Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 14 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Austria_Eisenstadt_2022-09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Josef Haydn Plaque at His Home (1766-1778) --Scotch Mist 06:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Something went wrong here --Poco a poco 11:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info Am not sure anything "went wrong" here other than when viewing at 'full size' the engraved letters are highly magnified and appear distorted or blurred. Admittedly this is not the best example but with increasingly higher-resolution images, sometimes of relatively small objects, is there an argument for exceptions to QI Guidelines discouraging 'down-sampling'? --Scotch Mist 10:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Sorry for not elaborating my comment, but after I saw the blurred inscription I thought the file was nominated by mistake and you'd concur and take it back. Even downsampling it you wouldn't make it a sharp image, and still, it's 12 MPx which is standard, no high res. --Poco a poco 13:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me looks like motion blur. The letters might be blurred, but not the metal nut near left-bottom corner. Double contours of the letters and the shutter speed of 1/8 sec. also speak for motion blur. And the whole image looks rather noisy. --LexKurochkin 08:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Artefacts along the edges of the letters (over-sharpening?) and some blurring. --Tagooty 03:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Understand the various comments expressed above and concede that "over-sharpening" could be a relevant consideration but with regard to perceived blurring I would draw attention to what I presume to be fine engraving-tool marks across the stone\marble surface (see around 'h' of "hause" for example). It is this apparent contrast that drew me to posing the question as to whether there might be a valid argument for "down-sampling" in some circumstances where magnified (relative to original object photographed) on-screen viewing of some images reveals a level of detail to which we are not accustomed and may lead to incorrect assessments. As indicated previously this is not an ideal example for such a discussion, and I expected that QI would probably be opposed, but thought it possibly worthwhile to have some discussion in this forum. --Scotch Mist 07:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. There is motion blur. --Augustgeyler 14:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)