Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 25 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Poti Catedral.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Poti Catedral -- Beqabai 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Perspective not perfect but good enough for a Q1photo. Btw - I would remove the person at the left because she does not make the image better --Michielverbeek 17:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, perspective distortion is improvable. chromatic aberrations are improvables (see notes). 1/1,000 sec and f/4!!: The building is not running. Clear random picture IMO--Lmbuga 17:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, perspective, details blurred by noise reduction. @Lmbuga: f/4 and 1/1000s is ok for such a camera with very small sensor, because stopping down to smaller apertures (f/5.6, f/8 ...) would increase diffraction and blur rapidly. Standard problem with all small sensor cameras and smart phones... --Smial 09:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Purtio Bridge.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Purtio Bridge -- Beqabai 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Ermell 18:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, poor detail. Overexpossed areas. Composition is not good IMO: Too tight at right--Lmbuga 19:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. The right side is quite unsharp, too. -- Ikan Kekek 05:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I think that it is a good composition but the image is too bright. -- Spurzem 17:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)