Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 23 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Алматы,_цистерна_ЗиЛ-130_на_Омаровой_(3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination ZiL-130 tank truck at Omarova street. Almaty, Kazakhstan. --Красный 00:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline There is a strong chromatic aberration on the back edge of a truck, that needs to be fixed --Jakubhal 04:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    Tried to fix it. Note that I'm colorblind and relay only on automatic fixes as I don't see the chromatic aberration. Красный 05:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
     Neutral There were more. I fixed them for you. However, as I prepared part of the correction, I would like to refrain from voting and let others decide if it is good enough. --Jakubhal 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA are still present. This can be fixed when you converting your file from RAW. But there are some more problems like noise, looks like your camera set incorrect ISO for such sunny day. --Nino Verde (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Railway_Carriage_at_the_National_Shooting_Centre.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Former Bisley Camp Station --Hemmers 09:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Blown sky to the left, questionable crop, unsharp corners. --C messier 09:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    Blown sky is somewhat inevitable where sun is in/near frame - per guidelines, the subject (and majority of sky) are well exposed, blown corner is appropriate to "sun dappled" composition. Unsharp corners are as expected for 18mm. I have adjusted the crop to lose the distracting sign (which snuck back in when fixing CA). The crop loses some of the unsharp corner on right. --Hemmers 12:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are technics to avoid have the sky overexposed to the point that eats away small branches. I really don't think that a 18mm lens is supposed to have visible unsharp corners in preview size. The problem with the crop is to the left, as you can see the building ends, but its small end part is cropped. --C messier 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate crop: The left corner of the main building is missing, whereas on the right, there is a useless corner of a second building. Turn the camera just a little to the left and you are fine. --Palauenc05 07:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Highlights blown, severe magenta COM:CA. -- Ikan Kekek 23:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 17:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:G-Class,_IAA_Open_Space_2023,_Munich_(P1120148).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Prototype of the all-electric G-Class at IAA Open Space 2023, Munich --MB-one 07:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --C messier 09:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The front of the car isn'tvery sharp and there are some blown out highlights. There is also a purple line on the roof of the car. I think we need others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 08:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The image was taken under unfavorable conditions. The transition from the front of the vehicle to the bright people in the background is poor. In addition, the reflections of passers-by in the side windows of the car are annoying. It is one of those cases where a quality image is hardly possible. -- Spurzem 18:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Really interesting-looking paint job, so a good motif, and maybe a valued image, but  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 23:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Rolls-Royce_Spectre_IAA_2023_1X7A0749.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rolls-Royce Spectre at BMW World Munich 2023.--Alexander-93 07:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    The reason for discuss is that I disagree with myself, the quality is great; the noise is handled remarkably well in these dark conditions and it seems to be sharp enough, but it's take in portrait so I want other reviewers' opinions and also maybe a reason for the framing which would help determinate to support or oppose. --多多123 10:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I have made a crop suggestion as a note - pls delete after viewing --Virtual-Pano 14:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the first version better, but a QI either way. -- Ikan Kekek 23:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:20221017_Wasserturm_Neu-Ulm_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View up at the water tower in Neu-Ulm --FlocciNivis 07:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose the tree --Charlesjsharp 09:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support We can't erase things which exist, it also adds to the image showing the dynamic range in the image. Therefore, I vote support, but a different image would be needed to be used in an article regarding the tower or for VI. There are no visible flaws in the quality either. --多多123 10:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. There are a few small things that could be criticized in a purely technical assessment of the photo: On the sunlit side, the bright areas are slightly overexposed, I would like to see a correction. Borderline. DOF is a bit tight if you expect such a shot to be crisp from front to back. But I'll take that as an intentional design to emphasize the leaves of the tree, which contribute quite decisively to the pretty composition. --Smial 07:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
    • Thank you for the detailed review. I appreciate it! And I reduced the exposure of the bright areas now a bit --FlocciNivis 17:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I always try to provide comprehensible reasons. They may sometimes not literally follow the rigid (or frozen?) rules, but I don't expect everyone to follow my arguments either. Thanks for the revision of the image, I'll delete the "weak" then. --Smial 11:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Pretty leaves, good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)