Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 27 2015
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
-
- Nomination Forest track Glorietteweg, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 04:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Skybox of the look-out tower on top of Pyramidenkogel, Keutschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 04:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Setting a driving belt at a KL-Bulldog of the Australian Kelly & Lewis Ltd. built from 1949 to 1953 -- Spurzem 22:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 23:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination -Archduke Carl Ludwig Johann Joseph Laurentius von Österreich, Duke of Teschen (September 5th, 1771 – April 30, 1847) was an important general in the history of the Habsburg Empire. The bronze monument to him stands at the Heldenplatz, Vienna, designed by Anton Dominik Fernkorn --Hubertl 22:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Steindy 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Hong Kong; View from Victoria Peak to Victoria Harbour and Kowloon --Ralf Roletschek 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Tolles Bild! Very good! -- Spurzem 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Fendt Favorit 3 with four-wheel drive built from 1964 to 1967 -- Spurzem 20:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion GQ --Palauenc05 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nomination Image of Christ on Divino Rostro, Chapel, Argentina another version of this subject --Ezarate 19:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline Composition could be improved; the subject doesn't fill frame. The background is not neutral; my eye is drawn to the green of the bulletin board on the right. --Wsiegmund 21:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Lotus Nelumbo 'Mrs. Perry D. Slocum' --Ram-Man 19:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 20:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Eurasian blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, Lancashire, UK. --Baresi franco 18:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 20:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination A mating couple of Bolkar Blue (Polyommatus erotulus molleti) --Zeynel Cebeci 18:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality --Llez 21:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Conchita Wurst, winner of the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, during the winner's press conference. --abbedabb 18:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline
Oppose Sorry! The prize is lost in the blur, and the right part of the face is unfortunately out of focus. Nevertheless, my appreciation for your commitment to the Song Contest! --Steindy 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Conchita Wurst from Austria performing her song in the first dress rehearsal for the second semi final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. --abbedabb 18:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline Oppose The face and the background are a little noisy. This would still be tolerated. Sorry, but the feet are cut off. Nevertheless, my appreciation for your commitment to the Song Contest! --Steindy 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Great tit, Parus major, Lancashire, UK. --Baresi franco 18:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality --Halavar 18:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Herpestes ichneumon, Ashkelon National Park, Israel.
--מינוזיג 17:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) - Promotion Support Unfortunately tail cut off, hence weak GQ --Palauenc05 20:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nomination Herpestes ichneumon, Ashkelon National Park, Israel.
-
-
- Nomination Abbey of Saint-Gilles, Saint-Gilles, Gard, France. --Christian Ferrer 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality --Llez 17:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Sète Harbour Sunset --Christian Ferrer 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality --Halavar 16:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Abbey of Saint-Gilles, Saint-Gilles, Gard, France. --Christian Ferrer 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Support--Famberhorst 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Ile Royale, French Guiana: ruins of the convict prison. --Cayambe 15:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Support --Christian Ferrer 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Former soviet submarine base, Lahemaa National Park, Estonia --Poco a poco 12:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Support --Christian Ferrer 15:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Arnarfjörður, Vestfirðir, Iceland. --Poco a poco 12:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality --Halavar 13:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Castle of Santa Barbara, Alicante, Spain --Poco a poco 12:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 14:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Germany, Trier, Fleischstraße 80 --Berthold Werner 12:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Muki Sabogal at the International Film Festival Rotterdam --1Veertje 12:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline Lacks sharpness, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 13:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Beer cellar in Sulzfeld-Kleinbardorf, Bavaria, Germany --DKrieger 10:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Na Iglicznej Hostel 1 --Jacek Halicki 10:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion small CAs top right (see note) end the top of the tower is leaning but the rest is straight so maybe it is the reality --Christian Ferrer 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Done--Jacek Halicki 15:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Support always a bit, I will say ok --Christian Ferrer 19:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Fountain in the spa park, in Polanica-Zdrój --Jacek Halicki 10:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Gothic Bridge in Kłodzko at dawn--Jacek Halicki 10:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Royal Engineer at Smallbrook Junction. Mattbuck 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination King's Cross railway station. Mattbuck 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Le Boreal and HMS Belfast. Mattbuck 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Palace of Republic Square in Rome --Livioandronico2013 08:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Nymph of the Rivers in Fountain of the Naiads --Livioandronico2013 08:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline Wrong focus (seems to be in the truck behind the statue), the status itself is not sharp, sorry, Livio --Poco a poco 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
No problema Diego
To be honest I wasn't sure even I--Livioandronico2013 14:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nomination Riegersburg fortress as seen from the local cemetery, Riegersburg, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 08:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion special.--Famberhorst 19:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Riegersburg fortress as seen from the village, Riegersburg, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 08:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination The Wawel as seen from the Vistula river, Kraków, Poland. --Dnalor 01 08:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Oppose noisy --Christian Ferrer 15:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, you're right, it's not a QI. --Dnalor 01 16:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Jiuzhaigou, Sichuan, China: Actors in colourful costumes during a show in "Jiuzhaigou Tibetan Mysteri Theater" --Cccefalon 07:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 08:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Lintong, Xi'an, China: The 5-room-house at the historical site of Huaqing Pool. It was used as headquarters of the Kuomintang and was also for a short time the living quarter of Chiang Kai-shek --Cccefalon 07:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 08:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Lintong, Xi'an, China: Chinese workers at a road working site of G309 Nation al Highway in front of Huaqing Pool . --Cccefalon 07:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Huanglong, Sichuan, China: Multicolored ponds within the UNESCO World cultural heritage site --Cccefalon 07:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Aster thomsonii. Location:Garden Sanctuary Jonker Valley.
Famberhorst 05:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC) - Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 08:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nomination Aster thomsonii. Location:Garden Sanctuary Jonker Valley.
-
- Nomination Narcis (Narcissus). A nice selection.
Famberhorst 05:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC) - Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 08:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nomination Narcis (Narcissus). A nice selection.
-
- Nomination Vernal pear tree avenue on the Brockweg at Winklern, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Schaffer Alp at Seebachern, Albeck, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 05:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality -- Spurzem 07:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Lake Torer at Seebachern, Albeck, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 05:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline Oppose underexposed and a bit unsharp --Christian Ferrer 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Autumnal larch at Seebachern, Albeck, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 05:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Beautiful autumn mood. --Steindy 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Preparation of herbal salt, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 05:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality --Halavar 10:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Saint-Paul-Saint-Louis Church Interior, Paris (by Diliff) --Paris 16 04:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Church of Saint-François-Xavier Interior, Paris (by Diliff) --Paris 16 04:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Church of St Eustace Organ and Pulpit, Paris, France (by Diliff) --Paris 16 04:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Plum in a black background --Rodrigo.Argenton 01:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination The remains of the Bagrat castle. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 01:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Park with a monument on the waterfront. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 01:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Embankment. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 01:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion A little bit unsharp, but acceptable --Jacek Halicki 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Dendranthema Des Moul. Botanical garden. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 01:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination War graves at the cemetery at the Mühlenweg, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Residential building at the street “Hohe Straße”, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline Half of the sky is burnt, not a QI to me, sorry Dietmar --Poco a poco 13:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Lüdinghauser Tor, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion
Comment Little bit overexposed on the sky. I left a note. --Halavar 01:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Fixed Sorry, you're right. I adjusted the lights and it's now better.--XRay 07:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Support Good now. --Halavar 10:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Nymph of the Oceans in the Fountain of the Naiads --Livioandronico2013 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline Oppose Insufficient focus. --Steindy 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Glaucus in the Fountain of the Naiads --Livioandronico2013 22:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline Oppose Insufficient focus. --Steindy 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Landscape of Zelve, Cappadocia, Turkey --Bgag 21:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Comment Would be better with more sharpness of the landscape. --Halavar 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Done Should be better now. --Bgag 02:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Support Agree, better now. --Halavar 10:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Siauliai Cathedral, Lithuania --Poco a poco 18:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion To my mind the tower a little crooked.--Famberhorst 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC) New version Poco a poco 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Good quality.--Famberhorst 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Torreon del Monje, Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 14:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)* Comment Nice picture, but if we keep it like this, the whole water will flow into the northern atlantic. Please turn it cw. Thanks.--Hubertl 15:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Are you saying that was tilted, if so I just fixed Ezarate 13:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality now. --Hubertl 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nomination Torreon del Monje, Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 14:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)*
-
- Nomination Central statues of the dome of the Michaelertrakt of Hofburg Palace in Vienna --Hubertl 13:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion This looks slightly tilted cw, and I would prefer a portrait format --Uoaei1 13:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Done thanks for reviewing! --Hubertl 20:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Support --Uoaei1 21:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Historic center of Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 09:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Cayambe 09:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Turm Nr. 15, Luitgarde --Thomas Ledl 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Pretty, but the overexposed part on the left should be darkend (if it is possible) or cutted. --Steindy 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
cropped --Thomas Ledl 20:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC) - Promotion Okay now. Good quality. --Steindy 23:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nomination Turm Nr. 15, Luitgarde --Thomas Ledl 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination PCAPH vs CERN CC - 20140911 - batting --Pleclown 11:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion The description is not accurate, what is this sport? --Christian Ferrer 15:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It's cricket. Pleclown 12:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Support thanks --Christian Ferrer 19:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Tomb Kirschner at the cemetery at the Mühlenweg, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Question Good quality, but can you brighten the grave stone a little? Then it would be okay for me. --Steindy 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Fixed Thanks for your advice. It's brighter now.--XRay 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC) - Promotion Okay now. Good quality. --Steindy 23:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nomination Tomb Kirschner at the cemetery at the Mühlenweg, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination View from island kalliosaari to Pihlajaluoto --Ralf Roletschek 12:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)* Comment das Wasser rinnt nach links ab. Bitte schnell, sonst ist nix mehr da! --Hubertl 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality now. --Hubertl 23:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nomination View from island kalliosaari to Pihlajaluoto --Ralf Roletschek 12:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)*
-
-
-
- Nomination Abkhazian State Drama Theatre. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
ccw tilt Poco a poco 19:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Leaning to left. --Steindy 21:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Done Thanks both of you, you're right. I uploaded new fixed version. --Halavar 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, seems not enough. --Steindy 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Interesting... Could you make a printscreen of my image when it is opened in your software, showing that it's tilted to the left and the verticals lines are not straight? Please upload that printscreen image. Then I can make a corrections in my image. --Halavar 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
One zombie pixel to fix. Mattbuck 00:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Done Fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Mattbuck 17:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC) - Promotion {{{2}}}
- Nomination Abkhazian State Drama Theatre. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination La Trinité-sur-Mer dans le Morbihan, France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Too much noise. --Steindy 00:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)< /br > Done perspective corrected and reduce noise Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll answer this - still a long way from QI. White balance is wrong, significant tilt (see horizon on right), bad JPEG artifaction. Mattbuck 01:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Comment I withdraw my nomination, you're right Mattbuck it's not apted for a QI--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Brimham Rocks nature park. Mattbuck 07:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion Shadows a bit dark --Christian Ferrer 20:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Done Mattbuck 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Support --Christian Ferrer 08:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Phlox divaricata --Ram-Man 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn A 1000×1032 crop was a bad idea. –Be..anyone 23:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
What? This image is not cropped like that. Ram-Man 03:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Too little in focus I think. Mattbuck 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misunderstanding, I tried a crop, but the result didn't convince me. –Be..anyone 19:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
.JPG)
_ret.jpg)
_10.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_--_2014_--_3323.jpg)
,_Benediktinerabtei_Seckau.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}
_at_night3.jpg){kind=link}
_at_night2.jpg){kind=link}
_-_hradby_03.JPG){kind=link}
_-_hradby_01.JPG){kind=link}
_-_hradby_02.JPG){kind=link}
Consensual review
[edit]File:Statue_of_Silvio_Spaventa_2.jpg
[edit]
- Nomination Copy of a statue of Silvio Spaventa in front of the ministry of finance, Via Venti Settembre (Rome). The original is in Bomba, province of Chieti --Livioandronico2013 08:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Oppose Sorry, but the image, and especially the statuse is blurred. That is not fixable. --Halavar 10:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
* Support I disagree slightly, in my opinion its enough quality for QI --Hubertl 20:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC) - Oppose per Halavar, the statuse is blurred because it is not in focus --Christian Ferrer 12:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Holi_Bonfire_Udaipur.jpg
[edit]
- Nomination Holi Bonfire in front of Jagdish Temple / Udaipur --Imehling 07:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty, but I'm not sure about the sharpness. Mattbuck 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I admit, I'm at a loss about that. The background and the cables in the foreground are slightly unsharp because focus is on the fire and a fire has fuzzy fringes in darkness. So what should I do? --Imehling 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion
- Support For me this image is very impressive, a discussion about possible sharpness would be endless. IMO worth to be promoted as QI. --Dnalor 01 11:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I think I'd like to have that discussion. --Mattbuck 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support There is a little lack of acutance indeed, but it is not unsharp --Christian Ferrer 09:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support The fire is well sharp and good. --Steindy 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support A beautiful mastery of light into the fire. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Sculptures_of_Roman_theater_masks_in_Baths_of_Diocletian3.jpg
[edit]
- Nomination Sculptures_of_Roman_theater_masks_in_Baths_of_Diocletian --Livioandronico2013 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Promotion
- A bit noisy at the top and in the shadow under the mask, perhaps. Jakec 23:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture don´t meet the guidline principles: a) The filenam does not describe the subject, b) the description itself is wrong, it is not a theater mask. c) wrong categorization. --Hubertl 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- But if there is also a special category! In Rome we would say "sei di coccio!". Other please. --Livioandronico2013 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- But if there is also a special category! In Rome we would say "sei di coccio!". Other please. --Livioandronico2013 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support I'm sorry, but if these are not masks, then cite your references. A quick google search yields a number of hits; both books (like "National Museum of Rome in the baths of Diocletian" by Lucio Mariani, Dante Vaglieri) and websites describing these as tragic marble masks, that is marble versions of masks used in tragedy theater. I don't see how this is inaccurate, but if someone cares to cite a reference, I'd be happy to change my vote. As for the quality, it meets the normal QI standards. Ram-Man 13:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Neutral @Ram-Man: I made a quick Google Search but I couldn't find your sources. If you say that you found a reference which says that these are masks I will not oppose any more. However, as long as this is not definitely verified I will not support either. It would have been very easy for the photographer to eliminate the doubt from the beginning. Commons is not just about uploading photos. Proper description and categorization is equally important in my opinion. The technical quality of the photo meets the standards anyways. --Code 20:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Source quality varies, but there is an overwhelming amount of sources (even if they are weak). See the guide from 1900 (https://books.google.com/books?id=t_hYAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA12&ots=MDZopvpK5U&dq=Baths of Diocletian marble mask&pg=PA12), this reference to tragic mask, this discussion of roman theater masks, this theater mask of similar design, this description of roman theater, and dozens of other links on the topic of theater masks and the history of Roman theater. Not to mention the Commons category on Sculptures of Greek and Roman theater masks. There is little of controversy here. Roman theater consisted of comic and tragic masks that had wildly exaggerated features. These masks used in the Baths as decoration, but they were part of Greek and Roman culture. See en:Theatre of ancient Greece. I'm completely perplexed and not sure why there is any controversy here as there is no indication that these are anything other than sculptures of (tragic) theater masks. -- Ram-Man 23:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- As for the photographer, he did properly categorize it and describe it as a theater mask. The issue wasn't the photographer here, who did exactly what is normally required, but an unreasonable objection by a reviewer who was claiming that this was a gargoyle, completely without any justification. Ram-Man 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cerca di seguire le cose prima di dare giudizi allora. Ho già spiegato ampiamente le mie ragioni e se non trovi le fonti vuol dire che non sai cercare [[1]] una semplice ricerca su google! --Livioandronico2013 21:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Not perfect technicaly (a little chromatic noise, and sharpness not tip-top), but good for QI. The description and categorization are accurate IMO.--Jebulon 09:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Jebulon I really appreciate your honesty --Livioandronico2013 11:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → 
Promoted --C messier 11:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Promoted --C messier 11:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)File:Dome_of_Saint_Peter's_Basilica_(exterior)_at_night3.jpg
[edit]_at_night3.jpg)
- Nomination Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night --Livioandronico2013 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline
- Support for me the composition is weak with the foreground, but it does show the subject correctly. Ram-Man 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for my Oppose. The half of the photo is only black night. This is not QI for me. --Steindy 18:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Steindy.--Jebulon 21:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose simply too black. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - too dark and unsharp. Mattbuck 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → 
Declined --C messier 11:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Declined --C messier 11:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)File:Dome_of_Saint_Peter's_Basilica_(exterior)_at_night2.jpg
[edit]_at_night2.jpg)
- Nomination: Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night --Livioandronico2013 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Review
- Support Mostly dark, but overall the subject was shown correctly and it's good for me. --Ram-Man 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It's a nighttime photo. The darkness serves to show the subject in proper context. In the day time it would just be flat sky, so what's the difference between flat black and flat blue? Not much. Ram-Man 14:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for my Oppose. The half of the photo is only black night. This is not QI for me. --Steindy 18:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Steindy.--Jebulon 21:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Help me out here. What would make a nighttime photo of this subject a QI?
- Tighter crop? That limits the use by end users to non-standard ratios. The black is harmless and can just be cropped out later.
- Stars? Do we really need stars, clouds, or the moon in the sky for this to be illustrative?
- Brighter exposure? This would wash out/bleed the light as is typical in many night scenes.
- Dynamic range? Are we now requiring HDR for a QI?
- It's plenty sharp, it's not noisy, it looks good at 100%. -- Ram-Man 13:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Help me out here. What would make a nighttime photo of this subject a QI?
- Ram-Man, I can tell you already. In a big city like Rome it is, there is no deep black night. For this purpose, all street lights and the light of the houses would have to be shut down. Finally, Rome is built on seven hills. Except for some light points is nothing to see – only black. And I'm not address the dome, which is also at the top of totally black and without tracing. --Steindy 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably a language thing, but I don't understand what you're saying. Sorry. Ram-Man 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- He's saying that the sky is too black to be true. --Code 18:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, that makes sense. Many times in nighttime photos, sources of light when "properly" exposed get halos or "bleed" and lose sharpness. In order to prevent that, you need to underexpose the photo, which was done here. The downside of which is that tiny/dimmer light sources (stars, farther away lights, etc) get darker. In this case, that doesn't bother me, but if it bothers others, so be it. Ram-Man 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- He's saying that the sky is too black to be true. --Code 18:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably a language thing, but I don't understand what you're saying. Sorry. Ram-Man 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ram-Man, I can tell you already. In a big city like Rome it is, there is no deep black night. For this purpose, all street lights and the light of the houses would have to be shut down. Finally, Rome is built on seven hills. Except for some light points is nothing to see – only black. And I'm not address the dome, which is also at the top of totally black and without tracing. --Steindy 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Although the sharpness could be better. @Ram-Man: I think in the end it's a question of composition. In the other picture it's simply too much black and the dome is too small. This one is acceptable I think. --Code 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose simply too black and blurry. --Alchemist-hp 06:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Weak support Not bad for a night photo. Jakec 02:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → 
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days --C messier 11:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days --C messier 11:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)File:Polička (Politschka) - hradby 03.JPG
[edit]_-_hradby_03.JPG)
- Nomination Polička (Politschka), Czech Republic - city walls --Pudelek 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)* Comment Please make a white balance, its generally underexposed! --Hubertl 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion its not underexposed --Pudelek 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) It´s not a question of opinion, its a matter of fact. I downloaded and changed it here. Its really underexposed, related to the restlight. Even the WB is wrong. --Hubertl 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC) - Decline
- Support Good quality. I recalibrated my monitors and while this has dark/shadow areas, on a calibrated monitor it looks good enough. --Ram-Man 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I disagree. I also have a calibrated monitor. I watched those picturs with different light situations, a simple WB-check would solve the problem. I cannot understand the persistance. --Hubertl 14:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any white balance issue. There is a slight underexposure. I don't understand the strong objection to this.
Support Sure --Livioandronico2013 21:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark. Sky too cyan. Underexposed.--Jebulon 21:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose It's too dark for me. Sorry. --Halavar 00:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's a bit dark. Mattbuck 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined --C messier 11:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Declined --C messier 11:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)File:Polička (Politschka) - hradby 01.JPG
[edit]_-_hradby_01.JPG)
- Nomination Polička (Politschka), Czech Republic - city walls --Pudelek 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Please make a white balance, its generally underexposed! --Hubertl 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion its not underexposed --Pudelek 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) It´s not a question of opinion, its a matter of fact. I downloaded and changed it here. Its really underexposed, related to the restlight. Even the WB is wrong. --Hubertl 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC) - Decline Support Good quality. I recalibrated my monitors and while this has dark/shadow areas, on a calibrated monitor it looks good enough. --Ram-Man 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I disagree. I also have a calibrated monitor. I watched those picturs with different light situations, a simple WB-check would solve the problem. I cannot understand the persistance. --Hubertl 14:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Support Sure --Livioandronico2013 21:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark, probably underexposed.--Jebulon 21:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Sky is little bit overexposed, but most of the image is underexposed. And of course image is too dark. Definitely it's not a QI. --Halavar 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It could do with being brightened. Mattbuck 22:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined --C messier 11:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Declined --C messier 11:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)File:Polička (Politschka) - hradby 02.JPG
[edit]_-_hradby_02.JPG)
- Nomination Polička (Politschka), Czech Republic - city walls --Pudelek 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Please make a white balance, its generally underexposed! --Hubertl 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion its not underexposed --Pudelek 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) It´s not a question of opinion, its a matter of fact. I downloaded and changed it here. Its really underexposed, related to the restlight. Even the WB is wrong. --Hubertl 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC) - Decline Support Good quality. I recalibrated my monitors and while this has dark/shadow areas, on a calibrated monitor it looks good enough. --Ram-Man 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I disagree. I also have a calibrated monitor. I watched those picturs with different light situations, a simple WB-check would solve the problem. I cannot understand the persistance. --Hubertl 14:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Support Sure --Livioandronico2013 21:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark, underexposed, sky blown up. Not QI IMO.--Jebulon 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Fully agree with Jebulon. Sorry, but this is not a QI. --Halavar 00:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bit dark, perspective issues, unsharp. Mattbuck 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined --C messier 11:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Declined --C messier 11:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)File:Kölner_Dom_-_Abschaltung_Beleuchtung_als_Protest_gegen_die_Kögida-Demo-3767.jpg
[edit]
- Nomination Kölner Dom - Abschaltung Beleuchtung als Protest gegen die Kögida-Demo. By User:Raymond --Smial 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment please reduce the noise in the sky area.--Hubertl 22:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Schau Dir mal die inzwischen veröffentlichten Bilder zum Thema von DPA, imago/Xinhua oder anderen professionellen Diensten an und überdenke bitte noch einmal deine Anforderungen. Kann man u.a. bei der Zeit, der FAZ, dem KStA usw. bewundern. -- Smial 10:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Sprichst du mit mir Smial? Oder wo siehst du eine Ablehnung von mir? Es war nur die Bitte, das Farbrauschen aus dem Bereich des Himmels zu entfernen um das Bild zu perfektionieren. Was nichts anderes bedeutet, als einen Regler nach rechts zu stellen! Du musst die Pixel nicht mit der Pinzette einzeln entfernen! Oder regst du dich über etwas anderes auf?--Hubertl 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decline
Nicht erledigt nach 8 Tagen Oppose --Hubertl 10:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)- I disagree. Noise level is regarding the situation acceptable. More votes? --Smial 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment This is a severe noise-level, which is completely unnecessary, the creator has Lightroom installed, it needs just a little correction (Color and Luminance). This will reduce additionaly some overexposing of the lanterns too. I just asked for this correction, nothing more. If the photographer uses ISO 100 at this situation, he will get more noise than with ISO 400. I have no idea, what the nominater means, when he will compare this picture with some really unsufficient ones, which were used last week in newspapers. What, and above all, whom are you trying to prove, Smial? --Hubertl 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Hubertl, why are you so upset? I have requested a third opinion and have not asked for several times the same opinion. -- Smial 15:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not upset at all, I just stated, that I decline the picture because of no positive response after 8 days. --Hubertl 12:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a valuable historical document, but no more. --Steindy 01:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Steindy, mit deinem Hinterherstiefeln triffst du Raymond, nicht mich ;-) -- Smial 11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Smial: Ich dachte wir sprechen hier über Bilder und deren Beurteilung als Qualitätsbilder? Raimund war nie Thema, obwohl ich ihn gut kenne. Du hast den persönlichen Touch mit dem Vergleich zu den Leistungen "professioneller" Fotografen eingebracht. Wieso fragst du nicht Raimund, das er das Originalbild (welches er sicher in RAW hat, wie ich ihn kenne) einfach mit einem winzigen Flutsch ändert? Diese Art von fundamentaler Oppositionshaltung (den Kritikern gegenüber) ist schon fast als kindisch zu bezeichnen! Wenn du die Bilder zur Beurteilung stellst, dann akzeptiere gefälligst auch deren Urteil. Es hat niemand hier gedrängt, dieses Bild zu nominieren. Ganz offensichtlich nicht einmal Raimund selbst, sonst hätte er es gemacht. --Hubertl 12:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @ Smial betreffs „Hinterherstiefeln“: Trotz aller Freundschaft zwischen dir und Raymond würde ich mir solche haltlosen Anwürfe überlegen, ehe ich sie niederschreibe. Vor allem wenn ich an deine letzten Bewertungen denke. Da hast du es auch nicht für notwendig erachtet, zu reagieren. Außerdem hätten ja noch genügend andere Benutzer Gelegenheit gehabt, ihr Urteil abzugeben. Warum haben sie das bisher nicht getan, wenn das Bild soooo gut ist? Es steht immerhin seit mehr als zwei Wochen hier. Ich habe nicht die Absicht, irgendjemanden zu treffen. Dennoch ist es für mich lediglich ein Dokument eines seltenen oder gar einzigartigen Ereignisses. --Steindy 21:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Smial: Ich dachte wir sprechen hier über Bilder und deren Beurteilung als Qualitätsbilder? Raimund war nie Thema, obwohl ich ihn gut kenne. Du hast den persönlichen Touch mit dem Vergleich zu den Leistungen "professioneller" Fotografen eingebracht. Wieso fragst du nicht Raimund, das er das Originalbild (welches er sicher in RAW hat, wie ich ihn kenne) einfach mit einem winzigen Flutsch ändert? Diese Art von fundamentaler Oppositionshaltung (den Kritikern gegenüber) ist schon fast als kindisch zu bezeichnen! Wenn du die Bilder zur Beurteilung stellst, dann akzeptiere gefälligst auch deren Urteil. Es hat niemand hier gedrängt, dieses Bild zu nominieren. Ganz offensichtlich nicht einmal Raimund selbst, sonst hätte er es gemacht. --Hubertl 12:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Steindy, mit deinem Hinterherstiefeln triffst du Raymond, nicht mich ;-) -- Smial 11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Steindy Ich selbst halte das Bild ja überhaupt nicht für schlecht und nach Entfernung des Farbrauschens auch QI-würdig, Ich frag mich halt nur, was Smial reitet, hier derartig einen Justamentsstandpunkt einzunehmen. Er kann uns alle natürlich für Vollidioten halten, dann muss er sich aber eine andere Plattform suchen, wo es diese Vollidioten nicht gibt. Wir sind halt hier eben so. Unfähig, das Werk eines großen Meisters anzuerkennen. Ich glaube nur nicht, dass Raymond, so wie ich ihn kenne, selbst diesen Standpunkt einnimmt, wenn doch, warum verteidigt er diesen hier nicht selbst? Wenn Smial seinen Vorschlag nicht bewertet haben will, was nun doch passiert ist, dann darf er das Bild halt nicht einstellen. So einfach, so deutlich. Deine Haltung, Smial, wirft nicht unbedingt ein gutes Licht auf deine Fähigkeiten, Bilder zu bewerten. Wie soll ich deinem Urteil trauen, wenn in eigener Sache (im Grund Fremdsache) du nicht auf den Rat anderer zu hören imstande bist? Es gibt hier übrigens niemanden, der Dir persönlich nicht wohlgesonnen wäre. Aber auf sachlicher Ebene sollten wir schon etwas objektiver zu handeln in der Lage sein. --Hubertl 23:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Mir ist das nicht zu viel Rauschen, ich kann das Bild auf Wunsch aber gerne4 mal durch Dfine jagen. --Ralf Roletschek 12:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Ralf: Ich hätte es auch durch LR jagen können, oder PS, aber es geht - schon aufgrund der sicher außerordentlichen Situation - wohl darum, das anhand des Originalbildes zu machen. Ich gehe bei Raymonds hohem Anspruch davon aus, dass er das RAW-Original hat. Wieso sollte ich JPG-Artefakte, die aktuell praktisch durch die Erstkompression nicht sichtbar sind (aber garantiert da sind, es geht ja gar nicht anders bei diesem Himmel, das hab ich bei so einem Himmel immer, da nützt mir die Minimalkompression nichts) dann in Folge durch eine Neukompression zugunsten einer Rauschreduzierung überhaupt noch verstärken?. Es geht in diesem Fall auch nicht darum, dass es gerade reicht, sondern darum, dass man - und dafür ist halt QI auch da - etwas schon Gutes weiter optimiert, und das halt vom Ursprung her. Wozu stelle ich dann ein Bild ein um andere zu ihrer Meinung zu fragen und dann in Folge diese Diskussion als absurd und vielleicht persönlich gefärbt abtue? Ich hab Smial bis jetzt eigentlich für jemanden mit Ernsthaftigkeit und hohem Anspruch gehalten, nach der Diskussion hier hat er ausgschissen bei mir, wie wir so in Ö sagen würden. Ich hab auch nur eine begrenzte Zeit.--Hubertl 11:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment als Fotograf: Ich möchte Smial danken für die Nominierung des Fotos, ebenso wie den Kritikern. Ich habe mich bisher nicht zu Wort gemeldet, da ich das bei Nominierungen idR nicht mache. Das Foto ist ein Dokument der Kölner Zeitgeschichte und ich hatte nicht viel Zeit, mehrere Aufnahmen zu machen, da ich wieder zu der eigentlichen Gegendemo wollte. Möglicherweise hätte ich mit anderen Kameraeinstellungen ein besseres Ergebnis erzielt. Werde ich ggfs. mal ausprobieren, denn das Kölnpanorama als solches rennt nicht weg. Natürlich habe ich das Original im RAW-Format und in der Zwischenzeit auch ein wenig mit den Reglern herumprobiert. Das Foto wird jedoch beim weiteren Entrauschen aus meiner Sicht nicht besser, sondern verliert an Authentizität. Daher habe ich mich dagegen entschieden, eine neue Version drüberzuspeichern. Möglicherweise kann jemand, der besser mit LightRoom umgehen kann als ich, eine bessere Entwicklung erzielen, aber das werden wir nie herausfinden, da ich keine RAW-Dateien herausgebe. Ich persönlich bin mit meinem Foto sehr zufrieden und wenn es die QI-Maßstäbe nicht erreicht, dann ist es so. Keine Schande. Weder für mich noch die Smial o.a. Raymond 13:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Was mir wirklich auf Commons fehlt, ist eine schnelle, unkomplizierte Bewertung von Fotos auf einer Skala von 1-10, um im langfristigen Mittel die Spreu vom Weizen trennen zu können
- Comment Dankde für deinen Beitrag, ich hoffe, du hast richtig erkannt, dass ich für das Bild ursprünglich nur ein leichtes Entrauschen erbeten habe. Smials Einwand, das wäre irrelevant, vergleicht man das mit anderen Bildern, gilt hier keineswegs als Argument, er sollte es wissen. Ich habe das Bild runtergeladen und bin mit einer leichten Luminanzkorrektur, zw. 30 und 35 sowie eine Korrektur der Lichter um -12 (es gibt in einigen kleinen Bereichen eine leichte Überstrahlung) sehr gut gefahren, ohne an Schärfe in den strukturierten Bereichen wie Kirche/Brücke etc etwas zu verlieren. Wenn man das am RAW macht und dann mit der geringsmöglichen Kompression hochladet, dann ist eine Verbesserung des Bildes mit Sicherheit gegeben. Ich will hier nicht den Lehrmeister spielen der sagt, wie man in der Nacht mit so einem Motiv rein fotografisch umgeht (hier gibt es ja wenig zu bemängeln), ich sehe dieses Bild eher aus der Warte der Nachbearbeitung. Und genau hier nehme ich für mich in Anspruch, nach einem Vierteljahrhundert professionellem Umgang mit Photoshop über ausreichende Erfahrung zu verfügen und das Ergebnis auch an kalibrierten Monitoren überprüfen zu können. Leider noch nicht 4- oder 5K.--Hubertl 13:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Offen gesagt verstehe ich dein Argument, du gäbest RAW-DAten nicht her, nicht. Aber bitte.
- Support Das Bild ist meiner Meinung nach qualitativ gut genug und als Dokument eines historischen Ereignisses auch interessant und bemerkenswert. Ich fände es schade, wenn es wegen des Streits hier unter die Räder kommt. --Imehling 14:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Sag mal, Imehling, liest du irgendwo, dass das in Frage gestellt wird? Mein Contra oben musste ich aus taktischen Gründen einsetzen, um dieses Bild in einer weiteren Diskussions zu behalten, sonst wäre es nämlich schon längst als unassessed ausgegliedert worden. Per QI-Bot. Oder ist deine Vorstellung von Qualität die, dass im QI-Prozess der künstlerischen/dokumentarischen Beurteilung Vorrang eingeräumt wird? Dann wären wir hier im falschen Theater, das wäre dann eindeutig ein Fall von VI, aber nicht QI. Bist du nicht der Meinung, dass eine Qualitätsverbesserung dann, wenn es ein Bild aufwertet, nicht Teil dieser hier seit langer Zeit täglich stattfindenden Abläufe sein soll? Oder wie stellst du dir vor, dass Kollegen auch deine Bilder bewerten sollen? Nach der zum Zeitpunkt des Abdrückens vermuteten Stimmungslage des Fotografen? --Hubertl 15:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Entschuldigung, ich wollte jetzt hier wirklich niemandem auf den Schlips treten. War wohl ein Fehler, dass ich mich eingemischt habe, aber so wie die Diskussion hier geführt wird, habe ich nicht den Eindruck, dass rein sachliche Dinge im Vordergrund stehen. Und das finde ich schade, denn ich bin natürlich froh, dass hier u.a. auch meine Bilder von wirklich kompetenten Leuten beurteilt werden. --Imehling 17:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment falls ich dich erschreckt haben sollte, das war nicht meine Absicht. Ich denke aber, dass es in unser aller Interesse sein sollte, die Möglichkeiten des kollaborativen Verbesserns unserer Beiträge im besten Sinne zu nutzen. Dazu gehört eben auch - wie ich es versuchte -dass man einen direkt anwendbaren Vorschlag macht, in manchen Fällen (nicht in diesem, dazu ist da Motiv zu heikel (Dunkelheit)) sogar selbst Hand anzulegen. Nicht jeder ist in der Lage, technisch gesehen, alles nur Mögliche auszuschöpfen, da gibt man halt selbst einmal seine ergänzende Hand dazu. Es fördert das Gesamte. --Hubertl 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Noticable grain and chromatic noise. Also some zombie pixels. Lack of fine detail. Mattbuck 22:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined --C messier 11:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Declined --C messier 11:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)