Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2011

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Monaco_BW_2011-06-07_17-52-21.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Monaco, Musée Océanographique, U-Boot --Berthold Werner 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Background is confusing, then the compo is not good in my opinion.--Jebulon 20:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment The author cannot manage this background.--PereslavlFoto 21:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
      •  Oppose The author can manage the framing, angle, time of the day (lighting conditions), DOF, etc. The multitude of cut-off persons and objects are distracting. --Elekhh 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do agree with Elekhh. Also green-and-red chromatic aberrations in the tree.--PereslavlFoto 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Blick_auf_den_Grimselsee_und_den_Raeterichsbodensee.jpg[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination a new version (I hope a better one) is uploaded. --Alchemist-hp 19:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schopfheim_-_Alte_Stadtkirche12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schopfheim: Old City Church, vault and triumphal arch of choir --Taxiarchos228 09:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not balanced composition: See note to crop the image--Lmbuga 01:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Lmbuga, + tight crop above.--Jebulon 13:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Top crop cannot be corrected. --Elekhh 03:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -Elekhh 02:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Johan_Theorin_Göteborg_Book_Fair_2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Swedish crime writer Johan Theorin at Göteborg Book Fair 2011--ArildV 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I think you didn't use some noise reduction software, so there is some visible colour noise.--PereslavlFoto 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support image made under difficult light conditions - very good quality and clearly a QI to me --Carschten 11:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sometimes, I may agree with Carschten. Sometimes only...Clin--Jebulon 14:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
    • From now on we don't have to use noise reduction? Images that can be improved by denoising are still QI?--PereslavlFoto 18:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral To me not sharp enough, poor DOF, but I don't see color noise, I can see noise, but the dof it's too little IMO (f/2.8). Perhaps difficult light conditions, I'm not sure--Lmbuga 19:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I have changed "oppose" to "neutral", I don't understand about portraits of people--Lmbuga 19:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support i like a other crop but its QI. --Ralf Roletschek 19:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 02:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lanterne Moulin-Haut.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A garden lamp post.--Jebulon 21:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Background could be better; as they mentioned for my lampost photos, I could find some other lamposts in some other places, but not the ones I wanted to show...--PereslavlFoto 21:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • ??? I remember your attempts, but I don't understand what you mean precisely here...--Jebulon 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I mean — the background is the trouble for this very photo.--PereslavlFoto 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: the plants are a poor background for the most complicated part of the lamp (top). --Elekhh 21:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 14:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Felis silvestris catus (Berlioz)4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait of a domestic cat -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 08:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop/framing of the image --Chmee2 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not central enough and missing the cat ear so therefore not quality enough.Trongphu 04:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Trongphu 04:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nationalmuseum_(east_facade)_september_2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nationalmuseum, east facade. --ArildV 07:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion and blurry--Someone35 08:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality image, IMO. --Jakubhal 20:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion (see note) Can be fixed --Archaeodontosaurus 06:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thank you. I uploaded a new version. Regards--ArildV 07:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support this image has no distortions, while it lacks EXIF data.--PereslavlFoto 21:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sfu 07:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Zabrze Religi ratusz 30 08 2011 P8309295.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The former office building of Huta Zabrze (now city hall). --Nemo5576 08:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  SupportQI for me - Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 09:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but this is too dark in my eyes and also lacking quality --Taxiarchos228 09:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark and imho the lights of the cars are too disturbing --Berthold Werner 12:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No geocode, no English or Russian description. Not sharp, light paths could be avoided, hot spots.--PereslavlFoto 21:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me authentic darkness, QI. polish description for a photo from Poland is enough. --Ralf Roletschek 19:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Now it looks strange that Russian description & category were not enough for a photo from Russia. I faced several warnings about that.--PereslavlFoto 21:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
      • "Zabrze" is a town in Poland and "ratusz" is Town hall in polish. Sorry for my bad english --Ralf Roletschek 03:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) i have added es, ca, cs, ru & de - i dont knew, why it is no shown???
  •  Comment geocode added; to see description in six languages use pulldown menue under photo --J. Lunau 08:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support very special photo meeting all QI criteria IMHO --J. Lunau 08:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not really sharp. --Sfu 10:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Really speaking, light paths break everything. You were to take some other time to make the photo.--PereslavlFoto 13:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sfu 07:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:0 Piton sud de l'Aiguille du Midi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Piton Sud of the Aiguille du Midi Chamonix-Mont-Blanc, France.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 17:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad quality, high CA on the mountain and on the bird --Someone35 11:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, with 2,446 × 1,746 pixels, the CAs are important. Perspective correction? What happens with the vertical line of the signboard: To me, strong distortion--Lmbuga 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Cayambe. -- Marie-Claire 02:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The signboard is inclined, not vertical. -- KlausFoehl 08:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, no distortion. I will watch the image again--Lmbuga 10:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not really sharp, CA, JPG artifacts --Carschten 11:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
      •  Question and copyright violation because the image is copyrighted and I'm sure if this is really Beiwerk (is this exist in France anyway?) --Carschten 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Hard to decide : the sign is not the main subject, but it is an essential part of the composition. Maybe something like de minimis could apply.--Jebulon 10:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:0 Moulbaix - Moulin de la Marquie (1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The windmill "of the Marquise" in Moulbaix, Belgium. -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Someone35 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop. Needs some other votes IMO --Carschten 17:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI for me. --Ralf Roletschek 13:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight at top and at bottom. I can not understand the small size of the image with this crop. Commons recomends large sizes: Commons:Image guidelines (and the camera has 8 megapixels, not 4,1).--Lmbuga 18:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - Per Ralf Roletschek -- Marie-Claire 02:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of the crop.--Jebulon 13:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any problem. This is QI not FI, no need to be this harsh.Trongphu 23:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment QI are not an "underlevel" of FP...--Jebulon 15:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Strong Oppose: The image was downsampled IMO, other version can be possible--Lmbuga 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   ----Jebulon 13:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Jokulsarlon landscape.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jokulsarlon landscape with Vatnajokull in the background. --Someone35 11:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very nice -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 11:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit too blurry/noisy --High Contrast 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Where do you see noise/blur, High Contrast?--Someone35 16:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If you look closely at the water you can see this. It seems that this file has been compressed heavily so that the sky looks unsharp in addition, Someone35. --High Contrast 17:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The sky in unsharp because the focus in on the glaciers and the noise isn't that visible on the water--Someone35 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • No that has nothing to do with the chosen focus. Especially the clouds and the ice-gobbets appear pretty washed out. Moreover, the focus seems to be on the water surface in front of the image which is partly blurry. High Contrast 18:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Nothing in the image is blurry except for the clouds which are naturally blurry because they're made of evaporated water--Someone35 05:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with High Contrast, Someone35.--Jebulon 16:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI (!) to me --Carschten 19:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me also --Ralf Roletschek 20:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is somewhat tilted clockwise. Very easily fixed though. Could you? --Ximonic 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is indeed a bit blurry. And it is obvious that this photo was jpg-compressed very hard, but still you can image the jpg artefacts. --A.Ceta 12:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Where? Stop being a troll and randomly review people's images (as you did with 2 other images). There's no visible jpg compression here and this picture wasn't "jpg-compressed very hard" as you call it.--Someone35 13:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose With 2,816 × 2,112 pixels, very blurry to me--Lmbuga 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Only the clouds are blurry and that's because clouds are naturally blurred... Where else do you see blur?--Someone35 08:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it needs anothers opinions, but the dark zones of the mountains haven't details. The edges aren't good to me (but with 2,816 × 2,112 pixels. If the image had 30 megapixels (not 6), for me it would be QI)--Lmbuga 18:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, too much see and too much sky, the image nedds to be cropped IMO--Lmbuga 18:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll crop it now, but I don't have the money to buy a 30 MP camera (it costs like $5000 and I prefer to buy something more useful with that money) so currently I only have an old 6 MP camera--Someone35 12:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is no problem to upload images that were taken by a low price camera. But it is quite difficult to take quality images with a bad camera equipment. And you must accept that fact. --null 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Tell that to my other 27 QIs, this image's quality is good enough for QI and lower quality images have been promoted already so I see no problem with promoting this one, especially after I cropped it--Someone35 06:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal comment: I'm not "null", but I do not like your ethics or the ethics of your comments--Lmbuga 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
(es) Ya le he dicho anteriormente que tengo un coche barato pero una buena cámara. Me siento juzgado por estarme usted comparando con usted. No me compare: Usted toma sus decisiones vitales y yo las mías--Lmbuga 19:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 19:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Todtnau-Brandenberg_-_St._Wendelin5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Brandenberg: Saint Wendelin Church, crucifix --Taxiarchos228 06:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Amrum 08:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the white balance (a bit pink IMO), but above all there is a problem at the right edge (please see annotation), which must be corrected before a promotion--Jebulon 13:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info image cropped --Carschten 14:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit noisy and the white balance not perfect adjusted, but QI to me nonetheless --Carschten 14:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I agree now, thanks for the crop...--Jebulon 14:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 08:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ruine Reussenstein (2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reussenstein castle, Southern Germany --Harke 13:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --Jakubhal 09:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some overexposed parts, and a bit soft IMO. Not enough for an 'oppose', but needs a confirmation vote in CR.--Jebulon 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support sharpness could be better, but the quality is good enough. Better a bit soft than hopelessly oversharpened --Carschten 14:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  CommentThanks, I agree, that's what I call a "confirmation vote"!!--Jebulon 14:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Todtnau_-_Kriegerdenkmal4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Todtnau: War memorial --Taxiarchos228 07:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 06:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, even if the so-so sharpness is acceptable, the bad-cropped and distorted house in the right corner below looks disturbing, enough for a Consensual review IMO.--Jebulon 22:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Needs crop--Someone35 12:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor details, disturbing distorted house in the bottom right corner. --Carschten 14:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 08:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-07-17-hechingen-by-RalfR-046.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination inside of the Stiftskirche Hechingen; Fresko --Ralf Roletschek 19:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment This photo is little tilted to the left. --Jakubhal 07:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Someone35 16:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo needs correction before promotion. --Jakubhal 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now. --Jakubhal 19:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 15:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Besançon - quai vauban.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Besançon - quai vauban -- Ludo29 16:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 12:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks description (only in French, but they told me descriptions and categories in Russian do not suit). CA in the far left part. CA in the right side, also unsharp there.--PereslavlFoto 21:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • What CA ? Ludo29 07:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC) 
      • Red and green on the windows (left), green (right).--PereslavlFoto 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm very sorry, but your answer it's not clear. What is CA ? I don't understand this word, I can't improve this picture. Ludo29 23:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I beg your pardon. CA means en:chromatic aberration, these green and red contours around vertical lines. They can be removed in RAW processing software, or with desaturating tool, or with local CA removing filters in graphic editor. You may also see this vivid sample of chromatic aberrations.--PereslavlFoto 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Ok. Thanks. I understand your critisms now. :) Ok. I've the raw file. I'll try to improve that. Ludo29 09:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PereslavlFoto --Carschten 14:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 14:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Aftersteg_-_St._Anna6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aftersteg: Saint Anna Church, altar --Taxiarchos228 08:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, there is a problem with the light at right. Jebulon 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Jebulon ---- Jakubhal 06:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 08:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Tunau_-_Evangelische_Kirche4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tunau: Sacred Heart Church, interior --Taxiarchos228 08:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the unfortunate light is really disturbing the view of the altar. --Jebulon 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon --Sfu 09:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Jef Lambeaux JPG1a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Le Triomphe de la femme sculpture by Jef Lambeaux Park of Mariemont Morlanwelz-Mariemont, Belgium.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 07:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs other opinions to me, too tight (especially at left) and CAs (red CAs at top of the head)--Lmbuga 00:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Carschten 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg City 3 rue du Curé .jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Buildings in Luxembourg City. --Cayambe 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Are these typical buildings or special ones? Also there's some CA on the rooftops--Someone35 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC).
  • As said in the descr., the building at left is listed as Cultural heritage monument.:-) I do not see ANY CA on the roof tops on any of my two calibrated screens. --Cayambe 18:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • CA I can not see but the rooftops I can retouch or crop unsigned!
  •  Comment Please, do not modify or retouch the present file. If you want to do so, please re-upload it as a derivative work.--Cayambe 12:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC).
  •  Info Moved to consensual review. --Cayambe 14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Il y a quelque chose de bizarre dans le traitement de la perspective des mansardes, non ?--Jebulon 19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The image was taken with a very wide angle lens (14 mm) in a narrow street. There was very little perspective correction. Distortions are unavoidable with this sort of lenses, I see them mainly in the left bottom corner. --Cayambe 07:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support wide-angle distortions are a bit disturbing, but QI to me (yes: Distortions are unavoidable with this sort of lenses) --Carschten 09:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 09:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Schloss Lichtenstein 04-2010.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination a castle --Trongphu 05:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 08:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Poor crop at top: antenna cut off --Carschten 09:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Agree, even if it is a flag pole and not an antenna. And I don't understand the "pro" consensus in FPC...--Jebulon 15:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Todtnau_-_St._Jakobus_der_Ältere5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Todtnauberg: Church of Saint James, son of Zebedee, campanile --Taxiarchos228 06:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Strong and obvious halo, but maybe it is not an issue for QI, I don't know...--Jebulon 12:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
    Son of Zebedee? As in the Magic Roundabout? I like it. Mattbuck 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC) May we have a discusion about this halo, please ?--Jebulon 14:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Wieder so ein Halo (durch Tonemapping entstanden?), außerdem stören mich die Äste die von rechts in Bild ragen. --Berthold Werner 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I think the issue is due to HDRing, yes. Mattbuck 02:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose haloes. W.S. 06:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Gîte Moulin-Haut Dordogne 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A holidays cottage in Dordogne.--Jebulon 21:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Over-sharpened, looks in full resolution like a painting rather than a photograph--Someone35 13:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) I disagree, but It could sound like a compliment...--Jebulon 13:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)  Support Ok, closing this section --Someone35 16:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose per Someone35's very first comment --Carschten 14:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Have to agree with Carschten. W.S. 06:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its ok --Ralf Roletschek 09:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lotta_Gröning_Göteborg_Book_Fair_2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Swedish journalist Lotta Gröning at Göteborg Book Fair 2011. --ArildV 13:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • ...But the microphone...--Jebulon 19:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • true ... but how often can you shoot a celebrity journalist in a good light (the broadcast television directly from the book fair) and prepared by a professional makeup artist. You are the judge and decide. regards --ArildV 19:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Has to be retouched, it is quite easy. Wrong WB also, people are not this yellow.--PereslavlFoto 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Decline so quickly is a bit harsh. Needs a discussion IMO, in spite of the microphone, the author's arguments sound right to me...--Jebulon 22:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It is very very easy task to retouche the microphone and to set the correct WB. A scene is fine, but needs retouching.--PereslavlFoto 23:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded a new version with (i hope) better WB. I'm skeptical about retouch the microphone, in my opinion, we should be very restrictive to retouch photographs to be used in an encyclopedia. If that means the picture will not become a QI, I have absolutely no problem with it. --ArildV 16:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Colors are far much better now. I agree with the doubt about removing or not the microphone, I've almost the same opinion. But maybe the subject is not good for QI because of the microphone. Let's discuss about that (please notice that I din't decline, I remain still neutral for now).--Jebulon 08:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment That is why without this thing the subject will be better. One of my QI was improved by removing the human head, that was a bit harder than a microphone :-).--PereslavlFoto 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment Fortunately, it is not forbidden to remove disturbing elements, if the goal is not to deceive the reviewers, and if explained in file description page. I remove elements (tourists, trash bins etc...) frequently, as to emphasize the main subject of my pictures. Furthermore, I think that knowing how to manage hardwares (like Photoshop or Gimp) is good for global improvement of photographical technics. --Jebulon 13:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't understand the discussion about the microphone. She is a journalist, the micro is not disturbing, IMO it is an important part of the picture. --DKrieger 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --QI for me, the microphone must be. --Ralf Roletschek 07:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 08:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ford_Eifel_BW_2011-09-03_14-29-40.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Eifel from 1938 --Berthold Werner 16:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Beautiful car, but poor context. QI to me--Lmbuga 19:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Poor context indeed. Very disturbing, enough for a CR IMO. --Jebulon 06:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose You're right, sorry I must change the vote--Lmbuga 12:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Domes of Saint Isaac's Cathedral in Saint Petersburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Domes of Saint Isaac's Cathedral in Saint Petersburg.jpg —ViseMoD 13:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I like the idea of composition very much, but dark part are really too dark, IMO. Could you improve this ?--Jebulon 13:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Seems like it depends on a browser. Google Chrome definitely makes shades darker while in Safari I can see exactly the picture I've edited in a graphical editor. —ViseMoD 17:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --Carschten 14:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The inclination, which is a deliberate choice, adds nothing essential and is disturbing --Archaeodontosaurus 19:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 12:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I can see details in the dark parts. (With GoogleChrome - no browser is supposed to change coulours). The composition makes sense to me for use 45° turned. --Ikar.us 02:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 14:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Domes of Trinity Cathedral in Saint Petersburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Domes of Trinity Cathedral in Saint Petersburg —ViseMoD 13:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 18:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tight crop in combination with the rotation makes me dizzy. --Elekhh 03:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I've uploaded a version with more space. About angle, it's some kind of creative photo, but I'm not sure this principle can be used at Wiki. —ViseMoD 04:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very strong tilt, the domes are partly visible, still tight crop, wrong WB (too red), underexposed at least 1 step, could be sharper (use unsharp mask filter). Creative photos are for FI, not for QI. Избыточный наклон, вместо куполов показаны лишь их небольшие части, тесно обрезанный кадр, неточный баланс белого (красная побелка вместо совершенно белой побелки), недодержка по крайней мере в 1 ступень (серый вместо белого), и резкости могло бы быть побольше. И небо в двух снимках (тут и ниже) серое, что легко поправить при обработке.--PereslavlFoto 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment The geocode was added when I uploaded the photo - perhaps, you didn't notice it. The walls couldn't have different colour because the photo was taken at sunset. And I completely disagree that the photo is underexposure. The main object is right in the middle of the tonal range. Even if I decided to add 1 stop, the sky would be blown up. And finally, I prefer not use local correction, so there is no possibility to make the sky darker not darkening the domes. Sharpeness is fine in my opinion, otherwise there would be USM artefacts. I agree that the crop isn't so good. —ViseMoD 05:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I am sorry, did not notice the geocode. Sunset and other coloured light does not matter for changing the white balance. The main object cannot be in the middle due to it is white, not gray. The sky will be kept using HDR or other balancing ways. USM artefacts can be lowered with different levels for white and dark borders. Скажите пожалуйста, сколько времени ушло на обработку этой фотографии? Спасибо.--PereslavlFoto 14:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
        • In this case, I prefered not to touch WB because a slight magenta tilt gives a necessary mood, which meets my vision. One of basic principles of taking photographs says that the main object of interest in a scene should be placed in the middle of the tonal range. I don't use HDR technique because it doesn't contradict to human vision, in short - looks unnatural. Regarding sharpening, in my opinion sharpness of a photo can always be increased later, but it can't be done otherwise if an image has been already oversharpened. Дело не в том, сколько ушло времени (можно потратить 5 мин, можно полчаса, пробуя разные подходы), а в том, что я не согласен с Вашей критикой, за исключением претензий к наклону и, возможно, резкости. —ViseMoD 18:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
          • White and black items cannot be in the middle of the tonal range; they are brighter and darker than 15% gray. Later is when we are on this page. Остальное у вас скажу.--PereslavlFoto 00:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good tilt. --Ralf Roletschek 12:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The compo is interesting to me, but I miss more diagonal geometry in this case (the little dome centered or lined up with the big one)--Jebulon 13:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The inclination, which is a deliberate choice, adds nothing essential and is disturbing --Archaeodontosaurus 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 12:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unlike the other, this one isn't square nor symmetric and makes no sense to me. --Ikar.us 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 08:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Domes of Naval Cathedral in Kronstadt.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Domes of Naval Cathedral in Kronstadt —ViseMoD 13:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 18:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but for me it is a bad crop (to tigh near de dome and the top cross) -- Marie-Claire 10:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Marie-Claire. --Elekhh 03:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've added more space to the photo. Does it look better? —ViseMoD 04:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support too me it meets all QI criteria, to me second verson looks better --J. Lunau 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very strong tilt, the domes are hardly visible, tight crop.--PereslavlFoto 21:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support because it is very strong tilt. --Ralf Roletschek 12:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ralf --Carschten 09:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The inclination, which is a deliberate choice, adds nothing essential and is disturbing --Archaeodontosaurus 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 12:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 09:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Schopfheim_-_Alte_Stadtkirche1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schopfheim: Old City Church from East --Taxiarchos228 06:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Some CA on the lower part of the rooftop and the pipe in the right side of the image and the left side doesn't look very good in my opinion--Someone35 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • sorry, but I don't see any CA, the rooftop on the right is fixable --Taxiarchos228 07:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see CAs. To me the problem is the distortion (or the inclination): See the portal at left. I think that it's better "discuss"--Lmbuga 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion correction needed --Carschten 09:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose See above or as Carschten--Lmbuga 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 09:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Disneyland June 2008-29.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stunt action. Disneyland, Paris -- Alvesgaspar 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Yeah, it's an action shot and not easy to catch, but the quality is really bad and not good enough for a quality image, sorry. --Carschten 14:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
 Oppose Not good enough for a QI --A.Ceta 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 Support Good capture, a slight and unavoidable motion blur, QI for an action shot.--Vassil 12:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)  Question (to Carschten and A.Ceta) Are valid those arguments?: Image guidelines--Lmbuga 21:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)  Comment To me, very good, If I can say "bad quality" without basing--Lmbuga 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose There are some situations wich are hard to make a QI. The biker is blury, and the fact that it was unavoidable doesn't make it sharp. --Sfu 07:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Sfu, but your criteria to "be hard to make a QI" can be different than my criteria: Can I vote with my criteria saying only "Not good enough for a QI"?. To me, a vote without basing must be annulled, although I am in agreement with the vote--Lmbuga 18:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Two of the votes aren't valid IMO, but I am not nobody. It is sad that somebody as I must say this--Lmbuga 18:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course one should give a reason after their vote. Here it's clear to me the reason for declining was a blur - rather not CA, dust spot or distorions or whatever. But I will not resist if you cancel those votes, as actually there is no rule about canceling votes. I wouldn't do that because I suppose that those people are adults and they know what they are doing, and I really don't think it was their bad intentions in any side. There is another issue - most of QIs gets promoted only by "good", or "goog quality" - are all this votes invalid? --sfu (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now I understand. Sorry--Lmbuga 12:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blury. --Makele-90 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Makele-90 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:RA Kornelimünster 4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Imperial Abbey of Kornelimuenster, Germany: Part of the Ehrenhof --Alupus 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Nice to me but blurry or not sharp enough with 2,891 × 1,925 pixels. Zones overexposed. I don't understand the composition: random?--Lmbuga 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)There is only one, not notable, small area overexposed over on of the lamps, caused by the sunlight at exposure time. Composition is off course not made by random. We need for the project not only total views, but also details and pictures, that mirrow the atmosphere of an object. Mention please the arrangement of the line of limetrees, the plaster and the the partions of the building. --Alupus 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, "Discuss". Probably I am not right, but, if I don't like the image...--Lmbuga 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I retract the candidature, in case of the low sharpness at 100 %. I will see, if an new RAW devolpment could increase this point, --Alupus 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort-lomont-fr-FR.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Map of the fort du Lomont, Chamesol, France. --ComputerHotline 12:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Parts of the text of number 3 are out of the box. --Dr.Haus 16:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)  Info Only on the preview, not in the SVG file. --ComputerHotline 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Works with antoher display.--Dr.Haus 18:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Rathausturm Crailsheim 2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of the town hall of Crailsheim, Baden-Württemberg. -- Felix Koenig 19:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support schön, kein Mangel erkennbar --Ralf Roletschek 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not straight lines > perspective problems --Chmee2 08:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Straight lines are not correct, its a view to the top. --Ralf Roletschek 08:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO it is only a (correctible) tilt problem. BtW, the little piece of roof in the corner right below is disturbing the composition...--Jebulon 16:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Taxiarchos228 06:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 06:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Tzatziki IMGP1411.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Basic components of tzatziki - Greek meze or appetizer, also used as a sauce. --Nikodem Nijaki 09:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Why are the products cropped of? Mvg, Basvb 11:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC) ...to keep focus on the matter ;) --Nikodem Nijaki 12:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Its not bad but tight crop IMO (especially on the left side).--ArildV 12:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the crop, perfect to me--Lmbuga 17:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    I don't like the vignetting, but I can accept it--Lmbuga 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support i like the krop and vignetting, for me QI - I know its subjectively --Ralf Roletschek 15:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI also for me. --Jakubhal 07:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support nice composition --High Contrast 14:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --ArildV 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Bad_Bellingen_-_St._Leodegar8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bad Bellingen: Saint Leodegar Church, interior --Taxiarchos228 08:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI to me--Lmbuga 11:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ...But shame of the dissymmetry and the tilt at upper edge--Jebulon 15:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "Discuss": (es) Con afecto..., no puedo comprender posibles críticas sobre mis posibles errores si hay procedimientos para que tales errores sean solucionados y tengo que ser yo quien los inicie--Lmbuga 16:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • (es) Quizás me haya excedido, creo que te he entendido tarde, Jebulon, pero ahora ya hice lo que hice--Lmbuga 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • You did not make mistakes, and please note that you put it in CR, not me. It was only a comment. I would not have promotted nor decline this picture, it was my irresolution, not yours, but in my opinion, this "pro" needed a "plano", like in music. Please don't feel attacked !--Jebulon 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Jebulon--Lmbuga 00:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Ralf Roletschek 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too. --Alchemist-hp 23:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 23:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Gm-allsaints-6761.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pereslavl museum, the church of All Saints. «Night in Museum» 2011. --PereslavlFoto 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Something about this just doesn't quite work for me - the overexposure is minimal and not too annoying, but it is (understandably) speckly. I think the main thing is the way the branches occlude the building - it just looks wrong somehow. --Mattbuck 11:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Jakubhal 08:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:20110724_Milan_Cathedral_5260.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Facade of the Milan Cathedral --Jakubhal 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose harsh chromatic aberrations --Carschten 09:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  InfoSlightly improved. If not enough, I will prepare another version little later. --Jakubhal 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportNo need, I think it is good now.--Jebulon 15:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me--Lmbuga 18:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 08:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Tourrettes-sur-Loup_BW_2011-06-08_12-41-45.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: France, Tourrettes-sur-Loup --Berthold Werner 15:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Review Sorry, nice, but poor contrast and clarity--Lmbuga 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
    The wires are disturbing IMO--Lmbuga 00:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposure in the sky. --Mattbuck 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)]]
  •  Support Qi to me. To make a HDR at every image because of some overexposure is senseless! --Carschten 14:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    No, I don't ask every image be HDRed, but I do ask that there not be major areas of overexposure. It's not so much that there is white so much as the entire sky is too bright - it's cyan instead of blue. Mattbuck 02:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Jakubhal 08:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Biolanin konttori.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Headquarters of Biolan OY. --kallerna 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sfu 16:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Green cast maybe ? I'm not sure about the white balance...--Jebulon 23:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose yes, poor white balance. --Carschten 13:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can be easily fixed. --kallerna 19:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Jebulon is right. I don't cancel my vote, as I hope somebody will fix this. --Sfu 19:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tried something, as Kallerna is not able to do this for the moment. I hope it is better, but I can not vote.--Jebulon 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now. --Jakubhal 17:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Makele-90 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Makele-90 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ehem_Eisenberger_Fabrik.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Former industrial building in Gmünd, Lower Austria --Herzi Pinki 22:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Perspective should be corrected; picutre is too redish. If those two where corrected I think it's QI, although poor light and not that sharp. --Sfu 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it was just taken late in the day, which explains the colours. Mattbuck 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose chromatic aberrations --Carschten 09:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 09:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ratusz Głównego Miasta w Gdańsku.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination City hall in Gdansk, Poland --Moonik 12:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose devious, quality okay but the rest--Mich.kramer 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortions, sharpening halo, JPG artifacts --Carschten 09:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective --Mbdortmund 12:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bottom crop. --Elekhh 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 06:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Schönau_-_Mariä_Himmelfahrt3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schönau: Churches of the Assumption from Southeast --Taxiarchos228 06:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support bitte nicht verzerren! --Ralf Roletschek 08:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it needs a correction of perspectives. The clock tower and the lamppost are leaning at left, and the choir at right.--Jebulon 20:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • sorry, but the tower is 90 meters high, "mathematical correctness" is nonsens here. --Taxiarchos228 06:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info if this file is "corrected", i vote with contra --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose at images with such high towers, not every line has to be straight, but some more perspective distortion correction should be done here. --Carschten 09:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 09:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lone House.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A lone house. --Trongphu 05:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I know that the image is FP, and that it will be the promote. But I dont like the picture, for me it's digital kitsch.--ArildV 08:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's funny that we are fighting here so much with distortions in our lenses, and yet it looks like for some people distorted picture is more natural than corrected one. --Sfu 09:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Kitsch, artificial, strongly distorded unrealistic, ugly sky, overprocessed... Perfect sample of the difference between FP and QI in my opinion: A FP is not a technically better image than a QI.--Jebulon 10:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support A good example for a certain software. --Mbdortmund 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, as an example of Blender capabilities. --Jakubhal 12:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me also a good example. --Ralf Roletschek 12:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unrealistically distorted, small JPG (no go for a graphic), a bit overprocessed. Maybe FP because of some artwork factor, but definitely not a Quality image to me --Carschten 12:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment full ack.--Jebulon 16:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon and Carschten--Lmbuga 18:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me enough for QI. --Alchemist-hp 23:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed --Archaeodontosaurus 13:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice artwork, but not the QI. --Iifar 18:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nah --Sfu 12:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 06:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Calanque du Petit Canereit-Massif de l'Esterel.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Massif de l'Esterel, Saint-Raphael, Côte d'Azur --Tobi 87 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me.--Dr.Haus 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated IMO. W.S. 06:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support excellent. Felix Koenig 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated IMO.--Jebulon 08:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of the sunshine I don't think the saturation is too high, but the sharpness is too low for QI --Carschten 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF too short --Mbdortmund 12:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Homenaxe ó ciclista - Extramundi - Galiza.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tribute to the cyclist, Extramundi, Padrón, Galicia, Spain--Lmbuga 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Croped badly and the background is uniteresting. --Ebe123 00:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support don't think like Ebe123, qood quality picture --Taxiarchos228 07:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No problem with the background, but the crop is very frustrating to me.--Jebulon 13:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the crop either. --Iifar 18:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment and explanation: You can see other crops and other backgrounds here and here. I could not do it better, sorry--Lmbuga 17:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 11:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Fontaine Porte d'Auteuil.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain at Porte d'Auteuil in Paris, France --Moonik 13:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 13:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sign in the back and cars are VERY disturbng to me --Moroder 09:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Copyright violation. I'm sorry, but Raoul Lamourdedieu, the author/sculptor of this fountain died in 1953, therefore this picture is not free, and image not in public domain. There is no Freedom of Panorama in France.--Jebulon 13:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 11:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kevelaer, Kapellenplatz 35 Ausschnitt.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Impresson of the cultural heritage at the Kapellenplatz in Kevelaer --Mich.kramer 08:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support die Bäume sind nun mal dort. --Ralf Roletschek 12:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment than take an image in winter, or from a different angle. --Elekhh 12:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low resolution and sharpness. --Iifar 07:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed (few exposure steps), blurry at left and right --Carschten 09:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. --ELEKHHT 12:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose image resolution too low (2 MPixels at least). --High Contrast 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low resolution and overexposed. -- Achim Raschka 05:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 11:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Hoppestoet2011 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Poperinge, Folklore in Belgium --Dirk Van Esbroeck 08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 09:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition problem. Let's discuss, please, about this disturbing cropped arm at right.--Jebulon 14:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC) No more reason to oppose--Jebulon 15:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me it's QI --Mbdortmund 02:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Correction of the arm (rightside) in the new uploaded version --Dirk Van Esbroeck 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me it's QI --Bep 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 11:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kiril georgiev 2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bulgarian chess master Kiril Georgiev (52 in the world) --Biso 06:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. --Quartl 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp due to motion blur.--PereslavlFoto 17:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. --Iifar 16:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Pindari valley, Uttarakhand, India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pindari valley, Uttarakhand, India. Yann 17:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Harrison49 17:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Too blurry for me. --Iifar 18:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry --Bep 19:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite blurry. --Makele-90 18:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Frankfurt-oder-sw-06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Frankfurt/Oder, Germany, Highscool (picture without any correction!) --Ralf Roletschek 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I like --IIVeaa 17:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Too much noise for me, sorry. --Iifar 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 Info it can't be noise. Its film-grain --Ralf Roletschek 19:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Like it a lot. This is beautiful film grain, not noise. --Bep 18:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I never understood what should be beautiful at film grain, especialy in architecture photos and I'm dont't know if we should accept that barrel distortion. --Berthold Werner 15:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Berthold.--Jebulon 15:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 14:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Nobel Prize 2009-Press Conference KVA-30.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Elinor Ostrom, laureate of the memorial prize in economic sciences 2009 (by Prolineserver) -- Achim Raschka 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but too noisy for QI, IMO. --Jakubhal 07:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise. --Bep 19:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise also for me. --T137 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 14:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:11-09-04-iaa-by-RalfR-194.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination IAA 2011; Chevrolet Corvette C6.R (GT2) --Ralf Roletschek 16:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 18:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered composition and obvious tilt. Can file names be more descriptive? Do copyright notes be miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiile long? --Elekhh 12:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered composition --Berthold Werner 11:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Comment cc-by-nc-nd isnt a valid license for commons, Gnangarra 07:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Its valid as 3. license --Ralf Roletschek 08:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 14:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:34007 Gedempte Poortezijlen 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Subway restaurant --IIVeaa 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion, bad light (exposure flares). Please discuss.--Jebulon 14:55, 11

October 2011 (UTC)

  •  Oppose As above. --Bep 19:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion --Archaeodontosaurus 13:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 14:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Dark Fortress Metal Mean 20 08 2011 10 B.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Morean, the vocalist of Dark Fortress. --Vassil 18:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support yes! --Ralf Roletschek 19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Very sorry, but there is too much digital noise for me (also on the subjet). --T137 21:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
     Support Certainly there is noise, but not too much to me, QI to me. I like it--Lmbuga 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
     Support QI also for me. --Jakubhal 07:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
     Support QI for me.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Chambord - monogramme d'Henri II.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monogram of Henry II of France in Chambord. --Eusebius 19:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Tilted. --Bep 21:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support no, lets diskuss. --Ralf Roletschek 22:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    The stained glass window is not perfectly geometric, I did my best to make the crop look balanced. --Eusebius 07:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  CommentStrong magenta CA to be corrected, IMO.--Jebulon 15:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the remark. I think it is better now (image updated). --Eusebius 16:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now. --Vassil 11:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now.--Jebulon 15:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Passer domesticus qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination House Sparrow. --Quartl 04:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose below 2 MP --Taxiarchos228 07:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It's 2.05 mpx and the subject is prominent in the picture. --Quartl 10:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support nice picture and over 2 MP --Ralf Roletschek 12:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support nice--Lmbuga 19:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me -- Marie-Claire 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Stapelia lepida Flower (1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A flower of Stapelia lepida. --T137 23:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline *  Support Fine for me -- Achim Raschka 13:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC) *  Oppose Very interesting topic but too many blurred areas and areas overexposed. The background is too Disturbing. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    * Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus, blurred, overexposed--Lmbuga 19:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Köln, Kirche Groß St Martin, Martinspförtchen 8, 851.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cologne Church great St. Martin in the evening light --Mich.kramer 17:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice effect, although not quite silhouetted enough imo. --Mattbuck 20:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC).
  •  Support Like the effect too. The main subject of this picture for me is to show the effect, not the church -- Achim Raschka 17:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject is underexposed, sorry. --Iifar 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Iifar --Berthold Werner 15:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Several dust spots and one larger trash. --Makele-90 18:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Makele-90 18:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Alstom_Coradia_Continental_Agilis.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Alstom Coradia Continental of Agilis in Germany. --High Contrast 19:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Even if the weather was not very fine, it is a QI IMO. We can promote pictures without immaculate blue sky...--Jebulon 14:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry Jebulon, but the whiting out is too much for me. Mattbuck 20:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 17:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warszawa stołówka UW.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building in University of Warsaw Main Campus. --Sfu 08:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Dark parts are too dark, lack of details, sorry.--Jebulon 13:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand too dark. But what do you mean by luck of details? Do you say it's unsharp? --Sfu 17:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 Comment new version... --Mbdortmund 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 10:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Gm-allsaints-6761.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pereslavl museum, the church of All Saints. -- PereslavlFoto 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Has some noise --Ebe123 18:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, where did you notice it? I will improve.--PereslavlFoto 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:11-09-04-iaa-by-RalfR-288.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Messeturm Frankfurt --Ralf Roletschek 16:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality, rotation was necessary --Taxiarchos228 18:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Educationally not meaningful composition. Also too short description. Can file names be more descriptive? Do copyright notes be one mile long? -Elekhh 12:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment composition is good for FPC, the other arguments doesn't seem very factual --Taxiarchos228 12:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment Well factual at the time of writing. Thanks for correcting the file description, but pls don't mislead others. --Elekhh 12:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment it's quite absurd to ask for mending and assume in succession of this the corrector to mislead others --Taxiarchos228 12:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
          •  Comment Please don't misinterpret my comments! You should know what I meant: is good practice to inform reviewers about changes to an image during the nomination, that's all. --Elekhh 12:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)).
  •  Oppose + at least two (annotated) dust spots :)--Jebulon 15:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Info dust spots are eliminated. --Ralf Roletschek 08:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now --Archaeodontosaurus 13:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 18:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:11-08-05-volkswagen-by-RalfR-11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of VW Golf GTI --Ralf Roletschek 16:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 18:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, because of annotations.--Jebulon 13:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. --Elekhh 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:St. Petersburg, ministry of government properties.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ministry of Government Properties, Saint Petersburg (Russia) --DmitriyGuryanov 01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sadly, not a QI for me. The colours are very nice, but there are distortings (lens?) on both side of the pictures. --PierreSelim 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded new version of file --DmitriyGuryanov 16:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) /Discuss --Ikar.us 21:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness so-so at very right and very left, but QI Nevertheless IMO.--Jebulon 14:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No distorsion. For me it's QI. --T137 12:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The newly uploaded version has fixed the problem of distortion as I can see. Russavia 09:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 18:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Todtnau_-_St._Jakobus_der_Ältere11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Todtnauberg: Church of Saint James, son of Zebedee, side entrance --Taxiarchos228 09:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me--ArildV 09:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Barrel distortion both sides, visible especially at right, must be corrected before promotion IMO.--Jebulon 10:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel distortion very disturbing as close to the edges. --Elekhh 11:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support the the disortion is no disturbing for me. --Ralf Roletschek 11:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel distortion--Lmbuga 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --ELEKHHT 11:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lonchura striata qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Society finch. --Quartl 04:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very harsh flash-light and shadows. --Elekhh 14:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I tried to reduce the effects from flash, better now? --Quartl 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose maybe a bit, but nt really better. Per Elekhh, sorry. --Carschten 11:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Fontaine de la Place François Ier.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain of Place François Ier in Paris --Moonik 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI to me--Lmbuga 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition not QI to me, the fountain is not well detached from the background. --Elekhh 14:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Elekhh: composition, light and background isn't ok. Sorry. --T137 23:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good, QI for me --Carschten 11:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI--Jebulon 12:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me also QI. --Ralf Roletschek 12:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   ---Jebulon 12:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Blick_vom_Dreisesselberg_in_Richtung_Süden.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination View from the mountain Dreisesselberg in the early morning --High Contrast 22:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support mir gefällts und es ist nicht zu dunkel. --Ralf Roletschek 11:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not so sure.--Elekhh 14:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure, but unnatural colors and perhaps oversaturated--Lmbuga 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    Unnatural colors? Well, I tried to focus an "object" (the Alps) that are about 300 km away. I had to experiment and I find this image would represent the real lighting situation quite well. --High Contrast 22:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    Ok. I have said that I'm not sure  Neutral
  •  Support die vertikalen Streifen im Himmel gefallen mir zwar nicht, aber dennoch: das Bild ist verdammt gut (IMHO). --Carschten 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Stapelia lepida Flower (2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A flower of Stapelia lepida. --T137 23:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Fine for me -- Achim Raschka 13:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very interesting topic but too many blurred areas and areas overexposed. The background is too Disturbing. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support the background gives a good mood here. I like the atypical factor here. --Carschten 11:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand the problem with the background, but I admit that is a little overexposed. I screwed. --T137 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per User:Archaeodontosaurus -- Focus finder 09:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 18:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Berlin, Mitte, Wallstraße, Hermann-Schlimme-Haus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hermann-Schlimme-Haus in Berlin (by Beek100) -- Achim Raschka 18:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noise, lack of sharpness. --Bep 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO, not perfect but good composition and decent sharpness and great educational value.--ArildV 10:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No perfect but enouth for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 12:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the hyper-tight crop kills it. --Elekhh 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Elekhh--Lmbuga 00:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Esplanade_des_invalides_at_night.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Hôtel des Invalides from the Esplanade des Invalides, at night, Paris. --NonOmnisMoriar 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Review Good quality. Like this alot. --Bep 21:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Main subject blurry and not really sharp, lack of details in the dark parts (maybe too much contrast ?). It needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 16:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Nationaltheatret_2011_roof_front_close.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nationaltheatret in Oslo. Roof front entrance. --Bep 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Below 2MP -- Focus finder 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC) The picture is 4.63MP, hence not below 2MP. --Bep 18:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Far more than two MP, but a bit overexposed IMO.--Jebulon 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Artifact of compression between the building and sky --Archaeodontosaurus 07:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lake Vuoksa 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Vuoksa. --Trongphu 05:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed: The image (nice, and perfect as artistic document) can be FP, but to me it needs more opinions to be QI--Lmbuga 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support nice and good QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 23:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed --Archaeodontosaurus 14:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support We should not exclude pictures which like this one are about a certain impression, a mood of a region. --Mbdortmund 12:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand: I thought that only we had to take care of the quality and composition. Is the image overprocesed or not? Sorry...--Lmbuga 23:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed--Jebulon 13:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI standard is reached --Taxiarchos228 10:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. Could be more sharp. --PereslavlFoto 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support A picture elected FP would it not worth as QI ? Marie-Claire 06:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Obviously yes, why ? A FP is not a "super QI".--Jebulon 08:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment As Jebulon in this question--Lmbuga 01:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment Because for me one FP (with 17 positive supports and who has been finalist of the picture of the year 2010) must be promoted by a positive vote and become at least "normal quality image".-- Marie-Claire 15:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
          •  Comment "Picture of the year" choice as nothing to do with QI. By the way, the POTY 2010 was not eligible as QI candidate...--Jebulon 15:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Overprocessed. Not the best example of a QI for the next generations... Alvesgaspar 10:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Sorry. --T137 09:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Artistic FP, but not QI -- George Chernilevsky 10:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto_-_ON_-_New_City_Hall8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toronto: New City Hall, close up --Taxiarchos228 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI to me (I'm not sure, but I like it)--Lmbuga 22:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe the crop above needs a discussion. Looks a bit like a snapshot. --Jebulon 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • this "snapshot" is showing the facade of this building. --Taxiarchos228 08:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the hard word...--Jebulon 12:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • there is no problem with any word but your strange lacking arguments --Taxiarchos228 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, it mays happen that one or two of your pictures are reviewed and declined. Please accept this !!--Jebulon 23:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition problem. Good crop at right, but on the other hand facade cut off at left. No sense to cut off the top just few meters about the building spire. It looks too arbitrary and not really useful for an article. I think this is what Jebulon means. Sharpness is also a bit low IMHO (but not the biggest problem). --Carschten 18:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is nothing arbitrary. The interesting part of this complex are the different high buildings (the right one over 100 meters) and their circumstance. To picture the whole building in this close up view means significant distortion (more than you would call acceptable) and no really essential picture information. To show the facade and the architectual characteristics this picture is brilliant. --Taxiarchos228 19:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Not arbitrary maybe, but random. I have no problem with the distortion, but the crop above of the top of the right building is wrong to me. The framing left and right could be more symmetric. In my opinion this picture is not a QI. That's life.--Jebulon 23:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with above: irrespective of the intentions of the photographer, the framing appears to the viewer as random and the combination of curved buildings and tilt makes me really dizzy. Also, to be precise it is slightly below 2Mpx. --Elekhh 01:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Meise JPG02a.jpg[edit]

OK  I withdraw my nomination to rework on the original file with less artifacts -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artedia squamata 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Artedia squamata --Gidip 14:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The image can be QI, but underexposed--Lmbuga 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is underexposed. More opinions? --Gidip 07:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info Dull colors and slight lack of contrast, I propose an edit and I nominated it among 22 October files. --Vassil 11:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it does look better now. --Gidip 12:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for this one --Mbdortmund 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed (but Easy to fix) --Archaeodontosaurus 07:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version. But i am neutral. --T137 09:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks T137, good work, I'm not "oppose", but I can't promove it  Neutral. Sorry I can't explain more: my english is too bad--Lmbuga 17:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The new version is too bright. Vassil's version is the better one. --Gidip 19:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Vassil's version has already been promoted, I withdraw this version. --Gidip 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:F82-Viktoria-Konvoibegleitung.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Spanish F82 "Viktoria" manoeuvering among convoi ships during operation Atalanta (2009) --Hagman 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Tilted, lacks detail. --Quartl 15:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)  Info New vesion uploaded (untilted by 0.86°)--Hagman 17:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the correction, but I'm still not convinced by the quality. Set to discuss. --Quartl 19:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 09:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:SagradaFamilia sostre.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Celing and columns of the Sagrada Familia church in Barcelona. --Jordi Ferrer 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality impressive image.--Pere prlpz 22:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, very bad quality in my opinion, extreme noise, distortions, chromatic aberration almost everywhere, blown up parts, not sharp. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 00:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy. --Quartl 14:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon (but I do not agree about the distortion, it is an interesting composition taken with extreme wide angle).--ArildV 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jepulon except distortion: the composition is interesting, but i can't explain the noise and quality with the EXIF (400ISO on a 50D camera should never get such noise). PierreSelim 12:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Todtnau_-_St._Jakobus_der_Ältere1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Todtnauberg: Church of Saint James, son of Zebedee --Taxiarchos228 11:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support nice picture, for me QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not convinced of the composition: what is the subject tree, buildings or paths? --Elekhh 14:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good survey view. I think it would be even better with a little fixing of the white balance (sky has lost his blue, it looks too hazy) --Carschten 11:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree with "good survey view" as a criteria, as I'm afraid of being somewhat opposed to "good composition" (which is a QI criteria). If composition wouldn't matter, than any image taken with a good camera within manageable light conditions would be a "good survey view". --Elekhh 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe cloud over the tree is overexposed.--Jebulon 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You know the difference between white and overexposed? I guess no. --Taxiarchos228 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess he know. The picture is good example between white and overexposed IMHO (see annotations). And there's a minor OE part. But I don't think it's disturbing and I know that Jebulon has a few QIs with overexposed skies, too... But that's just my point of view, not Jebulons.--Carschten 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Nothing against "white" sky, it cannot always be blue, and I'm against the dictatorship of blue sky. A picture can be a QI with a white sky (I've promotted some). But in this case, the overexposition I noticed was too prominent to me, that's all. But, anyway, pffff... Well...No matter.--Jebulon 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- M 93 11:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support, yes, I like -- 320td 12:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support nice picture.--Jordiferrer 12:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 12:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Peter_Wieselgren_september_2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of Peter Wieselgren outside Gothenburg Cathedral, Gothenburg Sweden. --ArildV 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Carschten 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background --Moroder 21:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment 1. that's a FP criterion, but not relevant for QIC and 2. the background is in full resolution well blurred (good DOF). --Carschten 10:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment A good background is a QI criterion, I disagree with Carschten. Not disturbing to me nevertheless. But this bust is tilted (see pedestal), and needs to be centered IMO.--Jebulon 15:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Rotated one degree (but why do you want the image centered? en:Rule of thirds)--ArildV 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background could have been avoided by choosing a different angle, or by different DOF. --Elekhh 14:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support the background is no disturbing for me, good for QI --Ralf Roletschek 08:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background --Archaeodontosaurus 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The problem of the background is an opinion and not a fact. For me it's QI. --T137 09:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Which is an opinion not a fact :) --Elekhh 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Either (I simply do not see concrete problems). :-) --T137 20:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- M 93 11:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Should be cropped on the right side, to center the bust. If this is done, I would change my vote.--Jordiferrer 12:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, why do you want the image centered? Centered photos are often boring (see also en:Rule of thirds).--ArildV 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I accept your point.--Jordiferrer 00:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Elekhh -- Focus finder 12:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Bokeh could be stronger but it is good and definitely QI for me, particularly because a stronger bokeh is also a matter of your photographic facility and I guess it can not be our request to exclude photographers that have no high end lenses/ cameras. --Taxiarchos228 17:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --ELEKHHT 20:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)