Nomination lake of lucerne --Simonizer 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline good composition but too much overexposure, too much sharpening effect on the roof --Ikiwaner 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Sunniggrätli hut in canton of uri/switzerland --Simonizer 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Excellent composition, beatiful picture. But I would prefer without the human presence... Alvesgaspar 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination The Granite wall of Finnish Parliament. --Thermos 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion In my opinion almost flawess. I would try to correct the slight perspective error. Also there is a white spot in the sky. Alvesgaspar 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Karlstein castle in Bohemia. --Diligent 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Good composition, but image is too noisy and a little dark. Alvesgaspar 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
NominationRelief of the map of the citadelle of Lille --Diligent 16:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Centered composition that cuts a maybe important part in the lower right corner. --Ikiwaner 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Kobe Dawn Panorama - Oden 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Quiet evening atmosphere, I simply like the color tone CyrilB 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Fisheye view of the Panthéon in Paris --Diligent 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Very good picture, clearly meeting QI standards. Before trying for FP, there are still some minor issues to address. Alvesgaspar 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Cane Corso - one of dog breeds with good background --Pleple2000 15:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Wrong file format and inappropriate filename (pixel dimensions), good background but the dog is underexposed and the sky partially cropped --Ikiwaner 14:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Hot air balloons --Pomakis 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice shot. Clearly meets the QI Standards. Nicely done. Arjun 14:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Plums --Pomakis 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Bad choice of aperture/shutter speed. A longer focal length should also be better. The result is "unfocused plums for sale" - Alvesgaspar 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC
Nomination White Clay Creek in Newark, Delaware - Oden 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Declineguideline: Qi must have reasonable colors. The gray jay is outstanding in its details but the background is too disturbingly artificial. --Diligent 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Abbey in Tyniec. --Lestat 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Technically more than OK but subject/matter hidden behind the trees. How unfortunate. --Diligent 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Cumulus clouds --Pomakis 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Technically correct but just average clouds from an airplane. --Ikiwaner 18:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Delhi campus --Kprateek88 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Good illustration for this universities article. --Ikiwaner 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Gerberas --Pomakis 15:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Carefully chosen nice flowers but strong overexposure (oversaturated) and DOF not high enough for the first flower. --Ikiwaner 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination The nature looks us --Luigi Chiesa 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Good idea, technically OK, colour-key-like --Ikiwaner 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Sparrow on a tree --Thermos 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Beatiful compositon and colouring. Pity that the colour of the background is so close to the bird's. Alvesgaspar 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination North Carolina train through level crossing, Elon, NC --MPD01605 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Innovative idea but imo not close enough. Maybe the author has a higher res image that he could crop to the car+"North Carolina" waggon --Ikiwaner 18:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Kinkakuji (the Golden Pavillion) in Kyoto, Japan --Pomakis 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality, for me it is QI. Lestat 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination reception rooms at Nijo Castle in Kyoto, Japan --Pomakis 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline Interesting part of the building is in the shadow, leaning to the left in the middle, leaning to the right on the left --Ikiwaner 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination A giraffe --Pharaoh Hound 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Very good shot, no apparent flaws. But I think the crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Garden spider showing its epigyne---- Drini00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Decline This is an okay shot, the image is out of focus in most places. And in thumb I can hardly tell what it is. Consider trying again as it could be much better. Arjun 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if my input will help but I think this picture has a high encyclopedic value - very illustrative and quite exceptional but kind of "not enough quality value", the bird is in the shadow and not visible enough in the background of the sun-lit sand river-side. If it were the opposite and cropped vertically, I'd nominate it to Featured pictures, but here, it hardly passes the quality exposure criteria : Underexposure. Lost details main subject in shadow areas). Diligent
That was my point: I agree the quality of the picture is not enough to make it a featured picture, but what's in there is really worth the quality image promotion. CyrilB12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Medieval sculpture of Maria Magdalena --Diligent 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Promotion
Edit
Good composition and subject but quite strong colour fringes in the corner. The frame is half cut - I'd prefer to see it entirely or being cropped. Noise is quite high. I'd vote for any edit that adresses this, see my example. --Ikiwaner19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe tell what is bad about this perspective correction? The camera is tilted so much to the sky that you almost can't see the ground anymore. That'y why perspective shouldn't be fully corrected. Leave a little bit of perspective to make you feel small standing in front of the church. --Ikiwaner10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see the difference, but a) your edit is not much straighter than my first and b) you'll see the yellow house just after a few seconds of viewing the church therefore a good view on the church is more important. Have a look if you really like a fully corrected perspective: File:Alexander-Newski-Kathedrale_full_pc.jpg --Ikiwaner13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the perspective correction of the full_pc version of this photo seems to have been successful, it has had (IMO) a negative side effect of compressing the photo a bit too much horizontally. --Pomakis17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion Ok, may also serve as example of simple but working compostion. --Wikimol 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is a good composition. But the image has not enough quality. Look at the tree and ruins in first plan: seem blurred and with artifacts. Alvesgaspar14:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are perfectly true: This camera is not up to date regarding sharpness CA and noise. But I would have said that quality is just good enough for a QI as the photographical quality is good. --Ikiwaner19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the additional noise reduction did some minimal improvement to this image. I already downsized it to answer Alvesgaspars question. I don't think noise is the problem here it's rather sharpness artifacts as Alvesgaspar said before (+colour truth and CA). The photographer is strongly limited by her camera. --Ikiwaner19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are quire right. We cant't get useful information where just chaos exists, it is a fundamental law of the Universe. But let's see this picture from a positive side: it is a good composition and the trees have that wonderful look of impressionist painting (although not QI, I'm afraid) :-) Alvesgaspar21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO - the trees are not the subject of the image - I would compare it to low depth of field, or underexposure. Surprisingly, the church was kept intact by the demosaicing/sharpeninging/compression. --Wikimol15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
