Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 16 2014

Consensual review

edit

File:Araña_en_Telaraña.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Spider in cobweb and their offspring, in an abandoned dome lamp. --Ivan2010 17:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Clockery 17:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose Chroma noise everywhere. Missing identification. Not eligible for QI. --A.Savin 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I agree with A.Savin--  Oppose Clockery 06:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  OpposePixelisation, harsh flashlight (blown reflections), main object way too small, sorry --Kreuzschnabel 08:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Graphium 07:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Baroque_tombstones_in_Istanbul.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Baroque tombstones in the Cemetery at the Süleymaniye Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey. --Moroder 20:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose noisy leaves, overall unsharp --A.Savin 10:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, where is the noise, overall unsharp? Are you sure you didn't pick the wrong image? --Moroder 17:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Yes. --A.Savin 19:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support sharp enough imo. --Cayambe 16:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI. --P e z i 09:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Graphium 07:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Champa Baodi 07.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Royal Palace near Champa Baodi, Mandu, India --Bgag 15:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Review   Support Good quality. --JDP90 08:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose OE at the right, insufficient sharpness; and "greenish" sky, i.e. WB off? --A.Savin 11:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Graphium 07:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Pedro_y_Pablo,_Oberammergau,_Baviera,_Alemania,_2014-03-22,_DD_09.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination: Interior of the St. Peter and Paul church, Oberammergau, Bavaria, Germany --Poco a poco 17:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    Tilted - you have a perfect vertical plumb bob in the centre, use it! Mattbuck 20:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      Fixed Poco a poco 15:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    Hm, vertical, so I guess the remainder is horizontal perspective? Seems rather surprisingly large considering you appear to be almost straight on. I am very confused by this, can't work out how that much distortion crept in. Mattbuck 18:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    I have uploaded a new version based on the original version, which had better colours. This version I feel is QI, it at least feels less drunk! Mattbuck 18:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for your version, you put me back on track :) I've uploaded a new version that is IMO pretty good Poco a poco 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support That looks better. --Mattbuck 21:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not my taste, but the distorsion is a choice and not a mistake: nothing against. My concern is the non centered composition, which I find disturbing. Therefore I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 22:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    I just uploaded a new version, please, be so kind to add a note if there are still issues that make you oppose Poco a poco 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid there is nothing you can do. The wire of the chandelier is not in the middle, and IMO it ruins the composition, sorry.--Jebulon 20:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support The distortion is not exactly an error in all cases --The Photographer 01:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jebulon. --Graphium 07:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Graphium 07:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-05-01_15-39-12-monarque-hunawihr.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Danaus plexippus --ComputerHotline 10:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Good quality, please, support also in reviewing others' pictures --Poco a poco 12:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Aperture problem. Just noticed the aperture. f/9 is ok. Not parallel to butterfly resulting in blur wing-tip. --Arctic Kangaroo 07:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 10:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Not sharp enough. The QI bar on this is a bit higher -- Alvesgaspar 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral head is foc--The Photographer 03:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Graphium 09:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_Flora-Köln-Ochna-serrulata-01.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Cologne, Germany: Ochna serrulata (deutsch: Mickey-Maus-Strauch) in the "Flora Köln" gardens --Cccefalon 09:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Left hand one is not in focus. --Mattbuck 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    I know. I don't think that all three flower nests need to be pin sharp as long as the flower in the foreground is sharp. Any other opinions? --Cccefalon 15:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Cccefalon, for me it is enough in a QI shot, to have main subject full in focus, so I support. Moreover, the shot is done with f20, so DoF is already close to technical maximum, I think --J. Lunau 12:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Graphium 09:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Botanical_garden_Bamberg.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination botanical garden Bamberg, situated in the public park Hain --J. Lunau 09:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Posterisation in the background. --Mattbuck 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    thank you for taking the time to review my photo
      Done I have uploaded a better version with no Posterisation in the background trees, please check again.--J. Lunau 14:46, 1 May 2014(UTC)
    More opinions for my new upload would be nice. --J. Lunau 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The photo is lacking sharpness. Given that the DoF comprises only the yellow tulips in the foreground, I would expect the flowers left and right of the tulips to be sharp, too. However, they are blurred. Sorry, but I cannot support the photo. --Cccefalon 08:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  Commentphoto was taken with f9 and the foreground is on the edge of DoF. These are the technical limits but I wanted to show an overview and the spring colors of the garden and IMHO, therefor the focus is OK. With a new upload, I tried to do it a little better with USM, but I am afraid, this is still not enough for the very high demands. Thanks in any way for your reviews and your time --J. Lunau 12:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colors are good and nice indeed, composition also, however at full resolution I agree that bottom left and right is blurred and overprocessed. The image need also a tilt and/or a perspective correction IMO (the left seem to leaning out) --Christian Ferrer 08:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Graphium 07:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Aalto_Theater_2014.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Aaltro Theater in Essen --Tuxyso 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose due to bad lighting IMO - the left hand bottom appears to be CA and the bright foliage takes away from the rest of it. Mattbuck 13:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    The lighting is not at its best, but is it really a QI concern in this case? Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 17:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Highlights on the foliage at right and at left are a bit overdone IMO but acceptable --Christian Ferrer 16:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe Mattbuck has a Retina display, but I cant see any   chromatic aberration --The Photographer 03:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment The Photographer saved the image from decline. His vote actually came after more than 8 days. --Graphium 07:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Graphium 07:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)