Nomination Malus floribunda --Lestat 09:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
ReviewComment not a good background, why don't you crop, it would still be large enough. The apples are very good though (sharpness, DOF, light). Lycaon 09:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Alte Mühle in Warendorf --Doodledoo 21:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Review I think it is good enough though we could pass without the car and the amorphus mass of blurred trees in the background - Alvesgaspar 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Young Common Shag in Croatia --JuliusR 12:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Himikov street in Saint Petersburg. #!George Shuklin 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Review {{{2}}}
Nomination Black Crowned Crane: Not featured, 6+, 4-, good enough as a Quality Image? (I found this site too late)--Nightflyer 20:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Good detail on interesting bird head. -- Infrogmation 14:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Flower of Lantana camara. This one is sharp and detailed, and it is ment to show the details of the florets (there is a tiny ant inside) - Alvesgaspar 18:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Nomination Front of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls - Roma - Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Nomination I think I'm becoming addicted to hoverflies. This one (Eristalis arbostorun) is gorgeous! - Alvesgaspar 14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Nomination Detail of the ceiling fresco by Johann Michael Rottmayr (1721) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Looks nice. Kolossos 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Detail of the ceiling fresco by Johann Michael Rottmayr (1721) - Melk Abbey (Austria) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Info:I'm not sure with the composition. --Kolossos 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Ceiling painting of the Marble hall of the Melk Abbey by Paul Troger (1731) and the architectural painting by Gaetano Fanti - Melk Abbey (Austria) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Looks nice. --Kolossos 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Review Haha, if it wasn't for the clouds, I might have been on the picture in the top left corner ;-) Lycaon 20:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Good view. --Beyond silence 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Flowers and leaves of Lantana camara. I know I have shot lantana before but these two looked so exuberant today that I can't resist to share it with you - Alvesgaspar 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Nomination Charlotte Wessels & Ronald Landa from Delain on Westerpop 2007. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Convolvulus. Vassil 22:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Good exposure of the flower (not always easy). But I don't like the composition, with the whitered leaves and the wire - Alvesgaspar 10:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Harbour of Digby, Nova Scotia, Annapolis Basin. --Aconcagua 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Nomination Telemarksvegen, Norway. --Aconcagua 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Review There is a strong feeling of a ccw tilt, confirmed by the trees at right. Also, a larger F number should be uses to get a sharper image. Finally, why using a size just below the minimum suggested by the guidelines ? - Alvesgaspar 10:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination The Ilz near Passau. --Aconcagua 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Nomination European lynx (Lynx lynx wrangeli) in a zoo. Vassil 14:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Wasp mimicking hoverfly (Ceriana vespiformis). This version has a little better quality though the POV is worse - Alvesgaspar 16:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Perhaps rotate 90 degress clockwise. I'm also concerned about the noise in the background.Inductiveload 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Done - Rotation and noise - Alvesgaspar 19:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Wasp mimicking hoverfly (Ceriana vespiformis). Notice the unusual form of the antennae, I've never seen anything like that in hoverflies - Alvesgaspar 15:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Looks very good in smaller sizes but a 100% really not sharp enough. Lycaon 20:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Only real problem is DOF. Noise level good, exposure good, composition good, detail good. Overall QI :-) --Tony Wills 12:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination AverMedia TV tuner remote control (again!) Barcex 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Review Can you adjust some contrast? --Beyond silence 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Has been developed with "high contrast film" in COne, and added 1 step of contrast. Perhaps you're talking about levels. Barcex 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I think the dull gray background creates the illusion of poor contrast. Maybe a white background? Calibas 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.
To ask for consensual review, move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images, and change the form according to the procedure explained in the Guidelines.
You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility. In any case, please explain your reasons.
The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 15 days, counted from its entry.
Nomination♀ Oedipoda caerulescens, Spain. Lycaon 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
I'd like to promote, but I there is what I believe to be blur from shake - Benh 20:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC).
Comment I think the photo was taken on an angle to the insect, then rotated so DOF is inconsistent along the insects length. Whatever the cause it does not look sharp. --Tony Wills 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment There was no rotation and negligible shake, but some movement of the critter. I could of course, like so many here, resort to 1600x1200 resampling (see bottom sample), but sorry, that I refuse as too much information would be lost. Post processors can still decide on doing that later if it fits there purposes, but once uploaded as a resampled version, there is no way back. Lycaon 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Support IMO Lycaon has a good point. Although not perfect, I find that the original photo has a sufficient sharpness for QI. -- Slaunger 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil (Upper Belvedere)[edit]
Nomination Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil: Prince Eugene as a new Apollo - Marble Hall (Belvedere, Vienna) --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Oppose Overexposed and heavily noisy Alessio Damato 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment OK. You're right. Here is the non-cropped version. The only "real thing" are the two window frames on the left and the four lamps. Any thing else is illusion on an almost flat ceiling. Upper right "over-exposition" creates the illusion of light entering the top-right window. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment much better, but it's blurred. Alessio Damato 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would like a second opinion on that. Blur is employed to recreate some DOF but I am not 100% sure. Camera was laying on the floor to take full benefit of perspective.
Nomination Non-cropped version of the ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeil. The only "real thing" are the two window frames on the left and the four lamps. Anything else is illusion on an almost flat ceiling. Upper right "over-exposition" creates the illusion of light entering the top-right window Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Comment much better, but it's blurred. Alessio Damato 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
WeakOppose Sorry, I think a bit more sharpness need to QI. --Beyond silence 06:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I will go back to the Belvedere Museum for another run of pictures. I hope they will let me in with my tripod ;-) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Result: Nomination withdrawn -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil by Andrea Pozzo - Jesuit Church (Vienna) --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
OpposeReally noisy, sorry. It has an impressive view, may after some noise reducation It can be a QI. --Beyond silence 00:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
NeutralA little noisy but well within my tolerable range, especially given the resolution. Fix the tilt, and you've got my vote. Thegreenj 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose indeed too noisy. Lycaon 07:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Male Blackbird --Tony Wills 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Question Can your improve on bill's bright? Thanks --Beyond silence 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose It looks as if the whole picture is suffering from a magenta cast. Lycaon 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Info Have adjusted the bills brightness slightly and fixed colour balance. --Tony Wills 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Bill is distracting, now too. --Beyond silence 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes the bill is shiny and so was over-exposed, so I've taken the edge off its brightness. But the head is the focal point of the image, so is the beak really 'distracting'? Is one small deficiency sufficient to decline, are there other faults? --Tony Wills 07:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Upper reaches of the Rhone river. Edited by --Beyond silence 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Oppose - Posterization and artifacts in the sky (please see the top of the mountains) - Alvesgaspar 09:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment this edit is over the top for my taste. It does not represent the scene as I have witnessed it. I still think that the original is more than sufficient for QI. Weather conditions should not affect eligibility if they are common in the depicted area and as long as the exposure is right. The sky looks bright in the original, but if this edit shows anything, it's that the original still has lots of detail and is not overexposed. --Dschwen 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the natural view is as bright as the original capture. --Beyond silence 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Done The artifacts are fixed. Thanks. Please revote! --Beyond silence 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope, they are still there, like small drops of milk. Also, notice the bands of gray in the cloud at left - we call that "posterization". In the present case it should be the result of a wild contrast enhancement - Alvesgaspar 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose over-contrasted. Lycaon 10:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
CommentThe contrast didn't touched, only change on bright parts. --Beyond silence 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Is the color of this new version better? --Luigi Chiesa 08:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Review
Support I think the composition is a little odd, but if Alves thinks its good then it must be :-). I think the second version has been ttastefully improved. :-) --Tony Wills 09:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done - Rotation and noise - Alvesgaspar 19:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss
User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss
User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss
User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss
-4.jpg)
