Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 27 2016

Consensual review

edit

File:Nuestra Señora de Los Dolores - Mancha Blanca - Lanzarote.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Ermita de Nuestra Señora de Los Dolores, Mancha Blanca, Lanzarote --Llez 15:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose sorry, there is significant lack of detail on the facade; obviously overexposed --A.Savin 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) OK, better now, but still some few clipped areas,   Neutral --A.Savin 14:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, on my monitor all details of the wall are visible, nothing overexposed --Llez 15:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good in my computer as well. Christer T Johansson 15:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support also on mine. --Hubertl 05:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I see all the details on the walls. Nice and sharp.--Peulle 13:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some areas with clipping, all in all slight overexposure. Might be fixable if redeveloped from raw. -- Smial 13:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done New version uploaded. --Llez 17:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Palauenc05 20:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough to become a Q1photo, but you might remove the shadow in the front --Michielverbeek 05:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done Shadow and also tyre tracks removed --Llez 14:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Better. -- Smial 09:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 20:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:PanasonicLumix2.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Camara fotográfica Panasonic Lumix DMC-S3 --Ezarate 14:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • {{s}} Good quality. --Peulle 15:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Our new high speed reviewer ignored some dust spots. Also the DoF is too shallow for a studio shot; the lst third of the lens tube is out of focus. --Cccefalon 20:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, OK I agree - I thought the DoF looked artistic but you're right. --Peulle 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment RAW reprocessed, f/10 is inapropiate for a studio shot? --Ezarate 00:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment It´s a small object and you captured it from a small distance, therefore you won´t get the complete subject sharp, even not with a smaller aperture. You need to use a focus bracketing method.--Hubertl 07:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Still two dust spots. Appears to be tilted clockwise. DOF and sharpness are ok. It is absolutely not necessary to have everything from front to back sharp, and so it is not mandantory to use focus stacking for every and any object. Playing with DOF is a legitimate photographic method to work with. -- Smial 11:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose see notes. Unacceptable edges.. --Hubertl 12:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 14:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Tübingen_Neckarfront_BW_2015-04-27_15-28-56_2.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Germany, Tübingen, Neckarfront --Berthold Werner 09:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 11:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Both sides are leaning in. --Milseburg 12:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@XRay: , @Milseburg: I make a new try, please check again. --Berthold Werner 16:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
IMO still OK. And Milseburg is right, it's better. --XRay 17:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Much better. I´m not sure whether everything is really verticalI, but I give up oposing. --Milseburg 17:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 21:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC))

File:Hannover Tw 3025 route 7.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Hannover Series 3000 light rail train. --Jacek79 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 21:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry I disagree, the front area of the tram is not in focus --A.Savin 13:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree with Savin; the train is the subject matter and should be in better focus for QI. --Peulle 13:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because of motion blur. (Not in focus? LOL). It is in general a problem to get a sharp image of a moving bus or train with those LED matrix displays. You need to use a rather long exposure time to get a readable display, maybe 1/15 to 1/60s. Shorter exposure time leads to a sharp vehicle, but also to unreadable display with only some rows or columns glowing. -- Smial 10:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:16-03-31-Bethlehem-RalfR-WAT_5534.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Milchgrotte in der Altstadt von Bethlehem, Palästina --Ralf Roletschek 08:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment The lighting seems OK, but there is some lack of focus near the back wall. --Peulle 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Peulle: . A comment is not a decision. {{support}} or {{decline}} it. That means, don´t set the assessment to "Discuss" without a previous decision. --Hubertl 08:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough. --Palauenc05 07:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Landfalloen kapell 3.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination The chapel at Landfall island, Drammen. --Peulle 12:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much distortion at left and right border --Cccefalon 17:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like Cccefalon --Michielverbeek 06:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 07:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)