules fountain.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Grabenstr 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 01:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Sternstr 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The upper part and sky are noisy. Fixable? --Tagooty 01:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)  Done --Virtual-Pano 15:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)  Support The noise is quite acceptable. Good quality. --Steindy 15:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Neustr. 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier Neustr. 35 Angela Merici Portal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Historical building Neustraße 42, Trier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Historical building Neustraße 35, Trier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Question: Why is the building darker again? I tried to lighten it up but this was obviously not wanted. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
   :  Comment @Spurzem as much as I liked your change in thumbnail view, there was quite a halo on the topmost part of the building where the masked area was not matching 100%. -- Die Veränderung gefiel mir in der Vorschau sehr gut. In voller Auflösung sah man allerdings einen überbelichteten Kranz im oberen Teil des Gebäudes an Stellen die von der Maske nicht richtig erfaßt worden sind. --Virtual-Pano (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Diesen kleinen Fehler hätte man leicht beheben können. Mir gefällt die düstere Fassade nicht. Aber ich weiß Bescheid; nächstens werde ich nicht mehr versuchen, ein von Dir vorgestelltes Bild zu verbessern. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I am sorry to hear that you are under the impression that your work has not been appreciated. My point of view is completly different as you have succesfully started a process to improve the image. Your criticism was constructive and your version did motivate me. The sandstone areas in your version appear washed out for my taste. That is why I reprocessed the whole image and have been a bit easier on the sandstone brighness. It is simply faster and easier for me to work on my RAW files. To sum it up. I would like to have your input in the future.

Es tut mir leid daß der Eindruck entstanden ist daß Deine Arbeit nicht gewürdigt wird. denn das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Die Kritik war berechtigt und Dein Entwurf hat mich motiviert das Bild zu verbesern. Der Sandstein Deiner Vorlage wirkt für meinen Geschmack ausgewaschen. Deshalb habe ich das Bild komplett überarbeitet und die Sandstein Areale etwas weniger belichtet als Du. Es ist für mich einfacher und schneller die eigenen RAW Daten zu verwenden. Ich würde mich freuen weiterhin konstruktive Kritik von Dir zu hören --Virtual-Pano (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier cricket fountain Heuschreckbrunnen top.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier cricket fountain Heuschreckbrunnen NW.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germany Rhineland-Palatinate Trier cricket fountain Heuschreckbrunnen W.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Former Mattheiser Hof - Historical building Brotstraße 21 - 23, Trier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope because it shows the whole building, even though it's dark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment This best image in scope is uncomfortably dark. It certainly could have been improved without much effort. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment well noted and acted upon by uploading a version with modified whie balance --Virtual-Pano (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Timber framed listed building Sternstrasse 3, Trier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment For use in online articles as a thumbnail, I'm liking File:Trier BW 2014-05-19 08-35-07.jpg better, as it's brighter and shows most details more clearly at review size (or what I use for review size, which is the image on the file page). Of course it's a much smaller picture, but that's not relevant at COM:VIC. I'm definitely open to considering a counterargument, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
   Comment a good point, thanks. I have tweaked the white balace of the building and uploaded an altered version --Virtual-Pano (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks. I consider this best in scope now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)