Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 14 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Juist,_Schwarze_Bude_--_2014_--_3615.jpg[edit]

File:Camembert_de_Normandie_(AOP)_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Camembert de Normandie --Coyau 14:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --XRay 14:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose I disagree. Wrong white balance. This camembert isn´t that yellow. inside. --Hubertl 15:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Yes it is, and the wb is correct. --Coyau 15:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
     Comment no problem, but then please, declare it as poor quality, almost rotten cheese!--Hubertl 16:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Could you please keep your personal interpretations about how a cheese should be to yourself? it is getting tiring. --Coyau 16:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Whithin the same series of the same cheese you have extremely different tonal values. Don´t nominate your pictures here, when you don´t want to get your pictures assessed seriously. And its part of the QI-process to describe a subject as good as possible. There are probably hundreds of producers for Camembert de Normandie, what is the origin of this one? Some of them produce quality cheese and sell it in special cheese shops, but I´m afraid, this one has been bought somewhere in a supermarket. But this is not the main problem and will not influence my rating, the wrong white balance is more important. BTW, you will find the producer name on the label. --Hubertl 09:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    FYI, and for the second time, the white balance is fine and consistent throughout the whole series thank you, I did it manually. As for the cheese, it was bought in a special cheese shop, and the content of the labels is in the description. --Coyau (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Yann 20:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI, and for the third time: When you make pictures from the same subject within the same series using a light tent, you must be aware, that - against all the promises of the manufacturer of a light tent - that you won´t have even lighting conditions in every part of the tent. In this case, the obvious problem is always at the front part with a massiv light reduction. This is not your fault, you cannot solve this problem without using an additional light (remote flash), using a longer exposure time will just overexpose the upper parts. The point is, you have no light source on the front side, just - afaik - an metallic reflection foil. And therefore you will always have this disturbing shadows. like at the bottom of this image: --Hubertl (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, its easier to work with an open tent, using a remote flash. You have more control combined with less effort. I`m working at a table with four medium-sized softboxes, 1400 watts in front, 600 Watt obliquely from behind, however, with more distance, of course. Even so, I use and need sometimes an additional flash with an softener. --Hubertl 22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 Support Not that sharp, but good enough for QI. I don't see any issue with the wb, which is normal. And natural camemberts (not gogglish industrial european so-called camemberts) are really so (and tasty !)--Jebulon 14:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Zillebeke (3).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rond point du Zuiderring N37, Zillebeke Région_flamande, Province de Flandre-Occidentale.- Belgique.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Thibaut120094 22:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong denoising artifacts & still noisy --Kreuzschnabel 21:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment please, Kreuzschnabel, there is no denoising, no artifact. No offense, it's the original pic.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment I don’t doubt it’s the original pic but please have a look at the edges of the tap at 100%. Artifacts ("crumbling") everywhere. Even worse on the background roof. For your information: Every camera is doing denoising before saving the JPG – to get un-denoised pics out of camera you have to use RAW. --Kreuzschnabel 20:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
        •  Comment Thank you for this advice,But RAW. is a method that I do not control very well. I'm going to get serious.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support with all due respect, @Kreuzschnabel: , but these artifacts are acceptable für QI. At least for me. Crucify me now for that! ;-) --Hubertl 22:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Something like that wasn’t considered acceptable when I joined QIC back in 2012. Obviously, the quality of digital photography has deteriorated significantly in the meantime. My fault not to notice. --Kreuzschnabel 08:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jpeg artifacts and lots of noise. --C messier 08:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC
  •  Oppose oversharpening artefacts --Cccefalon 08:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very noisy. --El Grafo 09:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I agree, this is not QI-worthy due to the artifaction. While it is a very cool image, this should not be QI. Mattbuck 10:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --C messier 07:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Red_kite_(Milvus_milvus).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red kite (Milvus milvus), Bernwood Meadows, Oxfordshire --Charlesjsharp 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    Too noisy. --Kadellar 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Donereduced noise --Charlesjsharp 12:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. -- Spurzem 23:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support A very nice catch! — 0x010C; ~papotoire~ 22:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice. --Dirtsc 21:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 07:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Leptosia nina N05369.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Leptosia nina --Vengolis 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality --Charlesjsharp 13:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose Most of it is out of focus or not sharp. Sorry. --Hockei 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose Subject out of focus -- KTC 21:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)