Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 22 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Indian_scops_owls_(Otus_bakkamoena)_male_on_right.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Indian scops owls (Otus bakkamoena) male on right, MP, India --Charlesjsharp 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Quite unsharp and low on detail (used a teleconverter on a not really sharp lens) --Granada 16:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I'm going to go to bat for this photo: Excellent composition, and I think the owls' heads are clear enough as part of the overall composition. -- Ikan Kekek 19:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support überdurchschnittliche Qualität, exzellente Komposition. --Ralf Roletschek 13:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 14:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Michielverbeek. Somewhat low DOF, not absolutely pixelsharp, but good enough. --Smial 11:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Stefan_Honig_(Honig)_(Traumzeit-Festival_2013)_IMGP5371_smial_wp.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stefan Honig, Gitarre, Gesang, beim Traumzeitfestival 2013. --Smial 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  CommentThat's (one of the reasons) why I don't nominate my photos. Lots of them are made with ISO 3200 and higher - the resulting portraits are good enough to put them into articles, but noise reduction kills a lot of detail and yet they still suffer from quite a lot of chroma noise. --Granada 11:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment High ISO is not a fault if necessary and used meaningful because of difficult lighting conditions while taking images of moving objects. --Smial 16:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment The noise in your image is quite harsh and kind of unpleasing to my eyes, though it does not seem to be too much of chroma noise, it's the lighting in that situation itself that makes the noise looking so harsh. And yes, there are QI out there that I would love to see there QI ripped off because of their unpleasant noise. The noise in that other high ISO-image currently under CR is somewhat more pleasing to the eye (though I would not have nominated this image as well because of the noise). --Granada 07:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In order to get some judgement about this image, I  oppose because IMO there is too much colour noise present (fixable??). However, if anyone disagrees, please move this into CR. --Basotxerri 10:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image has not more noise than some other high iso shots which are QI. I've tried more noise reduction (see file history), but reverted it myself, because I prefer the first version. --Smial 14:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good QI for me -- Spurzem 09:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Das ist ein Konzertfoto, keine Studioaufnahme. --Ralf Roletschek 13:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Place_Dailly_-_Arret_STIB_Brabanconne.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Place Dailly - STIB bus stop Brabanconne --Trougnouf 09:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 12:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows?? Who killed Lady Moonlight. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 14:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I redeveloped it, I hope that is satisfying.--Trougnouf 18:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - That's way better than the original, but which view is closer to what you saw? -- Ikan Kekek 08:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's hard to say what the sky looked like because this picture was taken 18 days ago. I try not to change anything that would make the picture diverge from real life but even without touching individual color curves, the shadows and clipping thresholds can have a dramatic inpact. I know that the sky doesn't get overexposed in real life so that goes in favor of the new picture. Moreover, the sky more closely matches another picture I took at the same time of the day looking in the same direction, File:Place Dailly - vers Avenue de la Brabanconne.jpg, a combination of early november sunset and cloudy sky clearing up a bit.--Trougnouf 09:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I  Support this version. -- Ikan Kekek 11:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Now it´s good enough. The mood is the main point of view. Lady and car, not really. Difficult by traffic scene -- Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Teletón 2017 - Kika Silva - 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kika Silva, Teletón 2017, Santiago, Chile. --Carlos yo 21:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose A bit too noisy. --Draceane 22:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps no perfect lighting, but not too noisy for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - OK for me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me, too. --Basotxerri 09:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality ok -- Basile Morin 14:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat weird composition, but acceptable in all other aspects. --Smial 11:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 16:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Андріївська_церква,_Андріївський_узвіз_-_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Andrew's Church, Kyiv. By User:Billchik --Ата 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 06:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  OpposePlease remove the nasty green and purple color fringing on contrasting edges in the foreground (and IMHO also partially visible on the church itself). --Granada 09:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many disturbing branches before the main object --Michielverbeek 08:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Michiel. --Basotxerri 21:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, noise, some clipping in bright details. Overprocessed? --Smial 11:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 16:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-11-16 Michael Müller (Wiki Loves Parliaments 2017 in Berlin) by Sandro Halank–2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Michael Müller (SPD), Governing Mayor of Berlin --Sandro Halank 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good quality. --Trougnouf 14:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC) but I agree that it should be cropped into a portrait--Trougnouf 12:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, too much empty space. Should be portrait format. --XRay 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    There are other crops in the category, but I think this is also a good quality shot and this is the reason why I nominate this picture. --Sandro Halank 10:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The image is sharp and well lit; the composition reminds me of a 'rule of thirds' approach, but even as it is, it's still a QI in my book. The empty space means it can't be a VI, though.--Peulle 10:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Porträts müssen nicht immer formatfüllend sein. --Ralf Roletschek 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others but more courageous while voting: the empty space on the right is unfavorable for this sujet. Otherwise good. --Milseburg 16:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
     Comment just fyi: The Senatskanzlei of Berlin selected this file for their further public communication. --Sandro Halank 06:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg - there's no good reason for that arbitrary empty space. -- Ikan Kekek 20:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Image is sharp. Unconventional crops can be favorable in some cases, for example in a presentation of a company where space and freedom are main values, then such large crops produce psychological impact on the viewers. Can be reused at smaller sizes too, but the inverse is impossible -- Basile Morin 11:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg Poco a poco 11:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. Somewhat non conventional composition should not be the only reason for decline. --Smial 11:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 16:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-11-16 Kristian Ronneburg by Sandro Halank.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kristian Ronneburg (Die Linke) --Sandro Halank 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay, too much empty space on the right Poco a poco 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good quality. --Trougnouf 14:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC) but I agree that it should be cropped into a portrait--Trougnouf 12:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Note: I just commented it. I didn't reject the image as I was expecting feedback from the author. Poco a poco 21:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd set the image to discussion, because I was surprised about the pro vote of Trougnouf while Poco a poco is waiting for the author. --XRay 14:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There are other crops in the category, but I think this is also a good quality shot and this is the reason why I nominate this picture. --Sandro Halank 10:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough waiting. I'm supporting. The light, the sharpness, the resolution, it all points to a QI.--Peulle 10:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Porträts müssen nicht immer formatfüllend sein. --Ralf Roletschek 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others but more courageous while voting: the empty space on the right is unfavorable for this sujet. Otherwise good. --Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg - there's no good reason for that arbitrary empty space. -- Ikan Kekek 20:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Image is sharp. Unconventional crops can be favorable in some cases, for example in a presentation of a company where space and freedom are main values, then such large crops produce psychological impact on the viewers. Can be reused at smaller sizes too, but the inverse is impossible -- Basile Morin 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. Somewhat non conventional composition should not be the only reason for decline. --Smial 11:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 16:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Pholiota aurivella 2017 G1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Golden Scalycap mushroom (1) -- George Chernilevsky 20:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Only a comment, maybee. IMO for me that´s not Quality. It´s overflashed. I like mixed lights and the result of colours, but here it´s really to much flash light. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 20:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI for me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry George, but the hard shadows by direct flash kills it. A simple bouncer would help much. --Smial 10:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Hans-Jürgen and Smial. --Basotxerri 10:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me, --Tournasol7 19:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per smial --Trougnouf 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition, good colors, perhaps no FP but QI for me -- Spurzem 11:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharp enough but the flash destroyed it. Sorry. --RaboKarbakian 02:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: I think here is not FP. Or am I wrong? -- Spurzem 11:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial Poco a poco 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Hans-Jürgen Neuber -- Basile Morin 05:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 16:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)