Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 05 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2021_Powiat_pszczyński,_Golasowice,_Kościół_ewangelicko-augsburski_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lutheran church. Golasowice, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 17:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, good composition. But the image is lacking sharpness and a too intense vertical correction led to an unrealistic impression of the church. --Augustgeyler 18:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: See if you like the picture better now.
    •  Support I think it can count as QI. Have we to discuss? -- Spurzem 19:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry, but I do not agree. I think you've got too much high expectations to this project (Quality Images). For my experience here for many years, much worse images were promoted. I think others should decide:) --Halavar 19:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
      • ✓ Done New version uploaded. Hope it's better now:) --Halavar 19:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
        •  Comment Thank you for editing. But the curch still looks distorted which is clearly speaking against QI. --Augustgeyler 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The right side is slightly out of focus, but not critical IMO. --LexKurochkin 13:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 17:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per others --Smial 09:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 10:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

File:A80386DX-25_SX218.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Intel 386DX - CPU Processor 25MHz, 32 Bit, PGA132 --Mister rf 00:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hard white background without any shadow makes it hard to understand its 3D form unless you know what CPUs look like. --Frupa 08:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment First of all, thank you for your opinion. May I need you to remember here’s not the FP area. Can you help me to find if there are any technical issues regarding this subject? --Mister rf 12:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment You should add the information that it is a digitally post-processed photo, which may be important for subsequent users. At least the information that it is a focus stack should be included. --Smial 20:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
        •  Comment The "retouched image" notification was there, added at the time of upload. My mistake for not using the template for the photo stacking as well, but has been corrected. Thank you. --Mister rf 07:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
          •  Comment Oh, sorry, I must have overlooked the notification then. --Smial 09:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. I saw many hardware images with transparent or pure white background (like many good images by Evan-Amos). This isn't really a problem. The pins might a bit darker to get a better contrast compared to the background, but it's fine --PantheraLeo1359531 17:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I fail to see the problem. This is like a good company product photo to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite usual approach to photograph small objects and nicely done. --LexKurochkin 13:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't like such strong image manipulations (and also find corresponding professional stock photos awful), but that is a matter of personal taste. From a technical point of view, the photo undoubtedly meets the QI criteria. --Smial 09:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 10:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Leonstein_Leonsteiner_Weg_Burgruine_Leonstein_Burgtor_16042023_3769.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the castle ruin Leonstein, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image. But the chromatic aberration at the edges of the wall should be fixed. --Augustgeyler 05:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Neutral I was wrong. There is no CA. --Augustgeyler 07:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me. No CA visible.--Ermell 10:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support There is some very slight blue fringing at high contrast areas but not really disturbing IMO. --LexKurochkin 14:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. Fringing (no CA) not disturbing regarding the resolution. --Smial 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Thank you. Interesting. How can I see the difference between CA and fringing? --Augustgeyler 18:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment Short version: Fringing occurs practically only at very high contrasts and typically has the hue of the brighter area. It is an error or peculiarity of the sensor, a kind of electronic crosstalk if you will. CA is an aberration of the lens. Mostly of the red-green variety, less often of the blue-yellow variety. But it is actually always these colour pairs, except with apochromatically corrected lenses. CA is independent of local image contrast, although it is easier to detect at high-contrast edges. The lateral chromatic aberration usually increases from the centre to the edge of the image. It is relatively easy to correct electronically. Longitudinal chromatic aberration occurs throughout the image. It is not easy to correct. --Smial 20:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
        •  Comment Thank you Smial! --Augustgeyler 21:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 17:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 18:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 10:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Holmestrand_dec.22_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Holmestrand from the west, with Langøya (the Long Island) in the background.--Peulle 10:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Looks tilted CCW according to sea horizontal line --Halavar 12:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done, thanks for your review. :) --Peulle 07:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment Better, but still tilted. Look at the sea level - it's not straight. --Halavar 13:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
        •  Comment Are you sure? I'm using the buildings for reference and the verticals there look straight to me. The water does give a bit of an optical illusion, since the fjord heads from the north (left) to south (right).--Peulle 06:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
          •  Comment Yes, verticals are straight, but I was talking about horizontal line, according to sea level. Sea level horizontally should always be straight. But that is not a big problem, it can be fix in a software. --Halavar 19:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
            •  Question I don't think I understand you. There is no "horizon" here; it's a fjord. If I were to tilt the image so that the opposite coastline is horizontal, all of the buildings would look like the tower of Pisa. The reason the water appears to be leaning is that the further to the right you go, the more the fjord opens up. To the left, it narrows, giving the impression that it goes inwards. It's optically deceptive.--Peulle 17:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info I'd like to hear some more views on this, please. Perhaps there's some misunderstanding I don't see as to what the problem is.--Peulle 06:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 10:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1° rotation cw required to level the horizon. As a result, the verticals of the buildings don't become tilted. --Milseburg 12:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support okay for me now. --Milseburg 19:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose With Milseburg. But this small rotation error is minor and could be fixed easily. I like the composition. But I think the image is lacking sharpness and in some way detail as well. F6.3 might have been too wide open for that kind of shot with objects in the foreground as well as nice landscape at the far horizon. --August Geyler (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Rotation is fixed. I'm just not good with the DoF. --Augustgeyler 07:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done--Peulle 07:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you! New version is much better, sea level is finally straight:) Now I can support. --Halavar 11:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 15:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)