Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 10 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Valle de Pineta - Marca GR 19 - 01.jpg[edit]

  • Sorry but the main subject is the trail mark and IMO it's in focus. I'd like to hear other opinions. BTW, f/2 was intentionally chosen for getting a shallow DoF, 1/5000 s is the consequence. --Basotxerri 20:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Not even all of the trail mark is in focus, but we'll see what other people think at CR. -- Ikan Kekek 21:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak  Support Difficult, but I support the nomination because I like the idea and because it is handled very well. If the image would have been taken with one more f-stop (that should give a little more DOF to the trail mark), maybe there wont be any doubt about QI-Status. --Dirtsc 09:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I too like the idea so I'd love it if you'd shoot more images like this one, but I think the whole trail mark should be in focus and this one is not. A bit deeper DoF should handle that, possibly changing the angle a bit.--Peulle 15:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your comments. At least I had to try --Basotxerri (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 08:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casa Consistorial - Alcúdia - Tower 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of the Casa Consistorial, Alcúdia, Majorca --Llez 16:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 16:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice colours and sharpness, but what about the shed in the forground? It makes the tower look incomplete to my eyes. --Shishir 18:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info It is the roof of the Casa Consistorial, see also [here] --Llez 19:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I understand Shishir's comment but in this case the foreground isn't too dominant and the main subject is sharp. GQ to me. --Basotxerri 20:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 06:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 01:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Renault_4_CV_im_Thurgau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Renault 4 CV --JoachimKohlerBremen 11:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose It's a nice image, but the DoF is too shallow IMO; too much of the car is out of focus.--Peulle 16:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that it is sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 07:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This photo appears overexposed, what with the blown-looking sky in the background, in addition to the diffuse focus. Part of the car virtually disappears. -- Ikan Kekek 06:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not well focused, I'm afraid. --A.Savin 16:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 01:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Ostercappeln - Darpvenne - Eisenzeithaus - Rieddach 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the thatched roof of the iron age building in Darpvenne. Ostercappeln, Lower Saxony, Germany --Basotxerri 15:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Cool! :) Good quality. --W.carter 15:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp at the bottom and overexposed at the top. --Ermell 20:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment If I may, the upper layers of thatched roofs always get sun-bleached to a point when they are almost partially white and as for unsharp, I wouldn't expect anyone to do focus stacking outdoors on such a roof edge. The edge of such roofs are mostly rounded or at an angle so to choose part of the edge as sharp seems a logical choice here. --W.carter 23:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - IMO, in a photo like this in which you have a view only of thatching, having enough of it sharp is sufficient. It doesn't matter to me that part of a relatively uniform substance is unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek 23:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The DoF is a bit too shallow here, IMO, leaving only a small horizontal section of the image sharp while most of it remains out of focus. Also, there as quite a bit of noise.--Peulle 10:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I see everything clearly and sharp, for me good enough --Rabax63 21:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, everything isn't sharp, I have to admit... --Basotxerri 15:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition, relevant parts are sharp, some very small clipping areas do not disturb. --Smial 12:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 01:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Fluss-Seeschwalbe_im_Vogelschutzgebiet_Federseeried_(DE-7923-401)-Jagdflug02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common tern in a swoop to catch a prey --AWeith 21:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 06:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC).
  •  Oppose I don't see the quality. Charlesjsharp 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO this is an "either/or" shot. The subject moves quickly so it's difficult to catch and create a sharp image. If you had succeeded, however, it would no doubt be a solid FP candidate, not just a QI. As it is, however, it's neither.--Peulle 19:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support May be that someone does not see the good quality. But I see the difficulty to take such an image. Perhaps it should be tighter cropped. But I think that it is good for QI. -- Spurzem 20:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle. Too unsharp. --Basotxerri 08:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough --Martin Falbisoner 10:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Exceptional and difficult recording, imo good enough for a QI --Rabax63 21:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   Voting completed. --Peulle 15:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)