Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 16 2021

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Taraxacumofficinale-MarChiquita-BsaS.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Taraxacum officinale, dandelion in Mar Chiquita, Argentina --Ezarate 21:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  CommentToo much irrelevant image information. The object fills only a small part of the image. --F. Riedelio 06:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done another crop done --Ezarate 11:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 06:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it just seems pretty soft for the small resolution. --Rhododendrites 03:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Rhododendrites. Common flower, should be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I like the first version for it's special composition and nice, soft lighting. The quality was completely sufficient for this. For the current crop with the focus on the flower, the quality is not enough. --Smial 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Family_center_Kazan_-_the_Cup.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Family Center "Kazan" (colloquially just "The Cup"), the main wedding palace (registry office) in the city of Kazan. --Reda Kerbouche 07:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tuxyso 19:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment You need a personality rights template on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The verticals should be corrected. --Ermell 22:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version @Ikan Kekek: the personality rights is added.
  • @Ermell: I correct the perspective --Reda Kerbouche 06:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support One of the lamps is leaning, but I suppose that's true to life. Thanks for adding the template. -- Ikan Kekek 07:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Terrible architecture, but quality is okay. --A.Savin 12:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 18:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Fallätsche_cleared_out_pano_20210330.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination High-resolution panorama of Fallätsche from Zürich Leimbach --Domob 16:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Not very sharp, sorry --Moroder 20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Given the resolution, I think it should be fine (even if it looks soft at 100%). Please discuss. --Domob 04:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree. The quality seems good enough. One question, though: This is real bluegrass? A lot of it looks pretty blue. -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 Comment You mean the grass in the shade in the foreground? Maybe the WB is off, but to me it looks fine. (I can certainly adapt the WB of course, if you think it is too blue.) --Domob 16:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 Support Yes, the grass in the foreground. If you remember it looking that blue, fine. -- Ikan Kekek 16:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Really OK for QI. (I have to confess that I do not understand why this photo was stiched: 58 megapixels of resolution are not that special anymore, the motif does not show interesting details, and the sharpness is OK, but not outstanding, so I see no benefits from all the time and effort necessary for the stiching. Sorry, just a remark, no offence!) --Aristeas 09:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 Comment That is a good remark ;) My camera has only 16 MP, so with stitching, I was at least for my own possibilities able to get a bit more detail (which I find interesting here, even if the scene is not outstanding, e.g. because of the marked huts and also because I mainly wanted to document the state of this area after the clearing of trees). However, I overestimated the solid angle of the area from the view point, and should have taken a longer lens with me; maybe I'll try that again just for fun, also perhaps trying to find a better viewpoint. --Domob 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Much room for improvement: The blueish cast of the shadows in the foreground should be handled with a gradient filter and selective white balance there. Composition should be improved: Too much sky, I would crop the sky in the same proportion as the grass in the foreground. The shadow trees in the foreground look unpleasant to me, probably due to the massive shadow increasement. IMHO not fixable because of the high contrast situation. --Tuxyso 19:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support There are some small burnt highlights and the lighting is not very pleasant. The blueish cast in the forground appears natural. Shadow area under blue sky. I would crop it to a smaller stripe, so it is not as prominent. Sharpness is good enough for QI. I'm fine with the blue sky, that's not a quality issue, but pure matter of taste. I would not ask for advanced image editing for QIC. Global white balance, a little contrast adjustment if necessary, removing lateral CA, straightening perspective in an appropriate way (and by that I do NOT mean that everything has to be forcibly verticalised), i.e. measures that can be achieved in the basic functions of most image editors via sliders, that must be enough. --Smial 00:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 18:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)