Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 18 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:MAN Lion's City Hybrid n°124 Reichel CTPM.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Autobus de Perpignan --Billy69150 15:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. --Christian Ferrer 19:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    The author is a Wikimedian. --Kvardek du 09:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)You must crop the top or clone out the disturbing cut thing at top --Christian Ferrer 11:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy69150 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 05:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 01:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:North Mountain near Ricketts Glen State Park 3.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination North Mountain. Jakec 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose banding in the sky --Christian Ferrer 08:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    I thought it might be okay in this case since it's so slight that it's barely visible. Jakec 13:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    Taking to CR per my previous comment. Jakec 21:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced noise reduction and sharpening -> overprocessed. --Smial 08:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. chromatic aberration visible at left edge. --Kreuzschnabel 13:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brushtail_Possum_IMG_5005.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) in Roma Street Parklands, Brisbane, Queensland. --Bald white guy 03:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose The face is slightly out of focus. --Ruthven 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
     Info Eyes in focus. Face is soft because large aperture and fast shutter speed (with shallow DoF) needed to capture normally nocturnal animal in low light before it moved. Other Brushtail possum images in commons shot using flash causing significant red-eye reflection. This approach with no flash and low DoF acceptable IMHO but depends on feedback --Bald white guy 08:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the nose is really sharp. --Steindy 15:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)  Support Okay now. --Steindy 01:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review and update --Bald white guy 10:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat low DOF, but very nice composition, colors, and lighting which compensate the small drawbacks. Slight downscaling would help. -- Smial 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Downscaled slightly and sharpened. Hopefully it helps.Bald White guy 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data? Yann 21:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry Yann - my old version of Photoshop Elements strips the EXIF when exporting the RAW file to JPG. It's a pain. I probably should upgrade but baulked when I saw Adobe's new pay per month subscription model. Maybe I need to add it manually, although EXIF not essential for QI --Bald white guy 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support. Maybe "essential" (SHOULD) for some expert reviews, but not "required" (MUST). Hopefully I'll never need ExifTool.Be..anyone 07:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support GQ. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (083).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A ÖBB Railjet with ÖBB 1116.224 passes through the Neunkirchen railwaystation. --Steindy 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Swell colour rendition, train and clouds. Perfect saturation. Very sharp. QI. The 1116 is a real beauty! --Johann Jaritz 04:55, 09 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't like to intervene, Johann Jaritz, but an inevitable standard in QIC is, not to promote when there are visible chromatic aberrations. Also the poles should be rectilinear.. --Cccefalon 05:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Train poles rejuvenate from the bottom to the top, they also lean a bit to one side. Your arguments seem kind of pettifoggery. But well ... --Johann Jaritz 09:55, 09 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Mein Punkt sind nicht die Masten, deswegen hätte ich nicht eingegriffen. Es geht um die CA; die habe ich auch beispielhaft annotiert. --Cccefalon 12:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
          •  Comment Cccefalon couldn't you answer in english? @ Johann Jaritz, this CA will see only Cccefalon. It's just Cccefalons usual way with-pulled by the hair arguments to make my pictures bad. --Steindy 21:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
            Yeah, right... CA is pretty obvious and hardly made up. --DXR 22:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I don't have any hazzle with your photos, in fact I like the train series very much. But it must be allowed to point out a flaw without stirring up defamations and the allegation, that there is a personal reason towards you. It is not and never was. However, if you don't like my reviews, I won't waste my time for you in future. --Cccefalon 13:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Cccefalon, no you do not sacrifice your precious time for me. On your strange Opposes I can do without. And positive you anyway never rated a photo of me. You've always wanted only an opportunity to make my photos bad. --Steindy 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
                • Why always so defensive? Why would anybody here care to bash somebody? There is no logical payoff whatsoever... If you think that the problems pointed out are irrelevant, you can try to get the rules changed to be softer on these problems. Fact is that apparently quite a few people see them to be a problem. QI is supposed to help us better understand these issues and avoid them. If you see critical comments as a personal affront, you miss the opportunity to learn from mistakes everybody made a few times before. --DXR 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sides leaning (even visible on the building edge on the left), chromatic aberration in all the overhead structures. Magenta cast on clouds (unnatural colour). --Kreuzschnabel 06:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) New version acceptable. --Kreuzschnabel 09:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Kreuzschnabel, what should I yet say after such a technical comments? Maybe a little help: overhead lines are known to be of copper (in Germany as well as in Austria and in many other countries around the world), copper is known to be reddish and this is particularly visible at the newly mounted overhead lines logically. Or maybe CAs are here to see? I can't for the red copper, also not for the colors of the sky. And oh yes, before I forget, when the photo is about the building and not the train. I've completely overlooked when photographed. The train just came in the way of me. Beg your pardon. About some solid-fetched comments I'm only wondering... --Steindy 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment I’m always having a really good laugh reading your replies. Magenta copper? Building as a main subject when I only wrote it indicates the pic as a whole shows perspective distortion? Please go on, it’s too funny! Pity DXR uploaded a much worse version now, taking away all the copper. How is the train supposed to drive on? Anyway,  Support I’m going to support this version, if you don’t mind, since the unavoidable shortcomings have miraculously disappeared now. --Kreuzschnabel 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Steindy: QI for me, good quality. --Dnalor 01 09:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA visible without magnification. -- Smial 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Question Smial, please could you note the CA? I can't find it in the best sake. --Steindy 18:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. I hope there is no copper and no moss on that brand new concrete poles. -- Smial 23:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've uploaded a version with purple fringing correction (this is different from traditional CA BTW), feel free to revert. I wonder why it is this strong in the normal image. Was the image shot with a very large aperture? --DXR 10:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you DXR! The photo was taken with ISO 100, 50 mm focal length (equivalent) and aperture 4.5. The shutter speed was 1/500. The sky was cloudy and milky, so almost near ideal weather photo without harsh contrasts. --Steindy 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have a scaled 24" HD-monitor and I see no CA and no purple fringing; not in the original and not in the cutted version. What I do not see or what is not there, I can not even correct. Sorry! It's not worth getting upset because of this pictures and comments. This reminds me of my nerves are too good. The criticans are right and I am wrong. I give up!!! Regards --Steindy 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Current version looks fine for me. --Uoaei1 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as Uoaei1 --Hubertl 12:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data? Yann 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer on your disc. --Steindy 22:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support New version properly adressed the issues. --Cccefalon 06:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Picunda,_Plaża_(20).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The beach. Pitsunda, Gagra District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Overprocessed --Daniel Case 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Comment I don't understand what do you mean by using this word. You didn't explain. Also, you didn't tell me what I could fix here. We need others opinions. --Halavar 17:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand too --Livioandronico2013 20:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not think that over processed color--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as above --Hubertl 11:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Picunda,_Plaża_(10).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The beach. Pitsunda, Gagra District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  OpposeOverprocessed --Daniel Case 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I don't understand what do you mean by using this word. You didn't explain. Also, you didn't tell me what I could fix here. We need others opinions. --Halavar 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand too --Livioandronico2013 20:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not think that over processed color,--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as above --Hubertl 11:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (046).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A freighttrain with cars ppasses the Neunkirchen railwaystation. --Steindy 00:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC) *  Comment please decrease the shadow areas in the front of the hauling engine--Hubertl 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Front brightened. --Steindy 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline A little overexposed, some odd crops --Daniel Case 06:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    @ Daniel Case Strange. The one user, it is too dark and for you it's too overexposed? I do not know my way around. Other votes please. --Steindy 21:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the cars on the train are burned out (overexposed) --Christian Ferrer 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment This has silver-gray wagons and the glass panes of the cars are like that. --Steindy 22:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Christian--Livioandronico2013 23:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose All new copper cars, poles, and wires. CA, burnt areas. -- Smial 08:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (051).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation: Sight to the north of the station. --Steindy 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp, poor DoF --Daniel Case 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment How much do you want by using a 300 mm tele? The distance to the railway sleepers is 60 cm, so that you can work it out. Other votes please. --Steindy 01:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support it´s though Ok for me.--Hubertl 09:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 09:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:27, 09 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --Christian Ferrer 17:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not sharp enough for me too, sorry. --Hockei 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Christian Ferrer --Livioandronico2013 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing sharp in right half of frame. Of course you won’t get much DoF at this focal length but I think it was a mistake to put the focus on the near pole in the center, making everything farther blurry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes, I'm too stupid to adjust the focus correctly. It also was not about to show the track prepared for installation pieces from the entire construction site. It is also not important what I thought at the photo, important is only what the critics say! If someone came up with the idea that I have tried to document the entire construction process? --Steindy 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Einer meiner Lehrer sagte immer: „Ein Foto, das eine Erklärung benötigt – und sei es nur ein Wort! –, ist kein gutes Foto. Ein gutes Foto spricht immer für sich selbst und vermittelt dem Betrachter die Absicht des Fotografen.“. --Kreuzschnabel 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data? Yann 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer on your disc. --Steindy 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)