Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2013

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Restaurante_volador,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_06.JPG[edit]

File:Cuernos_del_Paine,_Parque_Nacional_Torres_del_Paine,_Chile5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cuernos del Paine, Torres del Paine National Park, Chile --Poco a poco 10:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline The foreground red thing is very distracting, please get rid of it. Mattbuck 15:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    Better, but I'm not convinced by the JPEG quality, perhaps someone else has an opinion? Mattbuck 07:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much CA at the mountains to the right. --Esquilo 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs are not the problem for me. The photo is somehow overprocessed: Strange (sharpening?) artefacts are visible in the foreground and on the mountains. --Tuxyso 08:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA and jagged edges (oversharpened). --Iifar 18:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Poco a poco 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Andechs,_Alemania_2012-05-01,_DD_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination View from Andechs, Germany --Poco a poco 10:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Loss of detail, some CA. --Iifar 07:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - posterisation leads to significant loss of detail. Mattbuck 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Improved Poco a poco 20:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    It's better, no doubt, but not QI. Significant noise now, and it still looks weird in places. Mattbuck 07:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed and noisy. --Esquilo 12:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

File:M_Clan_-_30.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spanish rock group M Clan during their tour. --Kadellar 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noise and lowsize --The Photographer 17:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    Have you ever taken a picture in a concert in a dark place?? This noise is more than acceptable. And size is 2,43 Mpx, well above the limit. --Kadellar 22:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No problem with size. The problem here is not the overall noise (noise on main subject is OK) but the massive color noise in the dark areas (possibly due to small sensor size). Have you tried some NR techniques? --Tuxyso 08:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The PowerShot G11 has a small sensor and it is a CCD, not a CMOS, so it is very prone to noise. The same photo taken with a DSLR would probably be a lot better. --Esquilo 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • But usually they won't let you in with a DSLR, that's the problem... I have reduced noise, but it's better to leave some noise there rather than losing detail on the main subject. --Kadellar 13:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Just buy a cheap Leica M9, problem solved :) --Tuxyso 08:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I'll get two of those... maybe a G1X is enough! --Kadellar 11:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Bosque_Encantado,_Parque_nacional_de_Garajonay,_La_Gomera,_España,_2012-12-14,_DD_20.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Enchanted Forest, Garajonay National Park, La Gomera, Spain --Poco a poco 13:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Well that's a... mess. Decline on ground of pixellation and CA. --Mattbuck 07:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    My current monitor is not the biggest but I cannot see the problems you mention. Could you add 2 notes? Poco a poco 19:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    I have seen your note and I am quite confused, the CA was minor and the pixelation, as well. I uploaded a new version addressing the CA and I would like to hear what others say, if you don't mind. Poco a poco 20:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no CA problems. IMHO the photo is a bit oversharpened (some "saw teeth" are visible at the branches of the tree). Still OK for QI. --Tuxyso 08:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't find no CA, but it is a bit oversharpened. Particularly noticeable on the nearest branch because it is slightly out of focus. --Esquilo 11:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Jagged edges due to oversharpening. --Iifar 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Sharpening reduced Poco a poco 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support --Iifar 07:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:A330 Ditching Button.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ditching-Button on the overhead panel of an Airbus A330 --MB-one 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - I'm relieved it's covered. --Mattbuck 07:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I disagree. Main object "Ditching Button" unsharp, bad lighting, too shallow DOF --Smial 11:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    I should point out that you just disagreed with me being glad the button to vent the air from the cabin is covered. Mattbuck 07:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Intended main object (button) is too small. Thus also the enviornment of the button should be sharp. Perspective is not optimal. --Tuxyso 08:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The short DoF serves the purpose to highlight the main subject. However, it is not in focus. Focus is on the LDG-elevation knob. --Esquilo 12:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Human_face,_meditating.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Human face, meditating --The Photographer 14:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - OK --Mattbuck 15:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I disagree. DOF. --Smial 14:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I personally (in contrary to many others) like photos with a shallow depth of field. DoF would be perfect if focus had been with the same camera setting on the eyes (stressing your topics "mediating") and not on the beard. --Tuxyso 08:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Eichhörnchen Düsseldorf Hofgarten edit.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red Squirrel -- Ray eye --Suid-Afrikaanse 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very nice. --Moonik 05:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image No minimum size --The Photographer 05:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It is above minimum size limit. -- JDP90 05:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Barely above size limit. Tail is blurry. --Esquilo 10:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp to me.--Lucasbosch 20:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality for the size. Biopics 23:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough for me. --King of Hearts 19:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics. --A.Savin 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tail is blurry --Archaeodontosaurus 17:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Good moment, improvable size and DoF but overall meets criteria for me Poco a poco 18:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose --Iifar 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Cypress_Tree_Avenue_at_KPH,_Point_Reyes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Cypress Tree Avenue at the KPH historic radio station, Point Reyes National Seashore, California. --Frank Schulenburg 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  • This image with a right focus and could be FP!!, Very nice composition --The Photographer 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment It could be QI, if you can remove jagged edges and CA. --Iifar 19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    •  Oppose until it's not fixed. --Iifar 18:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have to  Oppose this. It is very dramatic, and I like it, but detail at the end is lost to overexposure. Mattbuck 15:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Wounderful colours. Good composition. Difficult lightning conditions well handled. --Esquilo 10:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the RAW file is available, decreasing exposure by 1/3 or 1/2 f-stop should correct some clipping in higlights. CA should be removed. Overall sharpness is not breathtaking but acceptable, also noise is ok. Very impressing composition and beautiful lighting, it's worth to rework it. -- Smial 13:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support With such high contrast, a little bit of clipping is not such a big deal, and in fact an image with no clipping might look flat. --King of Hearts 19:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Agree with KoH. The loss of sharpness at the end of the corridor does not justify a decline IMO Poco a poco 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 07:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Opera_Nacional,_Riga,_Letonia,_2012-08-07,_DD_15.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Latvian National Opera, Riga, Latvia --Poco a poco 10:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Posterisation in the flowers. --Mattbuck 05:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Though decline, I have seen much "worse" things promoted, please, let's discuss, Poco a poco 23:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI. --A.Savin 11:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Contrast between bright sky and shadows under the trees handles well. Good colours. Some noice, but no dealbraker. --Esquilo 11:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Red flowers are looking a bit unnatural. --Iifar 12:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Some noise, but okay. - Godot13 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Esquilo. --Rjcastillo 21:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Three_Rivers_(California),_Western_Holiday_Lodge,_flower.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A flower at Western Holiday Lodge in Three Rivers, California. --CLI 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Lovely. Prenn 15:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    sorry, but no id. Proper species and genus level id needed. A good picture though. --JDP90 16:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC).
    OK, thanks for information, I will try to find someone to help me with identifying this flower. ;) --CLI 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    I think it's a double-petal cultivar of Rosa. Prenn 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ok image, cultivars are hard to identify... though garden flowers shouldnt be in "Flora of foo" categories Gnangarra 01:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Now as a Cultivar of Rosa. Jkadavoor 09:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (Jkadavoor, thanks for help with categorization. --CLI 12:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC) :))
  • Not me; it is Prenn who did it. :) Jkadavoor 16:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support now. --JDP90 17:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-02-03_15-50-34-goutte.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Droplet on moss --ComputerHotline 19:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Yes, the drop on the left is in focus but it is a very small part of the picture --Poco a poco 21:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Let's discuss. Not everything can be in focus in a macro picture. I think DoF is sufficient here given the subject. --Jastrow 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The droplet is pretty, but the gametophytes (?) in the middle are out of focus. With just two or three easily stacked photos this image would have been awsome. Now it is just pretty. --Esquilo 10:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 21:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Balas_redondas_de_paja,_Walker,_Indiana,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Round straw bales, Walker, Indiana, USA --Poco a poco 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support OK for QI --MB-one 18:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Jagged edges (oversharpened) --Iifar 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    Though review IMO, new version uploaded Poco a poco 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, there was some chromatic noise, I also fixed that Poco a poco 19:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Garachico,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Español: Vista de Garachico, Tenerife, EspañaEspañol: View of Garachico, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 13:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OK. --Christian Ferrer 21:54, 03 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please fix tilted horizon and perhaps crop on the right will make it better. --Iifar 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 20:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:B-Tempelhof 10-2012 - Ullsteinhaus1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ullstein House in Berlin, Germany. - A.Savin 21:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • You overcorrected the perspective - the bottom's narrower than the top. Mattbuck 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I didn't correct the perspective. --A.Savin 17:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh. Mattbuck 06:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good pic. Other pictures on the Web show this is an accurate picture of the building. Not everything is at right angles. --Jastrow 09:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:1923_14th_St_NW_in_DC.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building 1923 14th St NW, Washington, D.C --MB-one 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Slightly CW tilted, after correct QI. --Tuxyso 22:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    Just uploaded a new version --MB-one 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose New version is too bright IMO. Mattbuck 07:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done changed back to original colors --MB-one 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Odd composition. A lot of asphalt and sky but tight crop on the sides. --Esquilo 10:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 20:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Flor de una tunera (Opuntia cochenillifera), Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, España, 2012-12-13, DD 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Flor de una tunera (Opuntia ficus-indica), Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 14:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Red channel overexposure losing detail of the interior. Mattbuck 08:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version with reduction of saturation in the red channel and new crop, although I couldn't see any loss of detail, therefore I'd like to discuss, Poco a poco 17:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 20:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:B-Spandau Okt12 Nikolaikirche.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Nicholas Church in Berlin-Spandau, Germany. - A.Savin 10:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Slight anticlockwise tilt. Mattbuck 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    No idea what you expect, but the tower seems OK to me and that should be enough. --A.Savin 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. Saturation / micro contrast could be slightly increased. --Tuxyso 08:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective and tilt look okay, IMHO - Godot13 19:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 20:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:The_Shard_and_Southwark_Cathedral.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Shard and Southwark Cathedral --Heuschrecke 13:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Apart from the chromatic noise in the sky the picture doesn't just look real to me Poco a poco 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
     Info Reassembled hdr, reduced noise in the sky; what do you think now? Heuschrecke 22:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion I haven't seen much improvements in the lack of reality problem (the CN got better, though), but I still have the impression that it is a kind of "collage". Still I would like to here others since the quality overall is good, Poco a poco 21:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I often use HDR technique and I think this is a good one. Level of details of the high left building could be better. The artificial look comes from different color temperatures of the light and different brightness levels (lights which have different levels in reality has the same levels in an HDR). --Tuxyso 08:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Friesenbergsee und Friesenberghaus, Zillertaler Alpen 07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Friesenbergsee --Böhringer 21:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • The image is fantastic, but there is a lens flare on the right edge, I'm not sure if it's acceptable --Tupungato 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Very good quality, the lens flare is easy to fix. --Selbymay 16:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good panorama. --Esquilo 10:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Selbymay 14:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 21:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Wien Westbahnhof Kassahalle, Panorama.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wien Westbahnhof Kassahalle --Böhringer 11:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  I withdraw my support until it's fixed --Iifar 17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I like the image itself, but just too many stiching errors. --Kallerna 18:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Stitching can be difficult, especially for a image with lots of details like this one. Try a few more times till you get it right. --Esquilo 13:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Puerto_de_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination West Harbour, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Makele-90 00:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed a comment would have been enough, fixing that is trivial Poco a poco 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, it's better now. Makele-90 03:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Could the crop be a little less tight on the upper part? Also there's something strange in the bottom part (see annotation). A seagull perhaps?--Jastrow 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, it was a gull. I adjusted the crop but down instead of up Poco a poco 23:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Happy now. --Jastrow 06:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:ST vs LOU espoirs 2013 (72).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Race of a rugby union penalty kick by Sébastien Bézy. Léna 18:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's discuss this one. It's not sharp, I don't know if 1/500 wasn't enough or if the focus wasn't so accurate, sorry. Nice composition and position of the player. --Kadellar 15:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    It was raining. Léna 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I saw that, but let's see more opinions. --Kadellar 13:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as QI it ticks the boxes, yes its a little soft but as a winter sporting event action image its a level that if replicated across the many winter sports we'd have a very good collection. QI is the level we want everyone to attain when contributing this is good example of that Gnangarra 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Pelikanhybrid-Zoo-Gelsenkirchen-2012-04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination pink-backed pelican / Pelecanus rufescens --Tuxyso 14:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose There is a strange halo, see note Poco a poco 18:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Hopefully ✓ Done. This were artefacts from CA correcture in LR. IMHO it is better now --Tuxyso 22:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    That it is better is a fact, no doubt, but still a visible halo, not only in that spot also in others, for me not a QI. I had the same problems with flamencos Poco a poco 20:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    IMHO it is a very minor issue, nothing compared to other halos (due to CA correction) on QIs of buildings. We should ask for a third opinion. --Tuxyso 08:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Halo removed. --Esquilo 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, good rework by Esquilo. --Kadellar 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC))
  •  Support Nice--Danesman1 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Mati Kaal.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Mati Kaal -- Kruusamägi 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Oppose the left part is definitely too dark, on the other hand some OE on the shirt. --A.Savin 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
     weak support Overall brightness could be increased, but lightning here is a good and typical portrayal lightning, no reason for direct decline. --Tuxyso 07:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:P. crispus × onocrotalus - Zoo Gelsenkirchen - 2012-04-30 (2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination pink-backed pelican / Pelecanus rufescens --Tuxyso 08:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Usefull --The Photographer 13:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop (Schade). --Kadellar 19:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    "Bad" is a bit harsh, I prefer "unfortunate" / "could be better". It was a trade-off betweeen great expression and crop - I've underestimated the beak's size, but I think it's still OK, let's discuss. --Tuxyso 22:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, let's say unfortunate to be politically correct, but you know what I mean and I don't pretend to be harsh (Schade, das der Schnitt unglücklich ist). --Kadellar 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
My point was not political correctness, I think it is a difference in the assesment to say a crop is "bad" (like fail) or a crop is unfortunate (could be better, but possibly other factors like sharpness, motive, colors can compensate this minor issue). With a still object (a building, a studio shot) I had also declined such a crop, with an vivid animal portrayal I had only declined if something is really cutted (this is not the case here). --Tuxyso 07:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I understand you, it's not a building, but it must be discussed with more opinions. --Kadellar 13:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really unfortunate (in the unlucky sense) framing. Better luck next time, as in animal photography that's what you often need. Biopics 21:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate cut on the main subject. @Tuxyso: Lot of non-native English speakers are here (including me). Some of us know basic English; some depend on translators. So don't always take the words as in their exact meaning. (We already saw arguments like I didn't crop the picture; this is as it was taken). Jkadavoor 09:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the importance is with the internal information of the mouth rather than the edge of the beak, I can understand the implication of deciding based solely on the composition, if this is as it came from the camera its not a crop issue. Though possibly a narrow crop that focuses on the mouths internals could be the making of a QI Gnangarra 13:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Bruegge_Panorama1_edit_.jpg[edit]

File:10m09-19 065.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ruins of castle of Monteil-au-Vicomte, France by Fourgeaudg. --Moonik 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noisy, huge dust spot in the sky, needs perspective correction, sharpness soso --Poco a poco 19:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done File corrected thanks to JLPC ! Can discuss? --Moonik 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support Better now Poco a poco 20:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Capitol_del_Estado_de_Indiana,_Indianápolis,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-22,_DD_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Indiana State Capitol, Indianapolis, USA --Poco a poco 12:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Barrel distortion on steps. --Danrok 10:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed, no big deal Poco a poco 19:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    Looks like a quality image now. --Danrok 02:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Eurytellina lineata.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sanguinolaria sanguinolenta --The Photographer 15:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Under exposed, uneven lighting and disturbing flash reflections. Sorry. Biopics 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --The Photographer 15:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus 18:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Archaeodontosaurus 18:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Casa_Salazar,_San_Cristóbal_de_La_Laguna,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-15,_DD_08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Casa Salazar, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OK. --Christian Ferrer 22:07, 03 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Notes added --Iifar 19:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 21:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - edges still a bit jagged, but ok. Mattbuck 13:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Egretta_thula_(head_shot).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Egretta thula (Snowy Egret), Richardson Bay, California. --Frank Schulenburg 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing really in focus. Shallow DOF. Biopics 22:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No problem with DoF, but a bit too noisy, important details (texture) of the coat are not visible. --Tuxyso 07:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Details are too soft due to heavy cropping from ~18MP to ~3MP. Danrok 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Danrok 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Imanol_Harinordoquy_-_2013-01-25_-_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rugby union player Imanol Harinordoquy --PierreSelim 13:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeVery noisy. --Mattbuck 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    Increased the denoised --PierreSelim 13:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support : better now. --JLPC 17:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --Ralf Roletschek 12:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Isabel_Pantoja_-_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Isabel Pantoja live in Madrid in 2012. --Kadellar 19:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion For sure a difficult shooting situation (concert, less light). Noise level is very high @ISO 800 I think a compact Power Shot G11 is not the optimal camera for concert photography due to small sensor size. . --Tuxyso 07:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's noise but I think this one is good enough, I have others which I won't nominate here. Of course it's not the optimal camera! If I apply more noise reduction, detail is lost. --Kadellar 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's ok. Mattbuck 08:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose After a few days of consideration I still think noise is too high, level of details too low. @Mattbuck: You've delete my comment, why? --Tuxyso 08:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    • If I did, it was unintentional. I got an edit conflict, but thought it was just with myself - that's been happening a bit recently. My apologies. Mattbuck 10:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  SupportSomewhat noisy, but composition and lighting very good. I believe, good shots from a compact camera should have a chance, and this one is stunningly good. -- Smial 14:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Supportfor me it`s ok --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Tuxyso 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Edificios_en_la_Plaza_del_Mercado,_Riga,_Letonia,_2012-08-07,_DD_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Buildings in the Market Square, Riga, Latvia --Poco a poco 11:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice perspective, but too many issues (see notes: CA, overprocessing, under-/over-exposure, crop). IMHO the bright-dark-contrast was too extreme at the time of the shooting. Crop is not optimal. --Tuxyso 12:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed with better sharpness/noise balance (addressing unrealistic effect), highlights and CA. I see no problems with the crop Poco a poco 00:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    Better, but I am still not convinced. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 11:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Clear QI imo, particularly given the high resolution. For aerial photos (or photos taken from high rise buildings), you always have two choices, either a cloudy boring day or a sunny day with shadows. Perhaps you can see the camera's limitations here, it is not able to retain detail in the shadows as well as the newest Nikon (or Canon) cameras. Otherwise, the camera creates stunning images.--ArildV 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Small parts somewhat overexposed, but still ok. -- Smial 14:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Bachórz,_019.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Train station, Bachórz, Subcarpathian Voivodeship --CLI 17:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK --Poco a poco 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    Needs sharpening IMO. Mattbuck 23:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Jagro has just send a new sharper version. --CLI 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Better. Mattbuck 08:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. Yarl 23:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Green Week Berlin 2013 AS img 06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination International Green Week Berlin 2013. - A.Savin 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Could you please give further details of the animal in the foto? --Moroder 09:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • European wildcat, see category. --A.Savin 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
      •  Comment Maybe you should be more specific in the description --Moroder 16:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done --A.Savin 12:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support prefer more DOF. --Jkadavoor 08:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor DoF for a stuffed animal. Biopics 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Important part is the head and the expression of the cat. Both are very well visible. Clear QI. --Tuxyso 07:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting due to on-camera flash used as main light source. Danrok 02:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Honey Pea Flower in Hong Kong.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Beautiful image of a Pea Flower, comments please. --Earth100 13:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportQI for me. --Bgag 16:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeLow DOF, nothing crisp. Biopics 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeApperture f/9 on a small sensor compact camera should have plenty of DoF. Judging from what is sharp, I'd say focus is set too short. --Esquilo 13:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Germanicus_Louvre_Ma4712_n01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of Germanicus in the Louvre. --Jastrow 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC).
  • Decline
  •  Comment Noise reduction is needed. Regards, --Cayambe 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The picture has already been denoised. I can't see any noise in the pic right now. Can you add some annotations? Jastrow 16:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
  • See annotation for where I see noise. I don't think this tha natural xolour there, or is it? The pic was taken at ISO 800 and noise is to be expected (I own the same camera). --Cayambe 17:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Er, I see only the marble grain (the marble itself has yellowish streaks, it isn't a perfect block) and traces of cinnabar (red pigment) in the hair. Jastrow 18:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support because I accept your explanation. --Cayambe (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF is too shallow however for a non-moving object. There is only a few cm zone in focus. Biopics 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus is on the nose, not on the eyes. Area left to the nose is overexposed / overprocessed. --Tuxyso 07:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Casa_Salazar,_San_Cristóbal_de_La_Laguna,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-15,_DD_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Casa Salazar, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 12:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion * OK. --Christian Ferrer 19:48, 03 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Notes added --Iifar 14:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 21:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:San_Francisco,_Pier_39,_Seagull.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Western Gull (Larus occidentalis) at Pier 39 in San Francisco, USA. --CLI 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support --Iifar 17:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many bright spots, some on the subject Poco a poco 19:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    Is it any better now? ;) --CLI 19:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    Not really, you decreased brightness of some lighter ares, but no the lightest (highlights) as on the head of the gull Poco a poco 21:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Poco a poco 21:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the seagul is ok, but the bokeh is disturbing. Typical example of the effects of overcorrected spherical aberration. That's what you'll get from a cheap Tamron lens. --Esquilo 10:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    Actually it wasn't Tamron, but 15-years old Minolta 28-105, and yes, it was cheap (less than 100 Euro) ;). -- CLI 21:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    The EXIF-information says "Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 DiII A16S". Anyhow, I have smoothed the background somewhat. Revert if you don't like it. --Esquilo 12:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Esquilo, you're right. By mistake I had used bad lens correction profile for this picture and that information was wrongly included in EXIF. And the background indeed looks better now, thanks. :) BTW: Two month after taking this picture I actually bought Tamron 17-50... ;) -- CLI 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Poco about the head being too bright, also find that the composition isnt all that special -- centralised and subject lost in the background Gnangarra 01:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ----Danesman1 18:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as for Gnangarra. -- Smial 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support not outstanding, but OK. Composition is not optimal, I would crop a bit tighter. --Tuxyso 07:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition - distracting background (see guidelines "Foreground and background objects should not be distracting"). Danrok 03:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Garachico,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Español: Vista de Garachico, Tenerife, EspañaEspañol: View of Garachico, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 14:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Notes added. --Iifar 16:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done, thanks, Poco a poco 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    Overexposure in the waves. Mattbuck 08:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version. Well, you can call it brighter, but it was not overexposed. I reduced the brigthness, though, Poco a poco 17:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus 07:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Christmas_Goat_6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Christmas Goat --The Photographer 18:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. The AOV (take from above) makes it a simple snap shot (and face of the man is hidden). The bottom half is enough, if the intention is to show the goat's blood (?). --Jkadavoor 15:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree too. Bad composition, face is hidden and head is not completely in the picture. --Indeedous 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Poulnabrone 2011-09-14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Poulnabrone Dolmen, The Burren, County Clare, Ireland --Draceane 13:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Interesting, but a problem with the clouds imo (see notes, please). --JLPC 16:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    Unsharp. --Mattbuck 08:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Where??? --Draceane 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    I will try to repair the clouds, but I have lots of work now. Do you have any tip how to repair it? --Draceane 20:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    Unsharp. --Esquilo 10:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New file uploaded. --JLPC (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, but there's significant loss of detail. This cannot be repaired. Mattbuck 02:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Hamburg,_Ohlsdorf,_Friedhof,_Mausoleum_von_Schröder,_2012-10_CN-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mausoleum of Johann Heinrich Schröder on the Ohlsdorf Rural Cemetery in Hamburg --Carschten 20:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    I fear that the sky is overexposed Poco a poco 20:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    hm, but it isn't... --Carschten 23:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    Well, the point is rather the impact of the overexposure that could not be fixed (decoloration of tree leaves and branches). I am not convinced, let's discuss Poco a poco 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Looks correctly exposed to me. Danrok 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 Support The sky looks plain, dull, all-over gray probably because it was plain, dull, all-over gray overcast. Not overexposed though. --Esquilo 11:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Glasfenster_Kirche_Sankt_Vigil_Kastelruth_.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination stained glass window in the church of Vigilius of Trent in Kastelruth --Moroder 01:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Glazing is overexposed - detail in the lead work has blown out. --Danrok 02:27, 15 February 2013  Comment Thanks for the review. I uploaded a new picture with a much more underexposed window, I hope you like it --Moroder 14:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)(UTC)
Need counter-clockwise rotation. --Esquilo 13:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Fixed vertical lines on the left. Not easy the glass is 150 yrs old the window 500 yrs. --Moroder 23:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 Support Good. They had plumb-bobs back then, so they should have managed to make a window straight. --Esquilo 14:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 SupportLooks fine now. Danrok 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 Support : good now. --JLPC 11:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Anoushiravan.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Justice statue in Iran --Monfie 11:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline *Unsharp. --Mattbuck 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    •  Commentthis is a huge statue, can not be sharp as small ones.
  •  Oppose ¿? So we can't get sharp images of cathedrals or mosques, because they're big. It doesn't make much sense. Unsharp, as Mattbuck stated. --Kadellar 18:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 18:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Bażanówka,_003.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bażanówka, Subcarpathian Voivodeship --CLI 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Lacks good composition. --Danrok 20:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support This is not FPC. In my opinion this is OK for QIC. --King of Hearts 04:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support : QI for me. --JLPC 11:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support - bit unsharp but ok. Mattbuck 00:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Arriate 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic View of Arriate, Spain. --Mihael Grmek 12:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion I believe the whole image is slightly tilted to the left. --Tupungato 11:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Seems ok to me. In fact some stuff is tilted the other way. Mattbuck 22:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support Only very slightly tilted on the left, but he whole image seems ok.--Grondin 18:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Panorama_Kos_4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view from Kos. --Kallerna 15:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    I think that it is generally overexposed, sky color not natural Poco a poco 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion I think this is excellent. Mattbuck 11:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
     SupportLight is a bit harsh, but nonetheless nice panoramic view and very good sharpness. --Tuxyso 07:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support Ok for me.--Grondin 18:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Parc_de_Paloma_1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Parc de La Paloma de Benalmadena, Andalucia --Ismael zniber 03:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good quality... but please expand the description: La Paloma in the province of ... in Spain. About half of the lower forground should be cropped away imo. A geotag would also be appreciated. I'm willing to promote once this will have been done. Regards, --Cayambe 09:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not willing to promote - CA, blur/unsharpness. Mattbuck 11:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good lighting and colours, composition would be ok, if foreground would be somewhat cropped. But inacceptable blurring noise reduction and CA. I beg those camera manufacturers would one day again produce compact cameras with max. 6 MPixels and less noise and less internal noise reduction than nowadays. -- Smial 14:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is too blurring noise reduction.--Grondin 20:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-01-31_15-27-38-lichens.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Xanthoria parietina --ComputerHotline 17:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support OK, though rather too much blurred for me. --Mattbuck 09:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Poor DoF. Biopics 12:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
     SupportOK for me, sharp, DoF is sufficient - only the same parts of the object are repeated in the unsharp area. IMHO a wider DoF would be worse and boring in this case. --Tuxyso 07:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Too many blurry areas. A new frame is possible. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus. -Gzzz 19:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Saariston_rengastie_20.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Keistiö cable ferry in Pargas, Finland --Kallerna 10:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline good quality. -- Arcalino 12:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 15:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support against the sun...--Ralf Roletschek 12:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    Not every situation can produce a QI. Mattbuck 01:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mattbuck. Biopics 07:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mattbuck --Gzzz 19:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Церква Святого Пантелеймона 17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Panteleimon Church in Shevchenkove. Created by Klymenkoy. --Lystopad 15:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  OpposePlease upload a more 2 Mio file and correct the Distorted perspective.--Grondin 10:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose for the same reasons --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof_Untermenzing_Aufgang_Bauseweinallee.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance to Munich S-Bahn Station Untermenzing from Bauseweinallee. --Mummelgrummel 09:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Sharpness just ok --Poco a poco 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I am not convinced. Nothing is really sharp (except the ceiling), distorted (look at the vertical lines from the corridor at the front. The floor looks very strange / overprocessed. --Tuxyso 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    The picture is not processed. I took it directly from the camera. --Mummelgrummel 06:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    Also the camera does some internal processing (sharpening, noise reduction, white balance, ...). Every photo is somehow processed :) --Tuxyso 10:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Soft details. Danrok 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 16:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Castillo_San_Felipe,_Puerto_de_la_Cruz,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle of San Felipe, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 15:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Bright, bit of camera shake I think. --Mattbuck 11:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version. Brigthness is reduced, in addition CA and chromatic noise fixed, sharpness is IMHO crispy Poco a poco 18:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Brightness is better, but not quite convinced by it. Other opinions would be appreciated. Mattbuck 13:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good enough to me (a slightly wider aperture may have produced better sharpness, and reduced risk of camera shake. Danrok 19:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC))
  •  Support I can see a lot of strange artefacts in the stone-wall if I look closely. Probably caused by oversharpening. However, they are not disturbing, and I don't see any at all on the casemate. --Esquilo 11:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 16:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:2009-09-22-luftbild-berlin-by-RalfR-21.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Luftbild Berlin: Reinickendorf-West mit Ollenhauerstraße. --Ralf Roletschek 13:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Needs perspective correction, see right side Poco a poco 19:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • OK corrected --Ralf Roletschek 08:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Much better, but, please, get rid of the CA Poco a poco 20:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - blur at edges. Mattbuck 01:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred corners. Danrok 00:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The red of the roofs looks as if saturation ought to be reduced to 20–30 per cent of that to look natural :-) --Kreuzschnabel 21:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Lagarto_tizón_(Gallotia_galloti),_Icod_de_los_Vinos,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tenerife Lizard (Gallotia galloti), Icod de los Vinos, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 15:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad composition - subject is on the right. --Mattbuck 11:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Cannot share this review at all. The subject is all over the picture, from one corner to the other side. Is it a different angle (as the front one)? yes, but that shouldn't be a problem. Having images of animals from different angles shouldn' be punished here Poco a poco 18:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Poco on the composition, but it is a pity that as it is a rear view that the actual rear (the regenerated tip of the tail) isn't in focus. Biopics 09:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out-if-focus areas have disturbing dithering caused by sharpening. --Esquilo 11:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 16:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Costa_de_Puerto_de_la_Cruz,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Coast of Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 10:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review I'm not convinced, due to the overexposure of the building and the slight horizon slant. Mattbuck 22:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Improved Poco a poco 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    Better, but not convinced still. I ask for other opinions. Mattbuck 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    There's a lot of noise in the shadows on the rocks.Danrok 02:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Noise fixed Poco a poco 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 15:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Dudyńce_-_church_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church in Dudyńce --CLI 07:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --JLPC 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    * Support  Comment was on the wrong picture Nice but needs a slight perspective correction on the right side and, why not, lighten the darker tones a bit imo --Moroder 12:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
     Looks slightly underexposed to me, could be fixed. Danrok 00:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Fixed by author (Pbm). --CLI 22:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 15:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:DushanTappe.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dushan Tappe, which was a beautiful area in Tehran. --Monfie 05:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Insufficient quality. --Moroder 12:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Vignetting. --Esquilo 13:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
✓ Doneimproved--مانفی 20:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looking at the upload history there is no way to judge the accuracy (quality) of the colour reproduction. Biopics 09:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Vignetting is still there, and now the colours look bad too. --Esquilo 11:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment as an option (the file is updated) --Aleks G 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  SupportThanks Alex to significant improvement of the quality of the picture. Please review it again. --مانفی 08:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better. Not perfect, but good enough. Photographing oil-paintings is diffiucult. --Esquilo 10:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aleks G 19:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 13:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB Z6 The Downs.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: The Downs, University Park. Mattbuck 08:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review The composition is very nice, and goow quality but some parts are do dark (I think you can adjust exposure and shadows).--ArildV 13:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 17:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC) I cant see the new version (even after reloading the page), maybe some Commons issue. I will try again tomorrow.--ArildV 20:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    Add ?randomshit to the URL and it'll load. Mattbuck 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) I dont understand, add text to the url? I was trying to reload, and purge, I still see the old version. Maybe someone else?--ArildV 21:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    If you add a ? followed by random text after the .jpg, it will get you the correct version, eg ...Downs.jpg?ihatethisthumbnailbug Mattbuck 06:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks I understand, and I tried now (with negative result) Are you sure you uploaded the correct version?--ArildV 11:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    The new version is definitely brighter than the old version. Mattbuck 14:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC) The version I see is still partially under-exposed, the building on the right and part of the forest on the left is almost or completely black. The version I see is still partially under-exposed, the building on the right and part of the forest on the left is almost or completely black. Maybe I still see the old version.--ArildV 08:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    Switch between one and the other and see if there's a difference. Mattbuck 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Im dont know, maybe slightly brighter but still partially under-exposed, the building on the right and part of the forest on the left is almost or completely black. We need a second opinion here, I can't do more.--ArildV 12:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    I have tried another new version. Mattbuck 21:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 09:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Jay_Pritzker_Pavilion,_Chicago,_Illinois,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Chicago, Illinois, USA --Poco a poco 12:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Smial 13:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)  Oppose Loss of detail, barrel distortion. --Iifar 14:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Improved, thanks, Poco a poco 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)  Comment distortion is still there. --Iifar 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, should be ok now Poco a poco 20:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support --JLPC 16:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Castillo_San_Felipe,_Puerto_de_la_Cruz,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Castle of San Felipe, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 12:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Tilted, oversharpened, CA. --Mattbuck 23:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 23:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that I fixed those issues but didn't get any feedback. Looking at it again I am convinced that this picture is a QI, please, let's dicuss Poco a poco 22:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me. Danrok (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 09:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Jaulas,_Kokomo,_Indiana,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Cages, Kokomo, Indiana, USA --Poco a poco 09:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Loss of detail in bushes. --Mattbuck 22:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    Ummh, I have accepted that argument in many cases, but I don't think it applies here. I also updated a slightly better version, please, let's discuss Poco a poco 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment The bushes are a bit distracting, looks like movement blur. Was it windy? If so the shutter speed was too slow to freeze the movement of the leaves. Danrok 20:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it was windy, but I didn't pay much attention on that because the subject of the shot are the cages (I had never see something like that!) and not the bushes. Poco a poco 22:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC) PD: Btw, I have no problem to crop the bushe out
  •  Question What are/were this cages used for? Biopics 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Good question, I tried to find out but I couldn't. My assumption is bigger birds. Do you have an idea? Poco a poco 19:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough to me. -Gzzz 19:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 09:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Uncia_uncia_Ähtäri.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Snow leopard (Uncia uncia) in Ähtäri Zoo. --Kallerna 13:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  SupportGood quality. --MB-one 15:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Unfortunate framing (tail cut). Biopics 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support Crop / framing could be better, cutted tail only marginal issue / hidden behind the grass. Photo is still OK for QI.--Tuxyso 07:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Missing a piece of the tail --Archaeodontosaurus 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Reframe it on the head would be a good idea -Gzzz 19:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I rather agree with Gzzz - given the loss of tail anyway, may as well make it a manx and get centre in a better place. Mattbuck 00:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 09:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Clitoria_ternatea_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Blue-pea (Clitoria ternatea) flower. Prenn 18:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Strong haloes around the inflorescence. Biopics 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
     Info New version uploaded, white halos removed. Prenn 02:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The two versions are identical, but on the other hand, I can't see no halos in any of them. It is also a bit odd that the thumbnail and the full-size image have different rotations. --Esquilo 12:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The halos were very minimal, but I anyway fixed that. And as most portrait-orientated photos are rotated automatically by the camera when taken, but not this one, I had to do it manually using a software and it may be the reason for the rotation problem. Prenn 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 Support--Grondin 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 09:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Chinese_Tower_in_February.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Chinese Tower, English Garden Munich, in February --Martin Falbisoner 12:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Quality of the subject is ok but the composition with so many distracting people spoils it --Poco a poco 15:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support I disagree: The English Garden in Munich is a vivid park area. In the summer you see remarkably more people inside the "beer gardens" especially here at the Chinese Tower. People belong to this popular place and do not distract or spoil. --Tuxyso 18:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    I know the place very good, thanks for the hint. There is always public around the Chinese tower but in this case I almost have the impression that some people here are posing to the camera, which is pretty disturbing to me Poco a poco 14:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment The snow on the roofs is blown out, you can fix it --Moroder 20:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Martin Falbisoner 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice --Moroder 10:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Руины церкви (Сентинский храм).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Senty Church in Russian Northern Caucasus. By Schtamara. - A.Savin 16:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, low sharpness --Carschten 15:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see either CA or unsharpness. --Esquilo 08:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Path, tree, bridge in the northern Palatinate[edit]

  • Nomination Path, Tree an Bridge in northern Palatinate --Arcalino 08:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Dark! Biopics 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)✓ Done - darkness corrected. Arcalino (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    Better but try levels:B0;M128;W235. Biopics 12:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done - Brightness corrected again, tried your hint, but these levels were too bright. - Arcalino 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Like to discuss it after the corrections --Arcalino (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine to me. --Kreuzschnabel 21:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good enough to me --Rjcastillo 15:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Kinderprinzessin-Julia-Maria-I-Rosenmontag-Muelheim-2013-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Julia Maria 1st, carnevalistic child princess on the Rose Monday's procession of Mülheim an der Ruhr, session 2012/13 --Tuxyso 16:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Motion blur. --Danrok 16:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    Where do you see motion blur? If you know Rose Monday's procession you should also know that the protagonists throw candy from the wagon. My intention was to show the moment of throwing thus you have motion blur at the hand / arm, for sure. --Tuxyso 16:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd usually agree with Tuxyso but not in this case with the hand in front of the face and a very disturbing shadow in the bottom right Poco a poco 20:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree. the other photo is probably a better candidate. --Esquilo 10:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 Info I've already nominated the other photo. Feel free to vote with "Pro" :) I've first nominated this one because I think the face is slightly sharper here. --Tuxyso 10:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Globen_SkyView_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gondola lift, "SkyView", on the south side of the Ericsson Globe, Stockholm. --Kallerna 15:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Not sure I like the crop here. Mattbuck 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, nice perspective. --Indeedous 20:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective is terrible. 11 is much better. --Esquilo 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO there is a problem with the white balance, it seems green casted. --PierreSelim 19:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 18:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Hiddensee Rathaus 2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The town hall of Hiddensee, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. -- Felix Koenig 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose  Underexposed see notes --The Photographer 20:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Doesn't seem too bad to me. Mattbuck 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The marked area is slightly underexpoed but IMHO the lightning of the main motive is OK and brings the building out well. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)