Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 27 2023

Consensual review

edit

File:Echinocereus_viereckii_v.morricalli_Kh33a_Khanon_s200select.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Selected plant (Echinocereus morricalli), 15 years old, thornless dwarf with a very large flower --Финитор 13:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Poor detail for such an easy shot --Poco a poco 17:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support 1.unique plant 2.very beautiful photo, there are only a few of these among cacti. Good quality. --Super-Wiki-Patrool 19:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC):*Here we look for quality, not for beauty (which is welcome, but not the point) Poco a poco 19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Anyway, I'll send it to CR because there are two conflicting votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blurred. Charlesjsharp 08:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I asked for more resolution and the current version has more resolution but not more detail, I stick to my vote. Poco a poco 09:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Firenze_-_Cattedrale_di_Santa_Maria_del_Fiore_-_2023-09-18_12-39-12_001.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence-Anna.Massini 10:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Image is a bit rotated to left --Nino Verde 13:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)  DoneDone. Thank you Anna.Massini 14:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 08:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For now, visible compression artifacts. Switch to pro if file shows no visible artifacts --PantheraLeo1359531 14:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  CommentI'm sorry, but where do you see compression artifacts? What should I do?Anna.Massini 15:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 15:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Info Especially at areas with higher contrast or at edges. Did you export the image at highest JPEG quality? This avoids any visible artifacts. 853 KiB for 10 Megapixels is an indicator, better would be around 4 megabytes :). (If we exaggerate the contrast in this image, the artifacts would be very prominent, which shows the limitied post-processing potential of this image, which is sad) --PantheraLeo1359531 16:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  Comment Hopefully a RAW file was saved or an original unprocessed JPG exists with better quality settings so that a better export is possible, because the composition and lighting are really beautiful in this photo. --Smial 08:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low level of detail, lack of structure even on the buildings in the foreground --Virtual-Pano 07:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Virtual-Pano --Jakubhal 12:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   CommentWe also decline, there is no possibility to correct this photo. I can't find the original file.Anna.Massini 14:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   CommentOr I could give it one last try, but I won't be able to until tomorrow. Anna.Massini 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   DoneI have now reloaded the original file without any retouching. Anna.Massini 16:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 16:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Head_of_a_woman_wearing_a_white_cap_-_Vincent_Van_Gogh.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Head of a woman wearing a white cap - Vincent Van Gogh --GoldenArtists 07:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
      Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree as the upper third of the frame is blurred, DoF issue --Virtual-Pano 08:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Wat_Arun_Interior.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Wat Arun Interior --Rangan Datta Wiki 07:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
      Support Good enough for a 16.2MPx D7000, could've been better if you were standing more to the left. --多多123 11:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Noticeable CAs and needs tilt/perspective correction (right side leaning in) --C messier 14:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality to me, without prejudice toward C messier's remarks. -- Ikan Kekek 23:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA and perspective has already been mentioned - additionally monk and buddha are slightly blurred - overall not a QI from my point of view --Virtual-Pano 08:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)