Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 28 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:15_Grand_Rue_in_Nimes_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture over the door of the building at 15 Grand Rue in Nîmes, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 16:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The right side is out of focus. --F. Riedelio 11:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject of the photo is sharp. The less focused areas in the corners are not truly relevant in my opinion. Let's discuss. --Lion-hearted85 12:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 22:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The main subject's sharpness is good. Rhododendrites 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. The important thing is the face. -- Ikan Kekek 16:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others --LexKurochkin 18:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 12:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

File:European_peacock_butterfly_(Aglais_io).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Peacock butterfly on thistle flower, Sanitz municipality. -- Radomianin 17:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose not enough in focus --Charlesjsharp 10:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    Due to the depth of field and the shooting angle, more focus was not possible. IMO the dynamics of the shot is worth asking for another opinion. Thank you :) --Radomianin 15:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough IMHO. If you wish to discuss, please set the record to "Discuss" (instead of "Decline") --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
     Comment Actually you are right, dear @Robert Flogaus-Faust: , a discussion would not be bad. Against the QI guidelines I find that the partial blur gives the motif more depth -- Radomianin 23:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)  Oppose Thank you for your review, I wanted to get a second opinion :) --Radomianin 18:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The depth of field is actually a little small, but that contributes positively to the image effect. Lighting and colours look very natural. --Smial 00:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right wing blurred. --F. Riedelio 13:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support We are already near to macro area here and therefore the DoF is very small. f/8 is a sensible aperture on an APS-C camera for this kind of stuff, so more DoF is difficult. IMHO we should not require focus stacking for QIs, especially not for photos of creatures which tend to fly away. --Aristeas 11:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment We do not need focus stacking Aristeas, but the photographer should focus on the eye not on the end of one wing. F11 better than F8. This demands that the photographer uses single point focus. Spot metering is usually better than the pattern metering chosen here. Charlesjsharp 13:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oops – you are right, especially the pattern metering is an odd choice here. I forgot to check for that (probably because I never use pattern metering or similar stuff myself, only spot or manual focus). I had assumed that the photographer had focussed intentionally on the wing instead of the eye because with butterflies many people regard the wings as more important than the eyes. But letting just the camera select the focus is not appropriate. Striking out my support, sorry. --Aristeas 07:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dear Reviewers, thank you for your comments. It was already a while ago when I took this series of pictures on the meadow. But I remember that I focused on the wing, in macro mode with the close-up scene program. In this mode only a single focus point is offered to me because of the shallow depth of field. There were other images in this series where the depth of field was more evenly capturing the little animal, but I like this one the most because of the dynamic vibrancy. --Radomianin (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 06:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)