Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 2010

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

Consensual Review[edit]

File:Arabesk alhambra granada.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Arabesk and mosaics in Alhambra of Granada, Spain --Jebulon 21:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Also good. --Cayambe 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. The script and decorations at right and left are a whole. --Nevit 10:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I do regret these systematic oppositions, looking like personal attacks and I really don't understand why... I'm sorry for other reviewers, really...--Jebulon 12:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment don't take it as personal attack. --Elekhh (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • During the review process can you explain your views according to criteria? It would bo more helpful than a vote alone. --Nevit 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Until today, it was generally admitted that a support vote don't need other explanations. Explanations are more required for oppositions.--Jebulon 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment During the review process It would be more useful to describe your opinion along the vote. The subject is symmetrical motif composed of a script and symmetrical decorations on both sides, above and below. --Nevit 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Not perfectly symetrical (look at the colours below, and script in itself not symetrical). --Elekhh 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The tile below the decoration have P1 symmetry. If you mention it, it can be another issue. Writings in English are not symmetric too, but the script and bounding box and the symmetrical decorations at both side are a whole. IMO The crop is careless here. --Nevit 08:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry my english is not good enough to understand very well what you mean all about symetry. Some infos :
    -mosaics below are not symetrical in real, they cannot be a reference.
    -I wanted to show that it is an endless pattern. From right to left (arab writing) You have the coat of arms of Nasrid kings with a "squarred" decoration, then an arab motto, then the CoA, then a motto and so on. The crop is very careful, the "squarred" decoration is a bit cropped out right, but you may find the missing part left. (not sure I'm clear in english, sorry)--Jebulon 09:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment To be simple current cropping is like (----------) O correct composition for me to support: O (----------) O --Nevit 11:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment for further explanation, please see this picture, already promotted. The crop suggested just above would be artificially symetrical IMO.--Jebulon 16:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think your intention to show the endless pattern would have worked better if you don't crop the image at the exact edges where a pattern ends, which makes the image look static. using the above hieroglyph, somethning like )(----------) O ( --Elekhh (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Gentau Pic du Midi Ossau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Gentau in the Pyrenees. --Myrabella 06:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very nice! --Kuli 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice, but leaning 0.5° to the left. A reflection on a horizontal surface is always perpendicular. The cows seem overexposed to me. Not much detail to see there. --Ikiwaner 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for your eye; new version uploaded. --Myrabella 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still looks over exposed to me. --Nevit 10:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info They are nearly white cows actually. --Myrabella 10:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Withdraw my oppose, but no support. I think it would suffice to pass. --Nevit 12:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Yann 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lovely composition, but a bit overexposed and not so sharp as it could be. --PetarM 11:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The change of tones, simulates colors that we could see in the 50s. Interresting --Archaeodontosaurus 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PetarM --Carschten 11:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info New new version uploaded. --Myrabella (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO.--Jebulon 14:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Gorgeous. --99of9 09:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition. --High Contrast 23:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition.--Lmbuga 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Halichoerus grypus in Hel.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torch IMG 2976-white.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Surefire 6P flashlight. -- Rama 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Is it a support? It's a high quality image with a huge resolution. --Drbug 19:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background removal done too hastily (I have left notes on the image). --Eusebius 10:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Should be a bit better now. Thanks for the advice. Rama 14:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to review anymore (leaving on a break), so I'll just remove my opposition and rely on other reviewers. --Eusebius 14:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support --Ianare 00:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 14:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Smaky 100 IMG 4149.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Smaky 100 computer. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne. -- Rama 23:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Overexposed ? let's discuss. --Ianare 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentWe have a lot of open discussions. I changed discuss to original value, since there are no votes yet. --Nevit 09:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Ianare. Discussion should take place if a user asks for it. :-) --Cayambe 09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support imo OK, good details, would be nice, if some spots on the screen would be corrected --Mbdortmund 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    Should be a bit better now. Rama 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 09:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 09:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Nave cathedral Granada.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination One of the five naves of the Cathedral of Granada, Spain--Jebulon 23:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeLow contrast. --Nevit 10:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, no.--Jebulon 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 14:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am afraid that Nevit is right and I have to oppose for the same reason. It is true that because of the highlights on windows and the foreground global contrast seems to be not bad. But visually large portions of the picture look hazy and have low local contrast. The picture looks much better if you apply an S-like curve correction. If you would upload a version corrected in this way, I could probably support. --Johannes Robalotoff 10:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I tried something. Better now ?--Jebulon 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  InfoRemoved oppose. --Nevit 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks !--Jebulon 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it worked. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Despite the columns are not absolutely vertical. --Drbug 03:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for review. I'll try to improve soon.--Jebulon 09:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Drbug was right. The right column too, now.--Jebulon 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Johannes Robalotoff 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Парад невест 377.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Girl in Snow White costume --Butko 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice and usefull. --Nevit 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Motion blur on the lilac over the left hand. need a discussion. --Jebulon 12:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Yann 22:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Avenue 09:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Boletus_impolitus_2010_G1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Iodine bolete Boletus impolitus. New improved version of photo -- George Chernilevsky 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood photographs, nice colours (reminds of me of The Wind in the Willows for some reason. Rama 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The light source used (Flash) seems too harsh to me. --Nevit 08:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree that flash lighting and shadow are harsh. --Elekhh 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 02:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose flash is too harsh --Ianare 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Arabesk alhambra granada.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Arabesk and mosaics in Alhambra of Granada, Spain --Jebulon 21:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Also good. --Cayambe 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. The script and decorations at right and left are a whole. --Nevit 10:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I do regret these systematic oppositions, looking like personal attacks and I really don't understand why... I'm sorry for other reviewers, really...--Jebulon 12:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment don't take it as personal attack. --Elekhh (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • During the review process can you explain your views according to criteria? It would bo more helpful than a vote alone. --Nevit 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Until today, it was generally admitted that a support vote don't need other explanations. Explanations are more required for oppositions.--Jebulon 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment During the review process It would be more useful to describe your opinion along the vote. The subject is symmetrical motif composed of a script and symmetrical decorations on both sides, above and below. --Nevit 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Not perfectly symetrical (look at the colours below, and script in itself not symetrical). --Elekhh 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The tile below the decoration have P1 symmetry. If you mention it, it can be another issue. Writings in English are not symmetric too, but the script and bounding box and the symmetrical decorations at both side are a whole. IMO The crop is careless here. --Nevit 08:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry my english is not good enough to understand very well what you mean all about symetry. Some infos :
    -mosaics below are not symetrical in real, they cannot be a reference.
    -I wanted to show that it is an endless pattern. From right to left (arab writing) You have the coat of arms of Nasrid kings with a "squarred" decoration, then an arab motto, then the CoA, then a motto and so on. The crop is very careful, the "squarred" decoration is a bit cropped out right, but you may find the missing part left. (not sure I'm clear in english, sorry)--Jebulon 09:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment To be simple current cropping is like (----------) O correct composition for me to support: O (----------) O --Nevit 11:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment for further explanation, please see this picture, already promotted. The crop suggested just above would be artificially symetrical IMO.--Jebulon 16:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think your intention to show the endless pattern would have worked better if you don't crop the image at the exact edges where a pattern ends, which makes the image look static. using the above hieroglyph, somethning like )(----------) O ( --Elekhh (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Gentau Pic du Midi Ossau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Gentau in the Pyrenees. --Myrabella 06:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very nice! --Kuli 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice, but leaning 0.5° to the left. A reflection on a horizontal surface is always perpendicular. The cows seem overexposed to me. Not much detail to see there. --Ikiwaner 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for your eye; new version uploaded. --Myrabella 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still looks over exposed to me. --Nevit 10:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info They are nearly white cows actually. --Myrabella 10:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Withdraw my oppose, but no support. I think it would suffice to pass. --Nevit 12:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Yann 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lovely composition, but a bit overexposed and not so sharp as it could be. --PetarM 11:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The change of tones, simulates colors that we could see in the 50s. Interresting --Archaeodontosaurus 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PetarM --Carschten 11:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info New new version uploaded. --Myrabella (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO.--Jebulon 14:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Gorgeous. --99of9 09:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition. --High Contrast 23:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition.--Lmbuga 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Porthmadog MMB 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The rooftops of Porthmadog. Mattbuck 02:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Image is too dark, will be good wait for better weather -> noisy Chmee2 12:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I like Mattbucks bad weather pictures --Mbdortmund 18:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I like too. And they are particularly hard to take because of the well-known nice weather of Wales. I don't see unacceptable noise here, and this one is a QI to me.--Jebulon 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose imo too grainy, would be better with ISO 100 (and tripod?) --Carschten 13:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 13:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Fountain and Vineyards in Napa Valley.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain and Vineyards in Napa Valley--Mbz1 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}

File:Ishibutai-kofun Asuka Nara pref03n4592.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ishibutai-kofun in Asuka, Nara --663highland 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice and useful. Please have a look here to understand what it is. Very interesting concerning the old japanese history. --Jebulon 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me many part of the picture si blurry or really unsharp --Croucrou 11:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bluuuuuurry --Carschten 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:European Robin (Erithacus rubecula) 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination European Robin (Erithacus rubecula). --Trachemys 13:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good job. :)--Von.grzanka 13:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Needs some contrast. Washed out colours. Lycaon 12:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm sorry, but the light was very bad. It was taken in the winter. --Trachemys 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Bad light? It was probably bad wheather, but the diffuse light here is very good. The colours are not washed out. I'd just wish a subtle increase of contrast. --Ikiwaner 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Bad sun light... It's better now ? --Trachemys 18:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor DOF --Carschten 12:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice bird, OK composition. Not bad for compact. --PetarM 22:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Feral pigeon.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Feral pigeon (Columba livia). --Von.grzanka 10:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose High technical quality but poor photography. I dislike the concrete background and the composition with the head in the center. DOF is shallow too. --Ikiwaner 18:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentI always don't like to argue with decisions of others rating my photos, normally I just get over it and try to make better photos (this is a very good motivation). This time though, I just feel I have to disagree. This photo represents the subject, which is a feral bird, living in cities full of concrete. If you dislike the photo just because of the concrete, I have to express my concern. Please excuse me if by "the concrete background" you meant a background which does not allow the extraction of the subject. --Von.grzanka 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support quality very good, DOF okay, background natural and not disturbing. Of course a QI to me --Carschten 12:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough IMO, even the tail looks a bit OoF. Backround good for this kind of subject. Composition: maybe not very artistic nor original, but good enough too for an encyclopedical use. QI, at the end.--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Its good. --PetarM 22:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 16:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tedom C12, Radnica Starého mesta.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tedom C12G, Košice — Jagro 21:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{support}} - It's good to me, I think--Lmbuga 22:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Hmm, last week I set up my display and maybe it wasn't a good idea… I exported new version of this image from source raw file – is this one better? — Jagro 15:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me--Lmbuga 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support the white front is overexposed but no detail gets lost since it's just a plain white surface. Illustrative, EV, sharp, but not very photographic. --Ikiwaner 18:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find it overexposed. --High Contrast 01:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Písek, Kamenný most.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stone bridge in Písek, Czech Republic. Václav Velíšek -- 17:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good --Mbdortmund 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CA, isn't it? See the bridge and the post on the right, the building on the left. --Myrabella 08:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Myrabella --Berthold Werner 18:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Myrabella --Carschten 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Helianthus annuus qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sunflower. --Quartl 04:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeRed channel so strongly blown that color reproduction is spoiled. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Converted color space to Adobe RGB, better now? --Quartl 20:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Your new version seems to have indeed slightly (nearly invisible) better detail. But the upper right petals are still overexposed in the red channel (and less in the green channel) and therefore the yellow is shifted more towards that of a lemon. Besides also simple conversion of the original first version to Adobe RGB makes the histogram look better. However this is just numerics, and you obviously can't get information back that was lost before. So let us wait what other people say. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your considerations, I see what you're referring to now. I still have the RAW, so I can try to correct things a bit. I reduced the lights, so the histogram looks good in all channels now. --Quartl 04:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The latest version which you uploaded today is very good. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --Carschten 12:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Land Rover xWHR MMB 01 desat blur.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Land Rover in the rain. Mattbuck 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good colour-key, good panning (motion blur in the background), it catches the rainy wheather feeling. --Ikiwaner 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I hate to say that, but the wheels look arefrozen by a quick shutter and that doesn't agree with the motion blur. Rama 23:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    So would it be better if I blurred the wheels too? Mattbuck 12:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice idea, but it looks like that the car has photographed in another situation and has put in subsequently in the image. Quality imo not good enough, too. --Carschten 12:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    Imho (!) it does not only look so, it was faked. You can see small errors of cutting the car out of another image. Kind regards, DerHexer 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oppose per Rama and Carschten. Not a QI. BTW, composition is poor too: if you want to show movement, then leave more space in front of object than behind it. --Kae 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Seven-spotted ladybug (Coccinella septempunctata).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination
  • Promotion Seven-spotted ladybug. --Trachemys 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Foggy morning at Lake Merced.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Foggy morning at Lake Merced--Mbz1 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice atmosphere -- George Chernilevsky 05:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Artifacts of processing (see notes on image) --Kae 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I fixed the stitching error, but the claims such as "clouds cannot look so dark through the fog" or saying that the reflection is not right did upset me because it is always upsetting, when a reviewer claims something that he/she has no idea about. Guess what those are not dark clouds, but just more dense fog as is seen at one of the originals. I could have uploaded more originals to show the reflection in the water, but I see no reason in loosing my time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 08:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support A really excellent picture, with a great mood. --Cayambe 08:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 08:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Portopia Hotel03n4272.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portopia Hotel in Kobe --663highland 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good.--Mbz1 14:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Error perspective for the buildings of the lower --Archaeodontosaurus 09:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you to Rama --Archaeodontosaurus 06:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • {{opp}} I like it, but the perspective would have to be corrected--Lmbuga 22:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I have taken the liberty of correcting the perspectives. -- Rama 06:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

* Support Technically good, particularly the exposure and colours. Rama 06:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I retract my vote as I have edited the image, to ensure integrity as much as possible. Rama 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --Carschten 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support very good. Thanks, Rama--Lmbuga 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Archaeodontosaurus 08:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Rama 09:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Gottéron - Zvolen 2010-08-24 - Kristin Matej-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kristin Matej, Slovakia -- Ludo29 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Strong  Support. Not far of FP, IMO. --Jebulon 12:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy, not the sharpest, overexposed red. --kallerna 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeIn full resolution IMO too noisy --Rl91 14:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Noisy : It's a photography at ISO 3200. If you reduce noise, you loose détails ... Overexposed red : It's sportswear... Ludo29 14:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentNoise is inevitable here, it's indoor sport photography. I do not think that entire genres should be banned from QI. Rama 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support This type of image this very important resolution is inevitably noisy. QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment You could manage with much lower ISO than 3200. Of course in images like this there are noise, but this is just too much. --kallerna 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • 300 mm, f/2.8, 1/320 s It's impossible to choose a better ISO than 3200. Ludo29 15:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeWith current criteria noise is important. Perhaps we should change that for difficult images. --Nevit 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment First of all: This image could be improved by reducing noise with an appropriate software such as NoiseNinja. I don't do it because I pay Internet per Megabyte.

But then: Judging a 16 MP image at 100% on a computer screen is nonsense! Normal photography (and also paintings) is intended to be viewed at once. We should judge pictures when viewing them from about 1-1.5 times the image diagonal. That's device independant and roughly the field of view of the human eye. When we judge this picture at 100% on a state of the art 1600*1200 screen we see only about 1/8 of the image. Those who say "there is too much noise" should honestly precise "in that 1/8th of the image my screen could show". Now the famous very high resolution screen of the future comes into play. If this will ever exist: Will it make sense to stand in front of it with the same viewing distance than your today's 1600*1200 screen? I'll give the answer: No, because your eyes field of view is limited you will automatically step back until the viewing distance is about the screen's diagonal.
No rule without exception: Panoramics are a species of images that are not meant to view them at once. For those we shall recommend i.e. a viewing distance of 1-1.5 times the shorter side.
What to do: Judge pictures resized to full screen and avoid the following problems:
  • Contributors uploaing a higher resolution than the minimum requirement get punished
  • Pictures that are optimized (sharpening, grain) for optimal viewing distance get punished
Regards --Ikiwaner 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Very nice comment. It deserves discussion, but might be inappropriate to discuss under this photo. Can you move the topic under Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list --Nevit 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, unsharp, grainy + CA. Juliancolton 15:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a good photograph of indoor sport. Defects such as "grainy" of "not razor-sharp" stem from the very genre of the photography; they would be disturbing for a studio shot of an unanimated object, but are normal for this sort of image. Rama 16:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent image, noise is not a problem. --King of Hearts 03:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Great action shot. Color noise is absent. Given the file size, luminance noise won't be noticed on a 20-30 cm print. Pixel-peeping makes no sense. Inisheer 17:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have seen more noisy pictures at much lower ISO on this page. And the slight overexposure is still bearable here. So this is still very good as indoor action photography. However all the noise discussion above means that the picture was uploaded with higher resolution than the resolution at which it can be actually used. No information is lost if one downscales to about 6 MP here. (This is not only due to noise but also contrast and motion blur.) So to comment on Ikiwaner's statement above: IMHO pictures should be uploaded and judged at a resolution that is appropriate for the amount of detail contained in a picture. The viewing distance rule is not device-independent as most (all?) monitors have lower DPI than good prints and the human eye can see that. If I look on this picture as a 6 MP picture, noise is actually no problem, only the inappropriately large file size (14 MB with 16 MP for only 6 usable MP) is somewhat inconvenient to handle. --Johannes Robalotoff 09:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice composition, nice action shot, but ISO 3600 was too much. Too noisy, sharpness imo not convincing, sorry --Carschten 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    I can see what you mean about sharpness, but the sensitivity was impeccable: 1/300s for a 300mm lens that you can't open more than f/2.8. Rama 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, great action shot. Noise not really a problem. --Avenue 09:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Though I can follow Ikiwaners reasoning, in this case it is just too much. Noise is indeed visible scaled to my 1440*900 laptop screen. Lycaon 17:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too much noise, but isn't the noise artistic in this image? Better without noise, but I like it here--Lmbuga 19:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support. On 1/320 sec, f/2.8 indoors, one must use a high ISO, and thus expect some noise. The image is really good! Regards, --Kjetil_r 20:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Nest of Common Blackbird (1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nest of Common Blackbird with 4 chicks. --Trachemys 13:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Closeup nest photography is unethical (and often illegal) and should be discouraged. Lycaon 06:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. Yann 07:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many areas overexposed. The league protecion birds (in France) do recommend to stay away from nests. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 05:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Dóm_svätej_Alžbety.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Elisabeth Cathedral, Košice, Slovakia --Rl91 12:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support nice composition --Mbdortmund 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition but oversaturated, the clouds are blue. Correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Slightly corrected.--Rl91 07:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to fix it.--Rl91 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 05:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File:TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Old Byzantine Tower in Ouranopolis, Athos Peninsula, Greece. --MrPanyGoff 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support-Lipedia 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Perspective correction needed. Questionable white balance. Let us discuss. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find it very "yellow", i'm afraid.--Jebulon 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction and I find it very "yellow"--Lmbuga 07:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    Both done in File:TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece-revised.jpg. Kind regards, DerHexer 23:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    Please nominate as a new nomination then. Lycaon 23:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ursus_thibetanus_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Two Asian Black Bears fighting for food --Llez 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Rather noisy and lacking detail. Lycaon 07:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of detail due to noise reduction and underexposure of bears. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 10:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Koyasan Station01s4s3200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Koyasan Station --663highland 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support very good --Carschten 12:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing CA and unfortunate perspective. Lycaon 11:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I see just some small parts with CA, and they are not a bit disturbing imo. We habe pictures with much more CA which were promoted. But nice to see that I'm not the only one who checks the old candidates which had no review for over a week. --Carschten 12:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So try I to do, mein Freund. I begin always my visits in QIC by the end... You'll never walk alone...--Jebulon 18:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ochsenburger Brücke.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination 2nd: Bridge over the Austrian Traisen river, in the background Schloss Ochsenburg --AleXXw 13:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Alternative by kaʁstn Disk/Cat
  •  Support a bit unsharp, but imo okay --Carschten 12:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CA, especially right side. Lycaon 11:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Lycaon, especially on the metallic structure --Jebulon 18:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

File:San Francisco Bay with Golden Gate Bridge, a boat, dolphins and Marin layer.jpg[edit]

  •  Comment -- I don't think focus to be the problem but this kind of artsy pictures is seldom welcome here in Commons. On the other hand, your personal attack on another user is unacceptable. -- Alvesgaspar 22:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you see personal attack? I simply linked to CU report to explain how such harassing review came about. About "artistry images" that are not welcome on Commons. I assure you this image is not "artistry" at all. The image was not even post processed except stitching. It is a very realistic image of San Francisco Bay the way it looked yesterday. May I please kindly ask ask you do not tell me what is welcome and what is not welcome on commons? Let me please remind you what is artistry image. It is this one File:The Photographer.jpg Remember?--Mbz1 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harassing? Opposing a nomination is now considered harassment? God, I should phone the FBI. And my attorney. Do you honestly want to suggest that if person A had some personal issues with here with person B, person B cannot express a negative opinion on the works of person A, and vice versa? Airwolf 13:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC) PS File:The Photographer.jpg is one of the most educational photos I've seen here on Commons, a perfect explanation of a certain optical ilusion whose name in English I cannot recall right now.[reply]
  • Yes, I said it was "harassing" and I repeat it. The user could have said "nothing is in focus" and stop right there, but he continued "Failed picture. Why even upload??" What was this said for? Did it add anything to description of the image problems? No, it did not. And yes, if a person A has the issues with a person B as lycaon has issues with me, it calls being involved with each other, and voting on each other nominations should be avoided. It is not a small "personal issues" he has with me. I was the one who discovered his sock account, that was used to make a double opposes on my nominations. lycaon lost his administrator's status because of that, and was not contributing to Commons a few months after that. Those "issues" should be enough to stop voting on my nominations once and for all. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I understand you right? You're trying to explain to me how San Francisco Bay fog should be represented?--Mbz1 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Archaeodontosaurus 07:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (Not sure how Archaeodontosaurus signature got here after my comment. So I fixed it, if Archaeodontosaurus voted or made a comment it should be repeated I guess.--Mbz1 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never said the image is not educational. Of course it is. It shows San Francisco Bay's Marin Layer, it shows the dolphins deep inside the Bay, close to Golden Gate Bridge, and it shows the towers of the Bridge popping up behind the fog.--Mbz1 14:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not you. I am saying that it's not educational. An educational picture needs sharpness and focus, and you said - allow me to repeat myself - not about being sharp, and not about the focus, this image about a, very special mood (19:46, 11 September 2010). So, I fail to see the artistic value (i.e. the mood), and thus, I oppose. Airwolf 14:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am absolutely fine with your oppose. It is a matter of taste and opinion that could differ of course. The image has a very high EV. It is probably the only image at commons that shows a pod of dolphins in San Francisco Bay. I am not so fine with your comment above because IMO to make a comment like that one should know the whole story, and I am sure you do not. I have every reason in the world to believe that lycaon's opposes on my nominations have nothing to do with the quality of my images.--Mbz1 14:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 18:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Comment I’m not worried about the picture being promoted or not, it has an artsy look and some minimalist charm. However, it can hardly be considered as an example of what a quality image should be, per the reasons already invoked by others. What I want to emphasize is the fact that no user has the right to harass the participation of other users or insult them personally, like Mbz1 did with Lycaon in this thread, and also here, and with myself (here, where she refers to the insults of Tomas Castelazzo). If Mbz1 is incapable of respecting the other participants in these forums, something has to be done about it, despite her valuable contributions to the project. -- Alvesgaspar 19:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Alves, it looks to me that you are confused a little bit. If in your opinion "something has to be done about" me, it should be reported to AN/U. I understand you do not feel comfortable reporting me there after your last failed attempt to block Tomas, but still, Alves, report user problems in between QI nominations is rather a strange place to do it, don't you think so? . Ah, whatever... BTW thank you very much for a nice laugh. I mean it. After I read that complain posted here I had my best laugh of the last month! The second best laugh was, when you asked a second opinion about your dead mosquito. I mean it was almost as a patient asking a second opinion from a doctor, if there is any way to help him to recover.
About so called harassment on my part. There is none. A user, who used a sock to cast a second oppose vote on my nominations, and was caught while doing that by me is involved with me, and should avoid voting on my nominations It is as simple as that, and no matter what others will say, or what is going to be done to me about that, the most important thing to me is knowing that I am right.--Mbz1 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would the two of you PLEASE discuss this issue somewhere else? Airwolf 07:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ancien débit de boisson, rue Jean-Poulmarch 02.jpg[edit]

Yes, you're right.--Coyau (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plan-fort-roppe-fr-FR.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Map of fort de Roppe --ComputerHotline 14:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support good imo --Carschten 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No source given. Lycaon 08:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Issue resolved. Lycaon 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Merci. Please add to the description. Lycaon 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Lycaon 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Belosarayskaya kosa 06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aggradational shoals on Belosarayskaya kosa --Butko 10:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry. There is nothing important that can be seen. The photo is not useful at all.--MrPanyGoff 11:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Usefulness is not the purpose of QI, IMO ( and IT IS useful to me...) Furthermore the quality is very good. Could be promoted, i think. Let's discuss ! --Jebulon 10:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Jebulon about 'usefulness' not being the issue at QIC. However the technical part is also lacking here. The image is not crisp (little detail) and the horizon is tilted. Lycaon 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted + per Lycaon. --kallerna 15:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 11:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:St Jean le baptiste chapelle breteuil 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St John the Baptist and the Lamb of God, Stained glass window, chapel of Château de Breteuil, France--Jebulon 21:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I find it informative and useful. The quality and composition are good.--MrPanyGoff 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Opposewhite parts are overexposed (face, feet, hands) and dark parts are underexposed. --Coyau 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I tried some improvements (this window is very old, and not very clean...--Jebulon 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now imo. --Cayambe 08:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good now -- George Chernilevsky 14:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 14:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tono-furusato-mura17n3872.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tono-furusato-mura in Tono --663highland 14:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sadly 3.1 % of the image is pure white and there is some disturbing CA on the left side. Lycaon 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC),
  •  Oppose nice mood, sadly overexposed --Ikiwaner 17:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blown out sky, bad quality --Carschten 12:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad quality and nonnatural green color--Lmbuga 22:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Hammerfest.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hammerfest, Norway. --Ludo29 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Nice colors. You should geotag, though. --Coyau 15:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Artifacts in the sky (at least one, see annotation). Seems to me somewhat noisy in the sky and at the bottom, in the water. --Myrabella 22:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky has only two coulours and sharp border between them. --Ikar.us 05:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural colors. Oversaturated--Lmbuga 23:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Vase vaux le vicomte.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A garden vase with musical instruments, Vaux-le-Vicomte, France--Jebulon 22:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Excellent. --DerHexer 23:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not really bad but far away from being excellent. The main subject is half hidden in a harsh shadow. It's not that difficult with a static subject to either wait for a dizzier day or brighten it up with a flash/reflector. I had preferred a shallow DOF which would also avoid the distracting people in the background. Intrested to hear other opinions. --Ikiwaner 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment “half hidden”, well, that's exaggerated … but I would have prefered a shallow DOF for the background, too. I tried to do that in my modification but disabled it because of a bad result. --DerHexer 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think one can see all details of music instruments, and the shadow gives a good effect IMO. One of the "distracting people in background" is my son, and he is sacred !! :)--Jebulon 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 10:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Lmbuga 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Vaux-le-Vicomte jet eau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Château de Vaux le Vicomte, France.--Jebulon 15:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Could have tried a longer exposition to render the fountain as a flow, but QI in any case. Rama 11:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate crop at the bottom. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cut off people are distracting and I don't like that the source of the fountain is not in the image. --Ikiwaner 15:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Comment That's was a try... I put my camera on the ground, and try to have the whole fountain and the castle. I agree the cut off tourists are not very good...--Jebulon 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  •  Oppose per Ikiwaner. /Dcastor 12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Dcastor 12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Saint Eustache church Paris P1060101.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Eustache, Paris --Pline 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose nice composition but details of the church could be better --Mbdortmund 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support details are okay, composition is very, very good --Carschten 12:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Mbdortmund. Lycaon 11:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment details are OK enough, IMO. Please see annotation about the composition--Jebulon 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC).
  •  Support With or without a crop at the bottom, it is a QI to me.--Jebulon 16:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, good to me. DerHexer 23:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Carschten. /Dcastor (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Dcastor (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Chroicocephalus_ridibundus_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gulls on a fence (Four are missing!) --Llez 07:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very funny. A pity for the four missing.--Jebulon 22:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The right most quarter is too OOF to have been included. Lycaon 08:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the idea is good, but quality and composition are very bad, sorry. --Carschten 13:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is also at least two different species there, of which C. ridibundus is far in the minority. Lycaon 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 13:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Busena Resort05bs3200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Busena Resort in Okinawa pref. 663highland 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}

File:Cour clos de Vougeot.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The main courtyard of "Clos-Vougeot", famous vineyard in Burgundy, France.--Jebulon 10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose overexposed --Carschten 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 11:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Aichi Tokoname32n4272.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tokoname in Aichi pref. --663highland 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support okay --Carschten 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see quite a bit of noise in the darker parts and a CW tilt. Lycaon 22:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • both is corrected now! --Carschten 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment it seems there is a problem with the FOP. It has been nominating for a speedy deletion. So it's better to decline now. --Carschten 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 11:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reticulated Giraffe, portrait. --Quartl 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support--Lipedia 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the net in the upper left corner is disturbing, also the black leaves on top. I'd dupport a crop. --Ikiwaner 17:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Cropped. --Quartl 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support much better now. --Ikiwaner 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI--Lmbuga 23:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Deganwy railway station MMB 05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Deganwy railway station. Mattbuck 16:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Needs crop of the borders. --kallerna 10:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The borders were intentional - it looked better that way than cropped. Mattbuck 14:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Serinette IMG 4820.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Serinette made by Bennard from Mirecourt, France, in 1757. -- Rama 18:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. --Cayambe 08:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor crop (compare free space on left, right and bottom). Poor background: it is not a good idea to place everything onto black background, especially if original background was light. It looks unreal. See also notes on image. --Kae 04:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per user Kae. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Czech W-3 Sokół 8496 cropped.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Czech W-3 Sokół --Airwolf 15:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Didn't we already decline this once? Oppose on grounds of overbright and distracting background. Mattbuck 10:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, that was a different version. A strange phenomenon it is, however, that nobody raised that particular issue, i.e. brightness, as the picture's (rather successful) FPC. Airwolf 11:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Could be promoted IMO, but the FPC and the QIC are not exactly the same, as you know. FPC does not absolutely requires technical perfection, and if I remember well, your nomination was strongly calling for "wow" effect, saying something like "love it or leave it", impossible here... Let's discuss--Jebulon 14:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Strong support Good photo and Featured now -- George Chernilevsky 14:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically not good enought to be QI IMO. Sorry. --kallerna 15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As kallerna. Lycaon 08:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 08:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Wildsee Bad Wildbad.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Wildsee in Black Forest, Germany --Harke 17:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support tight crop at the top, but otherwise good --Carschten 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is oversaturated in the blue channel (>82000 px). Lycaon 22:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried some improvement - better? --Harke 17:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Better but still no cigar. Lycaon 15:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 11:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:View over Malbork Castle with Middle Castle.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: View over Malbork Castle with Middle Castle, Poland. --DerHexer 11:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose curved horizon --Carschten 18:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The round earth is the only reason? o_O DerHexer 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fixed by fellow. DerHexer 12:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • better now, but I'm not really convinced. Let the others decide. --Carschten 12:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 12:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Porthmadog railway station MMB 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Porthmadog railway station. Mattbuck 10:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support a bit dark and oversharpened, but good ;-) --Carschten 18:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The darkness is a weather thing, so acceptable, but the oversharpening yields bright halos on the light/dark interfaces. Maybe you can reprocess? Lycaon 22:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpening halos between mountain and sky. Sharpening halos and CA on lamp posts. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark. --kallerna 11:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 11:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Roman mouse IMG 4671-black.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bronze mouse pendant (about 3cm overall). On display at Vidy Roman Museum. -- Rama 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Tail not so sharp, and overexposures on the back, I'm afraid. Not sure about the white BG. Thoughts?--Jebulon 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to spoli the party, but the image is partly too dark for a black BG. Also the specular highlights disturb. Lycaon 11:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • "Spoil the party " ? (already seen these gentle words somewhere else...copy-paste from FPC ?) What a party ? This pic whas not reviewed during more than seven days. You had a very long time for oppose with only technical opinions ! Happy to see you wake up !--Jebulon 16:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Edges are too rough. /Dcastor 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 11:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Shinano-Omachi Station10n4440.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shinano-Omachi Station --663highland 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good --Carschten 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much CA issues. Lycaon 11:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The chromatic aberration isn't at the main motive, just at some things around it. So imo the pic is not too bad that the it couldn't be a QI. --Carschten 12:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA is not very strong here and could be corrected easily. (And it should be corrected). However what disturbs me more is distortion: Vertical lines are upright in the middle, but they lean considerably inward at the left and right side. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Kopaniny (3).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Natural monument Kopaniny in Czech Republic --Chmee2 15:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support very nice place, good image. QI--Jebulon 15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! I see here not more than average technical quality.--MrPanyGoff 19:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I entire disagree with MrPanyGoff. The composition is very good, but the quality isn't it. Unsharpness und strong chromatic aberrations. Imo not QI, sorry. --Carschten 14:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 14:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Flaga Litwy.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Flag of Lithuania -- Albertus teolog 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good--Jebulon 08:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --Carschten 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp, compression (676 KB) & too tight crop --Lmbuga 17:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noise visible even at thumbnail size. --Ikiwaner 15:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Anableps anableps qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Four-eyed Fish. --Quartl 04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. --Cayambe 08:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy. Lycaon 07:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lycaon --Carschten 12:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Bridal Veil Falls, British Columbia.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Bridal Veil Falls, British Columbia. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support very good--Jebulon 13:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry! I see here not more than average technical quality.--MrPanyGoff 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment What is average technical quality? It appears in the Commons:Image guidelines?--Lmbuga 23:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I like it, but not the crop--Lmbuga 23:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, ok photo, but: too much contrast, should have longer exposure, bad perspective, quite unsharp. --kallerna 08:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This one has also the blown-highlights problem as the water falls below.--Johannes Robalotoff 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support very good! --A.Ceta 08:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Rainbow falls.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rainbow Falls, British Columbia. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support very good--Jebulon 13:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry! I see here not more than average technical quality.--MrPanyGoff 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment What is average technical quality? It appears in the Commons:Image guidelines?--Lmbuga 23:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good--Lmbuga 23:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Lycaon 07:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. --kallerna 08:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Bridal Veil Falls, BC.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Bridal Veil Falls, British Columbia. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good, despite the crop right--Jebulon 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry! I see here not more than average technical quality.--MrPanyGoff 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 14:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment What is average technical quality? It appears in the Commons:Image guidelines?--Lmbuga 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop --Lmbuga 23:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights as with the other water fall. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 18:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:An-2 SP-KBA Królewo 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Antonov An-2 --Airwolf 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I added a bit more contrast, so now I support. --Carschten 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry! I find it very overexposed especially the sky.--MrPanyGoff 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's possible a better version. Sorry. Overexposed (clouds) and subexposed (dark zones of the airplane) --Lmbuga 23:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Woman in Serjilla.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Woman of Syria --Bgag 23:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too noisy IMO. --kallerna 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Better now? --Bgag 16:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose such a centered composition may be ok for animal or pland headliner images. For a portrait I think it's rather boring. I had preferred a closer view without the big stone on the lower left. --Ikiwaner 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Mosquito September 2010-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Female Culicine mosquito (cf. Culex sp.). Taken with a macro lens and an extension tube. Very shallow DOF due to short shooting distance -- Alvesgaspar 23:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The composition is much better than in the last one, but still way too little of the organism is in focus. BTW did it bite you too? Please do keep trying, a few more bites, sorry pictures, and you will get QI image of a mosquito for sure --Mbz1 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think we shouldn't be unreasonable here, f/18 is already quite closed and the critters are very small. Many parts of the animal, such as antenna, sucker, eye and abdomen, are in good focus, and the softness is probably caused by diffraction. The thorax could be a bit better, but that would be my only criticism. --Quartl 04:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for macro photography. The depth of field at f/18 is near the maximum attainable before diffraction limits resolution over the whole field of view. The pose makes good use of the shallow DOF. The illumination and exposure are good although more diffuse or bounce illumination might have reduced the harsh shadow under the animal. The wing veins, most of the right hind and mid-legs, eye facets, left antenna and proboscis are visible and confer high educational value. Wsiegmund 04:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support can not do better without "Focus stacking" --Archaeodontosaurus 06:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, I was the one, who nominated this one for FP. So I thought, it could be better, but maybe I am missing something. I put the two images side to side (I downsampled Alves's image to make the size the same as the other one) File:Two mosquitos.jpg, and I still stand behind my vote. The nominated image is not QI. I was also wondering about the color of the eye. Is it really red and green? This comment was made only to explain my own oppose vote. --Mbz1 10:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 09:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Fife IMG 4818.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 19th century fife. -- Rama 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very coarse cut of object from original background. Tone and contrast of object do not correspond to new background. --Kae 04:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The first reason to decline looks too much severe to me. The second is a matter of taste IMO. I think it is a QI, even not absolutely perfect. Let's discuss.--Jebulon 09:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 06:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Un objet non détaillé sur un fond artificiel...pas bon.--HAF 932 07:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Je pense qu'un fond gris soit bon pour un objet noir car ca fait un contrast ni trop grand ni trop petit. Ceci est une très bonne photographie illustrative. Avec un fond naturel mais non-pertrurbant on pourrait la nomminer comme image excellente. --Ikiwaner 12:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info the last two entrys will not count because they came too late. --Carschten 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Die Wallfahrtskirche Maria Schutz Kronberg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A catholic pilgrimage church in Bavaria. --High Contrast 23:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support okay --Carschten 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky partly overexposed and with color artifacts. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose exposure errors --Archaeodontosaurus 06:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support is nice, I see no big problems with the QI criterias --A.Ceta 08:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    voting period of 48 houres since the last entry are over. --Carschten 14:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 06:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Nakagusuku Castle41n3104.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Nakagusuku Castle in Okinawa pref. --663highland 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support QI --Carschten 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry! I see here not more than average technical quality.--MrPanyGoff 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The white balance is good? Not to me, but I'm not sure--Lmbuga 23:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 14:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Fort de Roppe (2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Main entry of fort de Roppe --ComputerHotline 14:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support good --Carschten 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  OpposeSorry! I see here not more than average technical quality.--MrPanyGoff 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The question here is not if an image is above average. If the majority of images would meet QI criteria they would be still QI, although the average would be raised so much that many QI images were below average :-). I see no serious technical problem with this one although the composition is not really exciting. -Johannes Robalotoff 17:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry Johannes, for not writing more words so that to be clear. I don't mean average for the candidates list. I mean average tourist quality. Since I don't think that QI images should be on average tourist level, I voted against. --MrPanyGoff 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Messy composition, IMO every dull HDR-photo of "fortifications" shouldn't be QI. --kallerna 14:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --kallerna 14:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ogi Shirakawa-gō, Gifu, Japan.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shirakawa-go, Japan --663highland 12:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support As if the photo needs a bit more technical quality, but I find it very informative and useful. --MrPanyGoff 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technical quality is all what it is here about at QIC. The right side of the image is not sharp. Looks like a camera issue as the left side is OK. Lycaon 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • hey, the composition is also an assessment criterion at QIC --Carschten 13:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • without a meaningful subject there is no sense to discuss a photo, no matter if it was taken with a fullframe camera. I think that the main goal of QIC is to encourage producing of meaningful images which are photos with good subject and good composition. And yes, these photos should be with good technical quality. As for the image above, it has very good subject and good composition. Yes, the technical quality is not great but not so bad too. As a whole, I find this photo not amongst the best here but above the average level of the list. --MrPanyGoff 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Comment It appears as if the left side of a larger image was cropped, so that lens aberrations can only be seen at the right side. But I think sharpness is not too bad and it could probably be improved by correcting CA before doing the crop. (The individual color components might be sharper than the CA-affected whole.) --JRff (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support Great colours, mediocre composition, technical quality not too bad, we have QIs with more corner unsharpness than this one. --Ikiwaner 17:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 13:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Viljo koirarannalla 17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dog looking for his ball. --kallerna 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Ugly dog, but QI nevertheless ;-). Lycaon 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment He's not ugly, just loves his ball. ;) --kallerna 16:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks better when dry :). Lycaon 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too shallow DOF. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image.--Mbz1 02:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wet dog stinks horrible  Support You are sure you don't give him some drugs? His eyes are looking very strange :-D Nice image, no DOF problem visable. But Lycaon is right, the dog looks better when he's dry ;-) --Carschten 13:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Although a very ugly dog that looks stupid in addition, too. But this is technical perfect photo. --A.Ceta (talk)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg-Grund Eglise Saint-Jean Portail 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church portal in Luxembourg City. --Cayambe 17:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support It is OK Albertus teolog 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose much too noisy --Carschten 16:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not too, IMO. Maybe a bit tilted, but otherwise good for QI.--Jebulon 17:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is rather noisy. Lycaon 17:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy. --A.Ceta 08:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 14:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Poignard IMG 4977.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bronze dagger, ca. 2200-1600 BCE. -- Rama 21:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, quite unsharp and coarse cut of object from original background. --kallerna 10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  SupportQI & Useful now... --Archaeodontosaurus 06:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dark on dark is not very useful imo --Carschten 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    Any better with a gradient? Rama 23:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    yes, but not good enough. A white or transparent background would be better. --Carschten 13:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per kallerna & Carschten--Lmbuga 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support not so unsharp, not so bad cut off, IMO.--Jebulon 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low contrast on subject, dark background not suitable for dark objects. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I have tried to further lighten the background. I also have a version on a white background (File:Poignard_IMG_4977-white.jpg), but I have the impression that the contrast is very violent. Rama 14:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it very good. --A.Ceta 08:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Mosquito August 2010-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Female mosquito (cf. Culex sp.). The mosquito was alive and did recover ... from my pilow blow (he bite me first). Shot made with a 100mm macro lens and an extension tube. -- Alvesgaspar 00:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Only an eye and part of 2 legs are in focus, besides the composition, it looks dead.--Mbz1 01:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I want another opinion, please -- Alvesgaspar 10:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Mbz1 that focus is not good. --Chmee2 11:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info -- DOF is extremely shallow under these circunstances (less than 1mm) and the only way to solve the problem is focus stacking, which requires some preparation and is impossible when the subject is not still -- Alvesgaspar 19:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well if the insect was not dead then I would expect it to be right up. Otherwise killing it and easy focus stack probably would have resulted better than this? ZooFari 04:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info - Let me try to explain better. I made this shot because the ventral angle allows a much better view of certain anatomic features like the palpi, the eyes and the thorax, with its paper-like structure. As far as I know no other picture in Commons shows these features better. It is really irrelevant whether the beast was alive or not. But it was, because I didn't want to tear the abdomen with the blow (and spill my blood). That made the shot more difficult, as the animal was moving its legs frenetically. It is really not important whether the picture is considered a QI or not. -- Alvesgaspar 12:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Because of the mitigating factors. Thank you for the droll account. Wsiegmund 18:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Under "the mitigating factors" you mean that the photographer got bitten by his subject? --Mbz1 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support As a non specialist (macro and mosquitos), I've been very interested by the explanations of th photographer, and he convinced me to support.--Jebulon 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Turisteja Kustaanmiekassa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tourists in Kustaanmiekka, Suomenlinna. --kallerna 15:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not so good exposition.--MrPanyGoff 07:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exposition? --kallerna 13:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The background is strongly overlighted.--MrPanyGoff 07:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition is nice, but foreground is under- and background is overexposed --Carschten 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Chambourd.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chambourd, by User:Bad germ. Maedin 12:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • No Question --Niabot 15:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
What is no question? --Ikiwaner 12:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed parts, washed out colors, lack of contrast, IMO.
  •  Info It is "Château de Chambord", not "Chambourd". The categorization was bad (fixed). Maybe a geoloc would add.--Jebulon 08:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposure of sky and the path in front of the castle. --Ikiwaner 12:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Eupeodes luniger qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hoverfly Eupeodes luniger on Marsh Cranesbill. --Quartl 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good. --Cayambe 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur, DOF is too small. --Kae 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, but the issues that Kae mentioned may be improved with manual settings of f/11 to f/16, 1/200s (with flash), and ISO400. Wsiegmund 21:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Unfortunately, ISO 400 leads to noticeable noise with my camera and even f/16 won't get the whole flower sharp at this distance. --Quartl 06:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Rainbow falls, BC.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rainbow Falls, British Columbia. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The other waterfall photos from you were better. But the colors aren't good in this photo. --A.Ceta 14:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment The colours are dull because the sky was overcast that day. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 08:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Serengeti_Loewin2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lioness --Ikiwaner 07:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good composition. --kallerna 15:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sure about the composition. May I have other opinions about the distracting second animal in background, please ?--Jebulon 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, above there are the QI criterias written and there is nothing standing that the composition is a criteria. It is not. Besides I think the composition is good: the other lion in the background is not distracting: this is how lions are, they lie together around, they are pack species. --A.Ceta (talk)
    • Not sure I understand well: You really say that composition is not a criterium for QI ? If yes, it is very interesting and new here, IMO...--Jebulon 13:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Composition and lighting seem to be among the criteria for QI, but I think more reviewers emphasize resolution, image quality and exposure so as to complement FP and VI. Wsiegmund 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
not me. Thanks for pointing this out. --Ikiwaner 14:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 14:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:White-spotted puffer is being cleaned by Hawaiian cleaner wrasse.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination White-spotted puffer is being cleaned by Hawaiian cleaner wrasse.--Mbz1 00:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Congralation QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of CA in most of the subimages. Lycaon 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no CA on any of the frame, only natural colors of the fish. BTW if somebody is not sure what is chromatic aberration, you may see it File:Antidorcas marsupialis 2.jpg at almost all foreground rocks.Mbz1 20:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment Most of the CA I see is in the sand... --kallerna 20:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It is not CA, and there's no sand. It is a natural color of algae and piles of corals. Come on, Kallerna, you know how CA looks. Even, if there were CA somewhere, this image has a strong mitigating circumstances. It is an action shots taken in the wild and under the water.--Mbz1 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good underwater photos --George Chernilevsky 19:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is good and deserves a support vote. Not sure of need of several photos (they are not absolutely equal in quality, and it could be easy to point one of them with a little issue, and decline all the work...Risky!). Could maybe be a good set in VISC...--Jebulon 09:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 09:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Kobe Kawasaki Shipbuilding Co02ds3200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kawasaki Shipbuilding Kobe Shipyard & Machinery Works in Kobe --663highland 14:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good and informative--Jebulon 13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is definitely some perspective correction necessary. Most verticals are skewed. Lycaon 20:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction necessary --Archaeodontosaurus 12:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 08:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Mefjärd.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mefjärd, Stockholm archipelago. --Ankara 10:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. --Kae 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown-highlights in the sky.--MrPanyGoff 11:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose and burnt shadows --Ikiwaner 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ankara 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:A photographer is taking picture of a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean Beach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A photographer is taking picture of a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean Beach--Mbz1 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment What's up with the writing? ZooFari 02:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not know. It was like that, when I got there today. I guess it could be removed in a photo shop, but it is quite a work. What is interesting that this is extremely rare whale seen only in the deep ocean,and so far the scientists are not sure what it is exactly. Some even believe that it could be a hybrid of fin and sei wales. The scientists took a DNA sample.--Mbz1 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality --George Chernilevsky 09:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting stiching error in the waves. --kallerna 09:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I believe I fixed them, please tell me, if you see some more, and if you do please add a note. Thanks.--Mbz1 14:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 12:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Lake_Manyara_Diademmeerkatze2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blue monkey eating --Ikiwaner 12:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good to me.--Jebulon 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The cut head is disturbing, should be discussed. --Quartl 07:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The cut head is bad. But the way the monkey to hold the leaf and her eyes, make a pretty picture.--Archaeodontosaurus 20:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Eastern Cottontail, Sylvilagus floridanus.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: An Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose motion blur, sorry --Carschten 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support At f/6.3, the depth of field is such that the posterior of the subject is out of focus. However, the head is in focus and I see no evidence of blur from subject motion despite the 1/20s shutter speed. I see ghost images of the highlights in the eye that are a consequence of camera motion. However, the ghost highlights about one f-stop fainter than the main highlights, a significant mitigation of this problem. With even illumination, no distracting foreground or background elements, and no obstructions, I think it satisfies the criteria. -- Wsiegmund 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Well said Walter! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree, f/6.3 is too open for this kind of shot. More than half the animal is out of focus. --Quartl 10:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, focus and white balance. Subexposed zones--Lmbuga 23:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per Walter --George Chernilevsky 10:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp photo --A.Ceta 08:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good!--Mbz1 16:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others + don't like the background. --kallerna 10:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Wsiegmund. Suspense !--Jebulon 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   ----Jebulon 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach--Mbz1 03:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI. Interesting --George Chernilevsky 09:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting stiching error in the waves. --kallerna 09:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I believe I fixed them, please tell me, if you see some more, and if you do please add a note. Thanks.--Mbz1 14:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment There's still couple stiching errors, but I can't add notes, because the tool doesn't work. --kallerna 16:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 12:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Haven't you found out the species? --Leyo 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not. The scientists took a dna sample, but it is not ready yet.--Mbz1 18:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It is really so difficult to distinguish different whale species? --Leyo 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I responded at the editor's talk page.--Mbz1 17:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Église Saint-Sulpice de Fougères 13 fused.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Sulpice church, Fougères (attempt of contre-jour). --Coyau 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
    I spend some light to the church and have it downscaled a bit. I'm going to reduced some of the chromatic aberrations later this evening. --Carschten 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A very nice composition, but IMO the image is not sharp enough.--Mbz1 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm surprised, I don't see a sharpness problem. --Coyau 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I put it up for the discussion. Let's see what other will say.--Mbz1 02:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, thanks. --Coyau 05:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment If this has 9 source images why is the resolution here below 8MP? Furthermore the clouds look too dark compared to the ground. It looks like an overdone shadows/highlights adjustment. Excellent composition/point of view! --Ikiwaner 18:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Oops, my mistake, there are 6 source images. The panorama is made of 2 source image, each image being merged from 3 different exposures to manage the strong contre-jour. --Coyau (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. In that case it's a true HDR image. I consider the tonemapping settings as not opimal which results in the surrealistic feeling of the sky being darker than the ground. However I think it's fixable. I use PTGui and I'm normally happy with the standard Exposure fusion settings. --Ikiwaner 12:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and the tips. --Coyau 00:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I'll decline the original for now. The processed version of Carschten can be considered as a new nomination when finished. --Quartl 09:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Hosjö kyrka 01.jpg[edit]

  •  CommentNew version uploaded. Better? --V-wolf 22:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • yeah, much better.  Support now --Carschten 19:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture IMO. Can't see halo, the bright line at the left side of the roof of the tower is not a halo but 1 of the 4 visible folds of the roof. --Llez 04:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Maybe the superior part (from the octogonal part, until to the top) is a bit leaning left, and needs a perspective correction, if not normal (but could be so in real)--Jebulon 08:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It could be a by-product from a perspective correction of the tower. I can compare it with other pictures – or reality (even though I have no time for a trip to Falun this week). Maybe I can do something about it. V-wolf 10:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I realized that I cannot do a perspective correction that doesn't have effect on the tower as a whole :( V-wolf 15:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. --Lmbuga 23:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 19:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Marksburg-Braubach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Marksburg, Braubach, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany --Tobi 87 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 16:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The explanations of Johannes, convinced me --Archaeodontosaurus 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hint for other users to understand this: More arguments were exchanged on my discussion page. See there if interested. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Definitely not QI without a perspective correction! (Or without improving the current correction.) The tower on the right has more than half of the inclination that the tower of Pisa has. May be that the tower leans a bit in reality. But I do not believe that it is leaning that much. (I have been there myself, although I could not look on it from the opposite Rhine side.) Apart from that sharpening appears borderline to me with halos already visible at some edges. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 08:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ovis orientalis aries, Moers.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Male mouflon in the château park of Moers --Carschten 20:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose boring bad compositon. Alofok 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment of course is composition a criteria at QIC. But I thought at something like "bad composition" or "good composition". The justification "boring composition" is valid reason at FPC, but not at QIC imo. Or do I understand something wrong? --Carschten 12:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment sorry because of the uncorrectness. i have corrected that mistake. Alofok 12:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • then please tell me: what is so bad to you? --Carschten 14:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
          • In German: Das Objekt könnte das Bild mehr füllen, zudem wäre eine bessere/andere Perspektive wünschenswert: Bücken o. ö. und von der gleichen Größe des Objekts frontal gehen. Natürlich so, dass man die Seite des Viehs gut erkennt. Alofok 14:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Should be cropped more towards the ram. --Quartl 13:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 11:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Preparations for burial of a whale washed ashore on Ocean Beach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Preparations for burial of a whale washed ashore on Ocean Beach--Mbz1 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Interesting, but the cloning is far too visible. --kallerna 20:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • let's discuss it please.Maybe something could be fixed. Where exactly you see the cloning problems?--Mbz1 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment I would add notes, but the tool isn't working. The most visible cloning stuff is under the catepillar and under the line. --kallerna 11:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I fixed it. Any better?--Mbz1 15:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
          •  Comment A lot better, but still not QI in my books. Too many little stiching errors + obvious cloning. --kallerna 12:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
          • BTW there was no cloning under the catepillar.--Mbz1 14:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Kallerna is right, I see many stitching errors at first glance. Do you have the original pieces, Mbz1? Maybe I could help. ZooFari 14:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Hi ZooFari, I do have all original images, but the the thing is that I hand hold my camera, and did not do a good job at all. In some places I cut the line, in other places I cut the ocean and the sky and so on. So, working on this panorama will require enormous amount of time, and doing manual cloning from different images, and I do not believe it worth it. I am doing this kind of work myself because it is a good relaxation exercise for me, but to force somebody else to do it...Never. I really could live with the image not getting QI status Thank you very much for your kind offer, and for your interest in the image! (I may upload a single lower zoom image of a scene, or make another panorama taken from a different angle). BTW they were working on the hole for a few hours, there was water inside the hole, and they still kept digging. We left before they were done, but I saw in a news they actually picked up the carcass with 2 bulldozers, took it out of the ocean, and let the scientists take the samples and measurements. Then they put the carcass in a hole, and covered it with the sand. I went to the place yesterday. Only tracks of bulldozers are left there now. --Mbz1 16:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 11:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Russula mustelina (Foto Hilarmont).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Two mushrooms, Russulaceae -- Alofok 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Strange phenomenon. Is it usual or rare ? Maybe a FP?--Jebulon 22:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unidentified. Lycaon 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is identified. It is rare, i am every year picking up mushrooms and haven't seen something like that. FP? A joke? Alofok 09:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is not a joke, I didn't say this because of quality (FP are NOT "super QI"), but because of it is very curious--Jebulon 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose curious image, but lacks sharpness (visible denoising) and id (family is way too general). --Quartl 19:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Is this just one mushroom that's mutated or someting or is it actually two separate organisms? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 04:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Kuppel-st.lorenz-kempten-4-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The dome of the St. Lorenz in Kempten. Alofok 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Gut --George Chernilevsky 20:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Already discussed in July? --Iogos82 11:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose decline is decline, sorry --Carschten 12:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose at least some improvement is needed before resubmission. --Quartl 05:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still not crisp. Lycaon 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 04:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Taraxacum - Taraxacum officinale.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Taraxacum officinale T137 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very sharp! Good details! --A.Ceta 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, no details visible. --Quartl 07:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too many areas out of focus --Archaeodontosaurus 05:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 13:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:A dead whale at Ocean Beach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A dead whale at Ocean Beach--Mbz1 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Needs id. Looks like a fin, not sure though. Also, what are the letters, graffiti or ..? BTW I think this one shows the bite marks better. --Ianare 17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The scientists could not ID the whale. Graffiti were probably done by vandals, but is the quality of the image worse because of them? I agree the other image shows bites marks better, but this one shows the tail and the whole wale.--Mbz1 18:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • if ID is not reliably possible then this should be indicated in the image description. Graffiti was simply out of curiosity and has no impact on QI status. --Ianare 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the info you requested to the description of the image. If you see any more reasons to oppose the nomination, could you please state them. Thanks.--Mbz1 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support ok now, usefull image. --Ianare 16:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. This photo rather show an event, not animal --George Chernilevsky 09:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Aix_galericulata_001.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Male Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata --Llez 15:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support some noise and imo a bit oversharpened but really nice colours and composition --Mbdortmund 15:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose much too noisy imo and cutted shadow has heavy chromatic aberrations --Carschten 15:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too noisy. --Quartl (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality: nice colours and composition. Alofok 15:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise. Lycaon 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Gorgeous colours, but per Lycaon and Quartl. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the colours, but per Lycaon and Quartl.--Lmbuga 23:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)