Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2012

Consensual review

edit

File:Rheinberg, Budberg, Evangelische Kirche, 2011-12 CN-02.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Evangelical Church of Budberg in Rheinberg --Carschten 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The sky looks a bit too bright to me. --Iifar 16:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me good enouth for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky too bright, church too dark, perspective distortion. Please let's discuss.--Jebulon 13:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I've checked my first review again, and I think I was wrong, and have to change my vote. Nothing what I noticed first is real, or really disturbing.--Jebulon 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Luech Plazola te Sëlva.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Farmhouse in the Alps (South Tyrol)--Moroder 17:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overexposed. Pitke 18:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Uploaded new image with lower exposure --Moroder 23:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 17:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now.--Vassil 17:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me also QI. --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Nádraží Braník, Tatra KT8D5, zezadu.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Tatra KT8D5, Prague — Jagro 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Half of the image is unsharp. Sorry --Chmee2 10:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Blurred background is no problem as long as the main subject is sharp. You can not photograph a tram in a bad light with a small aperture.--ArildV 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:C-petra-5601.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The church of Saint Metropolitan Peter in Pereslavl --PereslavlFoto 12:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The sky is partly overexposed. --Iifar 13:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It's cloudy, and there are no details but a dull cloud.--PereslavlFoto 14:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • If you play with exposure, then the sky will be more visible. I think you can improve this image. --Iifar 14:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • There are no details in the sky, only smooth whitish fill. What will appear out of the fill? To show the church, I need to avoid any sky at all.--PereslavlFoto 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I agree with Pereslavl, it avoids becoming a disturbing element.--Kadellar 22:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The silhouette of the building is burned out. You can't see the border between the snow on the roof and sky. So it's clearly overexposed. --LC-de 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • LC-de is right, I didn't notice that detail of the snow. Kadellar 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's start again, for I uploaded the new version. As LC-de said, the border between the snow on the roof and the sky was invisible: Fixed. As Iifar said, the sky was partly overexposed: Fixed. As Kadellar said, it must not disturb: it keeps natural smooth now. Also the hue is less warm and underscores winter expression. Please check once more, maybe my 1,5-hour work gains a suitable result . Thank you for the help!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support I think is good enough. --Kadellar 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support so i think also. --Ralf Roletschek 20:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Église Saint-Louis (façade gauche) - La Roche-sur-Yon.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Saint-Louis church, built from 1813 to 1830 - La Roche-sur-Yon, France. --Selbymay 19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Strong lens compression (perspective distortion). --Iifar 10:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • In fact, it's only a problem of thumbnail, if you open the original file, you'll find the second version with perspective correction. Thanks to check. --Selbymay 17:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --Jebulon 17:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, for me not okay, also crop is too tight --Taxiarchos228 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me ist QI. --Ralf Roletschek 20:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 10:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:12-01-21-yog-822.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Youth Olympic Games --Ralf Roletschek 13:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support jawoll --Carschten 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry no, the girl is nice, but the boy is completely unsharp. green cast IMO (improvable). Please discuss--Jebulon 16:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment White-balance is corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support difficult conditions, lively atmosphere --Mbdortmund 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ausdrucksstarkes Foto. -- Spurzem 17:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Daugava (Düna) in Riga by night.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Daugava (Düna, Западная Двина) in Riga by night --Pudelek 18:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too dark. --Yann 11:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • because this is evening --Pudelek 11:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not much to see. --Iifar 12:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its no too dark, ist QI. --Ralf Roletschek 20:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support pretty grainless for such a dark view. Nice. Pitke 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for me too dark --R-bitzer 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per other --Archaeodontosaurus 10:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kragenechse Chlamydosaurus kingii.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Chlamydosaurus kingii --Holleday 14:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality to me. --NorbertNagel 16:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color temperature is too high. Easy to fix. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Done. --Vassil 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me now. --Iifar 18:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support very good now --Archaeodontosaurus 10:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank you very much Vassil! The new picture is great--Holleday 17:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice. --Kadellar 13:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Arlesheim_-_Burg_Birseck4.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Arlesheim: Castle Birseck --Taxiarchos228 13:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support zeigt schön die Umgebung. --Ralf Roletschek 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ok for Umgebung, but the main subject is hidden, and the compo does not work, because rhe picture is cut in two equal parts (rule of third ?)--Jebulon 00:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    is the rule of third obligation for QI? --Taxiarchos228 08:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely not, but it is better for composition, and composition is a part of QI criteria.--Jebulon 20:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
to center an object may be boring but it is classical and for sure no contra-argument here at QI --Taxiarchos228 16:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fore sure it is, but I don't tell about centering of the castle, but about the horizontal two-part cut.--Jebulon 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject too much covered with the trees. --R-bitzer 00:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Dornach_-_Goetheanum2a_small.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Dornach, Switzland: Goetheanum from northwest --Taxiarchos228 13:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support nice colors! --Ralf Roletschek 13:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strange cyan halos on the left and right parts above the buildings and strange cyan clouds --Carschten 19:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten--Lmbuga 17:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support gives an expression of the atmosphere in the eveningh, probably tonemaped (?) --Mbdortmund 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --An-d 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missglücktes und exzessives HDR. I think the tree shadows and the strange cyan clouds are disturbing too.--Jebulon 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and colours. --R-bitzer 01:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mir diagram.svg

edit

  • Nomination Diagram of Mir. (by Orionist) --SalopianJames 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Strictly speaking this isn't Orionist's sole work. The main illustration is the work of NASA, all Orionist has done is remove the shuttle, and colour in the different sections --Fred the Oyster 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Not really, as he created a complete vector image from scratch out of the low-res original, much the same as File:Orbiter main propulsion system.svg.--SalopianJames 09:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sorry that's not correct on two counts. Firstly the example you gave is a totally different kettle of fish and was done totally by hand after tracing a rather horrible raster diagram. And this image, or at least large portions of it are extracted as complete vectors from the PDF. For example the Priroda module has been extracted and rotated. It's NASA's work completely. The vector images done by NASA have a unique style all of their own, as if they used an antiquated vector graphics app. This work shows all the signs. In fact if you ask Orionist, I'm sure he'll tell you so. Mind you this isn't to take anything away from Orionist, taking all the different modules putting them back together as one is no mean feat on its own. --Fred the Oyster 10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    Ah, I see what you mean - the original I was referring to was File:Mir module.jpg.--SalopianJames 11:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes? Yann 06:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Canon-IMG_1779-white.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Field cannon of the 19th Century. -- Rama 19:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Excellent. --Jebulon 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The outline selection seems to be sometimes not very good. Btw. I don't understand, why this was necessary. --LC-de 08:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo of the 19th century. --Katarighe 17:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Žiča Monastery tower rose window. Near Kraljevo, Serbia.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Žiča Monastery, medieval royal church of Serbia --WhiteWriter 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 17:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment A crop on top and bottom is needed. --Yann 08:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done! Yes, it is better like that. --WhiteWriter 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. Yann 12:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK with me. --Iifar 08:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Airbus A319 Germanwings.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Germanwings Airbus A319 at Stuttgart Airport. --Fule33 21:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Weak oppose--The nose gear, main gear(both) and engines(both) with the nose itself are in excellent focus but the antennae on the top and the rudder and elevator is a bit blurred. I can understand about the elevator(engine exhaust) but the rudder shouldn't be blurred and the sky is simply too grainy.--Gauravjuvekar 13:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support i think, we can diskuss? --Ralf Roletschek 20:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support the blur comes from the exhaust gases, this is a nice picture of an A319 fuselage. PierreSelim 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment--Didn't you read? I can understand the blur about the elevator but the blurry sky and the top part of the rudder is not because of exhaust gasses--they don't reach that high.--Also, more of the rudder could have been included--Gauravjuvekar 17:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The rudder looks ok for me. With the focale length needed to take the picture the DOF is more than ok (it's f/10), You will rarely get a sharp sky with such telezoom. PierreSelim 17:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Imo good quality, but I'm not very happy with the crop. --Iifar 08:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:PP Stráně Hlubockého dolu, žaludy.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Oak fruits.--Juandev 11:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me--Holleday 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor DOF (f/2.8), noise, CAs (see the lower right corner)--Lmbuga 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga.--T137 12:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Oberdrauburg3.jpg

edit

  • Nomination View of mountains beneath the castle Hohnburg, Austria.--Meho29 11:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Unfortunately the wooden structure on the right (Harpfe) is cut in half. A better crop is deserved --Moroder 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much empty space in foreground, and nothing really sharp I'm afraid. Sorry.--Jebulon 17:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I have to agree with Jebulon. --Iifar 08:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Diwan-I-Khas 2011.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Jaipur, India. --Sfu 12:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kadellar 19:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose because harsh shadows and cropped bird. --Iifar 12:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh shadows--Lmbuga 22:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:12-02-02-autostadt-wolfsburg-091.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Wolfsburg; Volkswagen Factory --Ralf Roletschek 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Sehr schön! - A.Savin 18:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong noise, strong CAs--Lmbuga 19:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks nice only in low resolution preview. --Iifar 08:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Great image, wonderful colors, also in high resolution very good for me! Marcus Cyron 19:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice photo, but as Lmbuga. No QI IMHO. --T137 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

File:Toulouse_-_Palais_des_thés_-_2011-07-29.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Japanese style tea house in japanese garden in Toulouse --PierreSelim 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Overexposure distracts the eye. --Mattbuck 04:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info made a few change, not sure it's enought. PierreSelim 07:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition: The house is cropped out, at right--Lmbuga 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Amoeneburg_Erfurtshausen_Haarhaeuser_Strasse_20110924_Emha_3363-4.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Cultural Heritage Building in Amöneburg-Erfurtshausen --Emha 13:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Severe perspectiv distortion. Can you try to correct, e.g. with Hugin? --NorbertNagel 18:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I never did this before. Can someone help me? --Emha 16:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I applied a perspective correction using Hugin. Now you either need to apply a new crop to the image or you ask an admin to delete my version. --NorbertNagel 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've tried something too, from the original, with GIMP.--Jebulon 01:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tight crop now due to perspective correction, but IMO still OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 21:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yellow cast, tight crop. --Carschten 14:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI in the version with whitebalance --An-d 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with An-d. --Selbymay (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support yes, its QI. --Ralf Roletschek 11:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop and a bit of CAs--Lmbuga 17:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right wall leans to the right, correction doesn't look naturaly. --Mbdortmund 06:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question If we add promotion here, then QI will be version with yellow cast. How should we proceed? --Iifar 08:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we first remove the version without whitebalance? --An-d 18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:2010-12-26-herzsprung-by-RalfR-18.jpg

edit

  • Nomination evening in winter --Ralf Roletschek 13:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)#
  •  Oppose Very nice composition, but image has dust spots on the sky and visible lens flare. Image description only in german. --Iifar 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    OK, its corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 09:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, ok for me. --WhiteWriter 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support looks like a magic moment - QI for me --An-d 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Meets the criteria. Saffron Blaze 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar Saffron Blaze 18:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Enrique_Bunbury_-_15.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Enrique Bunbury during a concert in 2012. --Kadellar 16:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, perhaps I can't understand this image as an artistic image, but overexposed, noise, poor detail--Lmbuga 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    It was full of smoke and the lights were so powerful behind him, I think overexposure is necessary to feel the mood of the place. --Kadellar 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    I think that the better is "discuss", because others can think--Lmbuga 21:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the chance. --Kadellar 21:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose as Lmbuga. --Iifar 06:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support the person is sharp, its a difficould situation. for me QI. --Ralf Roletschek 10:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same as Lmbuga -- Achim Raschka 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as Lmbuga --T137 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Bretignolles-sur-Mer - Chateau de Beaumarchais (2).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Beaumarchais castle - Brétignolles-sur-Mer (Vendée, France) --Selbymay 18:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Grass a bit oversaturated, but good.--Jebulon 18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too much oversaturated. --kallerna 11:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural colors--Lmbuga 19:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Strange blue line in upper left corner. --Iifar 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I agree, colors may seemed unnatural (despite only a little contrast change) but I upload a new version desaturated. Sorry but I don't see any strange blue line. Sky is natural. --Selbymay 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Look at the full resolution (I see it even on preview thumbnail), this is not the sky. Blue line occurs also on the right side of the image. --Iifar 18:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed in new version. --Iifar 08:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:PBAL Deplechin Amphitrite 28012012 2.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Amphitrite by Eugène Déplechin, 1893.--Vassil 10:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Could be sharper but good quality IMO. --Selbymay 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question What happended to the lower part? --Moroder 08:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate point of view to show the main subject. Parts of the statue and the overall proportions can't be shown from this perspective. --LC-de 09:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As LC-de--Lmbuga 20:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It is technically correct. the composition is interesting and not problematic IMHO. --T137 12:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Great image, great perspective! Marcus Cyron 19:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The interest of a statue is to be able to view from any perspective. The image is technically good. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per T137, Selbymay and Archaeodontosaurus --Carschten 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support perspective is o.k. and technically there is no problem -- Achim Raschka 17:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kentish Town station MMB 08.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A rainbow in the sky. Mattbuck 07:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice, good (mattbuckian) idea. ;) --Jebulon 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice, but tilted and oof (unsharp) --Carschten 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think the lamppost is vertical in real life. Mattbuck 13:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Even if it was I am not certain why that would matter. Nice artistic shot. A refreshing change from all the archiving that goes on here. Saffron Blaze 18:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 1--Jebulon 23:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its a nice QI. --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Pumpjack Drayton Valley 03.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Oil pump in Drayton Valley, Alberta. -- Achim Raschka 23:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Too tight at top--Lmbuga 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    Tried a crop with more space on top - please re-evaluate -- Achim Raschka 12:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    Better, but I'm not sure: Discuss--Lmbuga 21:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose crop is good (now), but the image is too unsharp --Carschten 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic aberrations.--PereslavlFoto 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Statue femme autruche Vaux le Vicomte.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Statue of a sitting woman with an ostrich, 17th-century, Château de Vaux-le-Vicomte, France.--Jebulon 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Vassil 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not entirely convinced - I think a crop would be better to remove the corner of the building. Mattbuck 10:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done. Was on purpose. The statue stays at the corner of the castle... But compo is now better, indeed.--Jebulon 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. ok for me. --WhiteWriter 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMHO. --T137 11:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Crop noted, objection withdrawn. Mattbuck 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --T137 11:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Pinzas.jpg

edit

File:Chkalovsky-street-16.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Street in a small Russian town --PereslavlFoto 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The licence plates should be whited/cloned out for privacy. --Pitke 18:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The lighting is rather odd. Mattbuck 00:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Carschten 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Iifar 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Enrique_Bunbury_-_03.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Enrique Bunbury during a concert in 2012. --Kadellar 15:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad detail and halos IMO, see the left hand. A bit of noise--Lmbuga 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • IMHO, the red halos in his hand are only due to the concert lights and because of a sudden movement. Concert pictures are hard to take! --Kadellar 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that the better is "discuss", because others can think--Lmbuga 21:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the chance. --Kadellar 21:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support in this situation its normal to have "halos". I think, QI. --Ralf Roletschek 10:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Lmbuga. --Iifar 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Národní park Malá Fatra, výhled z Chlebu.JPG

edit

  • Nomination View from Chleb mountain, Slovakia, --Podzemnik 14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The trees below are too noisy, sorry. --Kadellar 13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose really beautiful view, but here's nothing sharp... --Carschten 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Trametes versicolor stump.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A stump completely covered by Trametes versicolor. --Óðinn 03:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Background looks artificial, otherwise good documentation, I need a second opinion. --Mbdortmund 06:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support From my side: very good composition, I like it and would say QI for me -- Achim Raschka 07:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose If I look in the Trametes versicolor category, it appears to be only average. There are much better images. --NorbertNagel 21:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment moving to the consensual review. --Óðinn 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--for me OK--Holleday 12:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 23:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Canon-IMG 1784-white.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Field cannon of the 19th century. -- Rama 06:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI, though the rear end of the cannon is slightly out of focus.. --NorbertNagel 18:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Opposeunclean outline selection. --LC-de 09:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect but good enough. Needs a better description.--Jebulon 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Magnus_Ljunggren_Göteborg_Book_Fair_2011.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Swedish writer Magnus Ljunggren at Göteborg Book Fair 2011. --ArildV 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Info Underexposed.--PereslavlFoto 14:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • New version uploaded. --ArildV 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - bad crop, focus seems more on the light than the person. Mattbuck 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mattbuck.--Jebulon 11:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Pchelin village.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Pchelin village below the morning fog. --MrPanyGoff 12:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I offer such variant ;) (the file is updated) --Aleks G 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think something in between the two would be better - original is a bit green, current is too red. Mattbuck 14:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I offer such variant (the file is updated)  Support --Aleks G 00:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Your new version has significant overexposure. Of the three, I'd be inclined to promote the original. Mattbuck 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hindu_Bride.JPG

edit

  • Nomination An image of a Hindu Bride in a marriage. --Rangilo Gujarati 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeDistracting background, face not visible properly. --Dipankan001 10:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this meets the criteria. It isn't meant as a portrait. --Saffron Blaze 18:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Saffron Blaze. Tomer T 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and nice expression. Yann 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good photo, shouldn't the tilt in the background be corrected? --Gidip 11:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ruslan Khasbulatov August 2011 Moscow.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ruslan Khasbulatov, an important 1990s politician of Russia. A.Savin 20:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good,--ArildV 09:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Too yellow, wrong WB, comparing to the RIAN photos made that day.--PereslavlFoto 10:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you mean [3] where not the WB is better but the light too strong making the depicted person look pale. But I know, it was a stupid idea to come back to QIC which meanwhile seems to be a private event by PereslavlFoto. A.Savin 11:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I mean [4] where the images have no yellow hue. You are right about the paleness, the light in your image is perfect. You may either process the photograph with another WB settings to get my vote, or wait for someone else to decide. Anyhow, QIC is a page where we learn how to edit images and to make them perfect; I've learned a lot from here.--PereslavlFoto 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good quality, but to me also too yellow. Can be QI because is a good or very good image; but to me, it needs a litle WB correction, ...only little--Lmbuga 20:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. Done, - A.Savin 22:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Suitable now, yet the mouth needs to be retouched.--PereslavlFoto 22:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now, QI to me--Lmbuga 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:11-11-06-ragoese-by-RalfR-14.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Monument at Cementery in a Village --Ralf Roletschek 13:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI to me, but perhaps the greens are a bit unnatural (IMO), and the background a bit noisy--Lmbuga 19:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree - Too noisy/grainy for QI. --NorbertNagel 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as NorbertNagel. --Iifar 18:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as NorbertNagel. Sorry. --T137 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Crocosmia 'Lucifer'-IMG 5393.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Crocosmia 'Lucifer' C T Johansson 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good.--ArildV 10:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I find the red color overexposed and the focus to short. --Moonik 12:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dof too shortGauravjuvekar 07:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Moonik. Sorry. --T137 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --T137 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Nymphaea ampla-IMG 3478.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Nymphaea ampla at Bergianska trädgården in Sweden.
    --C T Johansson 11:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good, could benefit from higher F number. --Gidip 11:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO not sharp. --Berthold Werner 14:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Berthold Werner --Archaeodontosaurus 08:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Berthold Werner. Sorry. --T137 12:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --T137 12:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Anri Ammon Gröden.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Deco building in Gröden --Moroder 16:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Coyau 07:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but IMHO too blurry at the right side, the sky is overexposed and some CA on the roof. --Moonik 03:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Moonik. --Iifar 06:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di Santo Spirito di Gorizia - Night (1).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Church of Santo Spirito by night, Italy. --T137 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Could be sharper.--PereslavlFoto 12:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Zoom_effect.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A photograph taken with a zoom lens, in which the focal length was varied during the course of the exposure. --Gauravjuvekar 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Interesting effect, but not QI for me. --NorbertNagel 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose My head starts twirling, if I look at this. I don't think that QI should do that. --Iifar 13:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a simple effect in photoshop. what want this motiv say to us? to me nothing, sorry --Ralf Roletschek 14:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment-Although a simple effect in photoshop, this is not photoshop-manipulation. It was really taken that way. Also, head-twirling has got nothing to do with QI guidelines-See com:QI.

Pictures with especial technical merit. These images can be used as reference tools for teaching and explaining concepts in photography.


If
File:Leaf trails.JPG
File:ComputerHotline - A36 (by) (1).jpg
File:Automobile light trails.jpg-Pls edit the description page-The image was not created with GIMP.
File:Filés de véhicules sur l'autoroute A36 à Brognard.jpg-Pls suggest a name-I could'nt think of any.
can be QI's with respect to exposure, I see no reason why this image can't-The focal length was adjusted during the exposure.


I think that an intentional zoom blur image could be used to explain the concept. Please analyze this image keeping in mind that it was meant that way and check the technical quality. Also note that the central part of the tree in the middle of the image is in focus.
Gauravjuvekar 14:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • head-twirling was a joke, main reason for my oppose is that only very small area in the middle is in focus. --Iifar 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - I am very tempted to make this my desktop. Fun effect. Mattbuck 16:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok, I change my mind. --Ralf Roletschek 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, to me, nothing in focus. Perhaps it can be FP. Unnecessary or inappropriate use of artistic filters and effects. --Lmbuga 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment-Nothing in focus
  1. --IT'S MEANT THAT WAY.
  2. --A small portion in the centre is in focus.


Unnecessary or inappropriate use of artistic filters and effects.

  1. What do you mean by artistic effects
  2. It's very appropriate and necessary. See Zoom lens

--Gauravjuvekar 08:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have said "to me". I have right to say and think, sorry--Lmbuga 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Is a small portion in the centre in focus? Can you say when with a note? Nothing in focus to me.
"Effects" is "effects", not necessarily Photoshop.
Is the image a example of zoom? Not to me--Lmbuga 19:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As Iifar's head starts twirling, the image does its job. Artistic effects usually help to make an artistic shot. The photo is to show the effect, so it does. Technically fine, so I support.--PereslavlFoto 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent effect. De728631 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very boring. If it has to be of encyclopedic value it is a strong opposition

--Moroder 21:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am glad to change it in soft opposition - not enough IMHO for QI --Moroder 17:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Great effect! Elemaki 14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Dark_Blue_Tiger_tirumala_septentrionis_by_kadavoor.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Tirumala septentrionis Taken at Kadavoor, Kerala, India --Jkadavoor 08:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good --Gauravjuvekar 08:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop --Gidip 17:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC
  •  Support The crop makes it even interesting, the dark butterfly as opposed to the white flowers in the opposite corner is a good concept that would have been reduced with a wider frame of green background. --De728631 23:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 09:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 10:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Saffron Blaze 16:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, the crop is good enough for QI IMO.--ArildV 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Kadavoor has a constant tendency to tightly crop his subjects, I don't think we should encourage this. I think most of you would agree that the image would look much better if a little more space was left around the subject. Then why compromise on this much inferior version? --Gidip 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Because its QI and not FP. The question is not if the picture is perfect, but if the picture is good enough for QI.--ArildV 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • But it can so easily be better! Why a prefer an inferior version and not demand what constitutes such a basic characteristic of every good picture? --Gidip 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose crop --Carschten 14:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose crop. With 2,148 × 1,671 pixels it's possible other version, I think--Lmbuga 00:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done re cropped.--Jkadavoor 07:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support New version looks good to me. --Iifar 07:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support New version looks better to me, but not perfect--Lmbuga 22:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 14 Ruby White.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ruby White at Cardiff Mardi Gras. Mattbuck 07:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose left hand blurred--Gauravjuvekar 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Yann 11:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI. --Ralf Roletschek 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough to me (see clothing and also, though less, the face). The upper zone of the image is a bit dark compared to the rest. I don't like the violet halo of the left edges--Lmbuga 21:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I keep thinking those are her panties sticking out. That aside, the whole skin toned thermal underwear thing is, I dare say, disturbing! Saffron Blaze 01:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Avenue 15:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Avenue. --Kadellar 14:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Volga-GAZ M 22.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Volga GAZ M-22, Riga --Pudelek 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sharp, but the tricycle and, to me, the background is disturbing. Dark zones IMO--Lmbuga 19:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)...and perspective distortion IMO--Lmbuga 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support to me it QI, cant move exhibits in museums background are unchangable, this is QI purpose to recognise good photos that wont be FP Gnangarra 00:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga , sorry --Mbdortmund 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Lmbuga, sorry. --T137 11:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --T137 11:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Latvian Ethnographic Open-Air Museum - living house.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Latvian Ethnographic Open-Air Museum, Riga - living house --Pudelek 10:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Question I like it, but is the door tilted CW? The wooden gate on the left has low chromatic aberrations--Lmbuga 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    I think the door is tilted, but it all seems a bit blurry to me. Mattbuck 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose See above--Lmbuga 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tasman Glacier LC0251.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Tasman Glacier and Tasman Lake --LC-de 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good.--ArildV 22:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good, but it seems oversaturated --Lmbuga Moroder 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not my note! A mistake or someone abusing of my signature? (I hardly can believe it) --Moroder 09:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry Moroder, I found now original comment. There is sometimes a problem with the signatures (program mistake). --Iifar 11:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice! --Iifar 06:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose oversaturated, too tight crop at top --Carschten 14:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit surprised about this oversaturation argument. Do you mean the blue sky? This can happen, if you use polarization filters (as I did). I don't see anything else, that could be called "oversaturated". Could you give me a hint? --LC-de 19:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a quality image. You could tone down the blue in the sky and probably capture a few more supportive votes as I see no "over"saturation. Saffron Blaze 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm torn. Good viewpoint, excellent weather, well exposed, and I can't see any stitching problems. Sharp, although the metadata suggests it's been downsized. However the variation in sky blues is a bit offputting, as is the tight top crop, and the boy blocks an important part of the lake (the outlet). --Avenue 15:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose oversaturated, too tight crop at top--Lmbuga 02:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Saffron Blaze 01:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Psyche_Leptosia_nina_by_kadavoor.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Leptosia nina (Psyche) -- Jkadavoor 04:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, nice and good quality of image, but the crop is too tight at the top. --Moonik 10:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --C T Johansson 11:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The crop is tight but this is an uncropped image as I captured. -- Jkadavoor 12:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Moonik. --Iifar 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I propose an edit with background increased at the top.--Vassil 17:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Definitely better, maybe you can add even a bit more? --Iifar 17:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's try with a little slice more... --Vassil 20:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done, good enough for me now. --Iifar 20:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment too green to me, but good image, sorry--Lmbuga 00:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • According to Photoshop, the white is white, perhaps it's the reflection of the leaf which makes the picture looking green. --Vassil 06:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Or due to the low lights? Unfortunately this restless butterfly perches only in the evening to morning when their body temperature falls. - Jkadavoor 06:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support much better now --Moonik 06:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Caldicot MMB 03 South Wales Main Line.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The Severn Tunnel at Caldicot. Mattbuck 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment - I love this. I will promote if you can include the taxa naming. Saffron Blaze 22:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, I really don't know. To me it's just grass. Mattbuck 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, to me the background is disturbing--Lmbuga 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_de_Paris_-_01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Detail of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame of Paris, France. --Kadellar 15:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  OpposeGood, but composition: It's not the best angle, and the crop is, to me, too tight at left and right. Sorry--Lmbuga 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
    What's so tight? The small columns? The rose isn't. --Kadellar 19:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    To me it's too tight because the perspective distortion: I want to see the entire columns (see notes). But I think that it's beter "discuss"--Lmbuga 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    OK, I see what you mean. I thought including the small capitals would be enough. I'm going to try a perspective correction to see how it would look. --Kadellar 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:FerrySydney.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ferry crossing Sydney Cove ----Elemaki 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 13:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposure in the wake. Mattbuck 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mattbuck--Lmbuga 22:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ciampanil de Cuecenes Gherdëina.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Geologic formatio in Gröden--Moroder 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Rather grainy. --Mattbuck 20:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
     Question What does that mean exactly? --Moroder 08:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    The sky is speckled - and this is clearly visible even in thumbnail. For that matter, there are also haloes around the trees and general JPEG artifacts. Mattbuck 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:05. Isla de Taquile (31).JPG

edit

  • Nomination Titicaca lake´s view from Taquile Island, Perú --Elemaki 14:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support muy bonita --Ralf Roletschek 20:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Artifacts. --Kadellar 13:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs at the bottom (see note). The lower part is dark to me--Lmbuga 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:M-nikita-cells-9828.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Cell building in Nikita monastery, Pereslavl --PereslavlFoto 07:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Weak oppose I'm not very happy with the crop (two imo bad cuts on the bulding). --Iifar 07:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info As it's a weak oppose, let's wait for some other vote.--PereslavlFoto 12:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMHO it's impossible shot this dedail without cut bell tower. --T137 13:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Seems they are speaking about the nearest corner. I hope to get a chance to make such a photo from some other position.--PereslavlFoto 12:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Not only the nearest corner, half-cut bell tower doesn't look very pretty. --Iifar 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The bell tower is very-very high, it will always be cut.--PereslavlFoto 06:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose As Iifar--Lmbuga 21:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Where is the overexposure part? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto 06:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mairie de Bénac (Hautes-Pyrénées, France).JPG

edit

  • Nomination Bénac Town Hall, Hautes-Pyrénées,France. --Florent Pécassou 12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Necessity to correct the perspective --Archaeodontosaurus 12:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Better now ? Florent Pécassou 16:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Non le côté gauche penche et le côté droit a une barelisation --Archaeodontosaurus 08:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy sky, perspective distortion and some chromatic aberrations. --Iifar 19:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Erronea_onyx_01.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Shell of a Onyx Cowry, Erronea onyx --Llez 09:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Weak oppose Imo it's partly underexposed. --Iifar 08:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info The ventral side is nearly black, it's the real colour; please compare also other pictures of this species (Erronea onyx / Cypraea onyx) in the www --Llez 09:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Why no QI? Natural colour and object in focus Holleday 20:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support doesn't seem underexposed to me (we can see different colors in the dark tones). PierreSelim 14:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Scene_of_Auschwitz_I,_Poland4.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Scene of Auschwitz I, Poland --Poco a poco 10:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I don't like the color and contrast improvements of the second version. It needs a perspective correction IMO--Lmbuga 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What do you thihk now? Poco a poco 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Aún hay distorsión de perspectiva, aunque menos. Pienso que la zona en sombra está poco nítida. Pienso que es mejor que otros den también su opinión y que la imagen sea discutida--Lmbuga 21:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion, lack of fine detail. --Iifar 15:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Zvezdny-gorodok-h63-4906.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The house where cosmonauts live. Zvezdny gorodok (Stars town), Russia. --PereslavlFoto 14:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question I think the perspective correction has gone too far. Mattbuck 04:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • None, shift lens used. It looks wider at the top, yet the lines are vertical, as I check them with the sides of the photo. Seems we are well acquainted with falling houses, so seeing the straight one we automatically make it a bit narrower. IMHO this is an optical illusion.--PereslavlFoto 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somebody has to finally say something. Distortion or optical illusion, this building doesn't look natural and therefor it's not QI to me. --Iifar 18:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)