Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 08 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Camel_at_Puri_Beach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A man with a camel at Puri Beach, India --Ganesh Mohan T 06:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. Regards to Puri beach! --Kritzolina 06:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The horizon should be aligned --Ermell 07:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 20:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    Fixed alignment now --Ganesh Mohan T 10:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and nice motif. -- Ikan Kekek 05:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 16:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Jakubhal 18:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Seattle_(WA,_USA),_Broad_Street,_Bahnübergang_--_2022_--_1690.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Train at the railroad crossing at Broad Street in Seattle, Washington, USA --XRay 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 02:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Oppose with regret. 1/60 is too slow to provide a sharp image of this speeding train, even with panning. Locomotive is also cut off on right. --GRDN711 13:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I can't relate to that. The locomotive is sharp, the effect is clear, perhaps the exposure time could have been even longer. The essential parts of the locomotive are clearly visible, especially the front part of the locomotive. Moreover, it is not even covered. The right, cropped part is insignificant. IMO the image is a good example for motion blur. --XRay 06:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I find motioin blur to be most effective against a sharp, in-focus background. This one I think the shutter speed was just a little too slow to work well. Just my opinion. --GRDN711 20:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Regarding the high resolution the moving object is by far sharp enough. I would have even wished for a slightly longer exposure time. Composition, lighting, etc. are nice, crop doesn't bother. --Smial 09:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand the criticism and the contra. In my opinion, there is nothing to complain about in the picture. -- Spurzem 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 08:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)