Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2010

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Jaroměř Základní skola Na ostrově.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Elementary school in Jaroměř, CZ --Kozuch 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Tilt can be corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 05:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Tilt was corrected already, see the photo (thumbnail is still cached)--Kozuch 08:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: Facade in shadow and very tight crop; also slight CA. --Elekhh 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose horizontal lines still distorted --Mbdortmund 09:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Hevoset kesälaitumella 10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Haematopota pluvialis on a finnhorse. --kallerna 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline The text of the nomination does not discribe the subject very well...--Jebulon 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Oops... --Kallerna 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Requested rename to File:Haematopota pluvialis on horse.jpg. Pitke (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the description. Ok now? Pitke 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the focus of the image is on the horseflies, then it is out of focus. --Quartl 11:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Percussion revolver Adams system IMG 3246.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Adams revolver. -- Rama 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, very useful. -- Felix Koenig 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dont like the cutout, which gives the borders an artificial color. Lighting is also not good. --Niabot 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree to Niabot --Berthold Werner 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's very nice, sharp, with a lot of details. It's a QI to me. I see one issue: at highest resolution, there are some strange green reflections on the metal, probably due to the original background. maybe a soft-green background could help ? However, otherwise good.--Jebulon 15:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dessature le vert et ce sera une très bonne photo --Archaeodontosaurus 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you! Rama 07:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support good now --Archaeodontosaurus 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good for me--Lmbuga 12:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Junghans Mega.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination worldwide frist radio clock wrist watch, JUNGHANS MEGA (analog model) --J. Lunau 12:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Valuable image, but below minimum resolution and oversharpened. Old version has better lighting, but is also too small. -- Smial 15:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    ;-) --Berthold Werner 16:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    : ✓ Done higher res. to be over 2 megapixel
    : ✓ Done bit softer light from opposite direction
    : ✓ Done no post-sharpening --J. Lunau 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    I would support, if you remove the black border. --Mbdortmund 18:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
     : ✓ Done black border removed - looks better, I think --J. Lunau 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
     Support --Mbdortmund 20:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kasumi Coast Okami park04st3200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kasumi Coast --663highland 13:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good view and good quality. -- Smial 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp and overexposed --V-wolf 07:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not overexposed really - the clipping is very minimal - but the sharpness is not good. --Herbythyme 12:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Podgora-0830.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Podgornaya sloboda in Pereslavl --PereslavlFoto 13:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline * Oppose Very low DOF. Low contrast. --Johannes Robalotoff 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) ** Comment Low DOF is a special effect to produce a toy-scene. Contrast fixed now.--PereslavlFoto 13:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too little in focus for me. Not a very appropriate for this scene --Herbythyme 12:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support to explanation of PereslavlFoto I consider this for QI tilt-shift maker photo with scale model look (see examples in flickr) --J. Lunau 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:2010-Catedral de Santiago de Compostela-Galicia (Spain) 4.jpg[edit]

 Comment the vertical lines on the right tower are slightly distorted to the right imo --Mbdortmund 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
New image. Thanks--Lmbuga 12:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree to mbdortmund. The first version was ok --Berthold Werner 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
New image with 3509 × 5265 pixels. Thanks, I'm learning: I can do this photo another day, but I need to know the errors of this image--Lmbuga 14:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support --Berthold Werner 18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support --Mbdortmund 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:2010-Catedral de Santiago de Compostela-Galicia (Spain) 3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia--Lmbuga 13:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Shouldn't the horizontal lines be straight (see notice)? else good --Mbdortmund 11:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    New image. Do you think that it`s better? Thanks--Lmbuga 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    Also here I think the first version was ok. You have to use the verticals to check if the picture is tilted. Horizontal lines are not usable unless you stand exactly in front of building. --Berthold Werner 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    New image with 5456 × 3638 pixels. Thanks--Lmbuga 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Support --Berthold Werner 18:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support --Mbdortmund 23:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:♂ Aeshna cyanea and Exuvie.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination :♂ Aeshna cyanea and Exuvie --Böhringer 22:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too soft. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks fine at half resolution. --Quartl 10:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Could it be sharpened? Pitke 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It looks to me as if it's slightly out of focus, and oversharpened, so the result is a noise ridden, blurry image. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is really not oversharpened, but lacks DOF. If shrinked to 3 MPix and slightly sharpend it looks quite well. -- Smial 21:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Cave Pommard.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: "Château de Pommard 2007" in cellar, Pommard, Burgundy, France--Jebulon 15:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Review --  Question -- May we try it first, before the review? Alvesgaspar 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Would be a pity, it's too young ! But I bought here some older bottles and you are welcome, but be careful, maybe you will find this pic fine enough, after tasting ! ;) --Jebulon 16:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC).
  •  Support Ok to me. :-) --Cayambe 14:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the flash. Partially too harsh light and partially too dark + quite blurry. Interesting subject nevertheless... --kallerna 07:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? George Chernilevsky 07:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Pistolet-IMG 3196-b.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Silex pistol of the Revolutionary Wars, made by Ateliers Nationaux in France circa 1790-1795. -- Rama 19:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Same as for the other ones (fake shadow, cutout, green flection) --Niabot 17:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Same as for te other ones: need a CR IMO.--Jebulon 16:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Can this be sharpened a bit? Pitke 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 Support Good work --Archaeodontosaurus 07:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Damme_Schellemolen_R01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Damme (Belgium): the canal and the windmill -- MJJR 21:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good -- George Chernilevsky 03:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Why the centred composition, why so much of the uninteresting foreground? --Eusebius 05:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 13:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Eusebius - way too much foreground. --Herbythyme 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Image description says: canal & Schellemolen and this is shown. Foreground shows canal bank, so it is ok. -- Smial 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. --kallerna 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. Crop and renominate. Pitke 13:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per smial --Mbdortmund 11:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg Beaufort château 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ruins of Beaufort Castle, Luxembourg. --Cayambe 09:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, colours and contrast look unnatural. -- Smial 15:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 Info New version uploaded, with natural colours. --Cayambe 17:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support Ok for me --Berthold Werner 18:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 Support --Mbdortmund 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 Support Current version is OK. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Speedway Extraliiga 22. 5. 2010 - Timo Lahti erässä 13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Speedwayrider Timo Lahti. --kallerna 12:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Blurred. Crusier 14:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    Good composition. Movement, not blurred for me--Lmbuga 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
     Support Composition--Lmbuga 18:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI fo me --Archaeodontosaurus 14:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Red Tower Mellieha.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination St. Agatha's Tower/Red Tower, Malta. -- Felix Koenig 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose lack of sharpness --Berthold Werner 15:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    Looks bearable for me, and I'd like to see how it looks like after a bit of sharpening. Pitke 19:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I sharpened it a little bit, applied CS5 correction of object lens and perspective --Mbdortmund 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Dingli Radar Station.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Dingli Radar Station, Malta. -- Felix Koenig 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too low DOF → not sharp and perspective correction needed. Lycaon 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for a QI. Alofok 11:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support At that resolution sharp enough in comparison to other images --Niabot 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support This picture is good: also sharf enough and a good perspective. --Timk70 13:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough. --A.Ceta 08:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough --Archaeodontosaurus 06:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough--Lmbuga 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good image, very hight quality --ChNPP 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good image but shartness inadequate for QI for me. --Herbythyme 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness, white burnt through. Maybe fixable? Pitke 13:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Difficult to understand the lack of details because all values of the camera are good. Detail of a bigger picture? --Mbdortmund 00:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it's the original picture from the camera, no detail of a bigger picture. -- Felix Koenig 09:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Vielleicht ein Gegenlichteffekt? Das Schild an der Mauer ist ja wirklich fast völlig aufgelöst. --Mbdortmund 11:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Möglich, das Schild sieht tatsächlich aus wie verwackelt. -- Felix Koenig 15:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Verwackelt bei 1/250s? Eher nicht. Benutzt du ein Nikon Objektiv? Es soll Nikons geben, die mit einigen Fremdobjektiven Probleme bei der Fokusierung haben. Ich beobachte das schon öfter bei deinen Fotos, dass es Probleme mit der Fokusierung gibt. --Berthold Werner 18:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Vielleicht auch zu hastig den Auslöser durchgedrückt? --Mbdortmund 23:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Dass die Kamera keine Zeit mehr zum fokussieren hat? Mag sein. --Berthold Werner 08:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Vielleicht eher ein Problem der Tiefenschärfe: Vergleiche die Nieten an der Kugel und unten das Schild, die Steine und das Gras. Fingalo 18:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Das Bild habe ich mir nun schon seit Tagen immer mal wieder angeschaut und komme zu keinem eindeutigen Schluß. Verwackelt ist es nicht, es gibt genügend Bildteile, die im Rahmen der Objektivfähigkeiten einwandfrei scharf sind. Tärfenschiefenproblem sollte es zumindest für den Turm selbst auch nicht sein (die Wiese im Vordergrund darf ja ruhig unschärfer sein als der Rest), da bei f8/55mm alles ab etwa 9 m Distanz ausreichend scharf ist, wenn die Kamera auf Unendlich fokussiert hat (hier nachzurechnen). Nach den Exif ist also eigentlich alles perfekt. Auffällig ist, daß die Unschärfen ungleichmäßig übers Bild verteilt sind: Hier im Hochformat ist sie in der rechten unteren Ecke am stärksten ausgeprägt, nach links wird es besser. Auch weiter oben im Bild ist die rechte Seite unschärfer als die linke. Das läßt auf ein dezentriertes Objektiv schließen. Ich kenne mich mit dem Nikon-System nicht aus: Ist das eine Linse mit Bildstabilisator? Vielleicht hat der ja auch einen Hau. Letzte Erklärungsvariante: Das Objektiv fokussiert über Unendlich hinaus, das Problem hatte ich bei meiner alten *istds gelegentlich, das kann ganz kuriose Effekte ergeben, z.B. Bilder, die am Rand oder in einem ringförmigen Bereich schärfer sind als in der Bildmitte. -- Smial 16:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Also: Das Ding ist das Original-Nikon-Objektiv (18-55mm). Hastig durchgedrückt habe ich nach dem Aufbau sicher nicht. Bildstabilisator dürfte keiner drin sein. Grüße, Felix Koenig 16:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Die Nikon-Software kann Dir meistens den Fokuspunkt anzeigen, vielleicht war's die Antenne obendrauf oder die obere Gebäudekante, vielleicht guckste mal. --Mbdortmund 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 21:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Cardiff Bay Panorama.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Cardiff Bay panorama in Wales. WikiLaurent 20:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Review Tilted. Pitke 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry but as far as I can tell it's not tilted. Look at the edges of the building in the centre - they are all perfectly vertical. WikiLaurent 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    True... But looking at the vertical edges of the buildings at the far right and far left, it reveals "triangular" perspective distortion. The churches are distorted to the point it's clear to the naked eye. Pitke 19:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

    Ok please give me a few days and I'll try to fix the distortion if I can (I keep being told that my pictures are distorted so I really need to find out how to fix it). WikiLaurent 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment maybe it helps, when you use the software ShiftN on single shoots before stitching - take a look, if you like: ShiftN: automatic correction of converging lines --J. Lunau 12:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes? George Chernilevsky 08:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Helogale undulata qtl1.jpg[edit]

File:Chevaux estive Pyrenees.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Herd of horses on summer mountain pasture in the Pyrenees --Myrabella 09:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI --Archaeodontosaurus 12:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very low sharpness -- 320td 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question And I thought my screen was high res. How come "very low"?? Pitke 04:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Berthold Werner 13:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, nice composition and good sharpness. Pitke (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image. --Quartl 07:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful--Lmbuga 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Herbythyme 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:VW Tiguan 2.0 TDI front 20100801.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination VW Tiguan Track & Field 2.0 TDI -- S 400 HYBRID 10:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Very well done! High-Qualtity image -- 320td 10:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Busy composition, background distracting. --Elekhh 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same opinon --Archaeodontosaurus 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I thought that a „QI“ has only to do something with the Quality. The background goes with a SUV. Composition: A car is a car which should fill the whole image. What's that for a composition? --320td 10:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If you revisit the QI guidelines you'll notice that composition is well part of it. --Elekhh 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would prefer you to show us a picture of your composition. But maybe you can do it. The relationship between S 400 HYBRID and 320td seem to me suspicious. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes, this seems curios. An here nearly unknown user (with the retired template on his user page) nominates an image and another unknown user sets it to promoted 3 minutes later. This looks somewhat strange. --Berthold Werner 16:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment The background can be edited with little effort to mask away the wall's top and the vertical element. Would probably be QI for me if done. Pitke (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  •  Oppose "Claustrophobic" composition, without space around the center or focus--Lmbuga 18:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

File:VW Tiguan 2.0 TDI rear 20100801.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination VW Tiguan Track & Field 2.0 TDI -- S 400 HYBRID 10:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very well done! High-Qualtity image -- 320td 10:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Busy composition, background distracting. --Elekhh 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same opinon --Archaeodontosaurus 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I thought that a „QI“ has only to do something with the Quality. The background goes with a SUV. Composition: A car is a car which should fill the whole image. What's that for a composition? --320td 10:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Just one vote per user. --Elekhh 08:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If you revisit the QI guidelines you'll notice that composition is well part of it. --Elekhh 15:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would prefer you to show us a picture of your composition. But maybe you can do it. The relationship between S 400 HYBRID and 320td seem to me suspicious. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Claustrophobic composition. Could be higher res and sharper too, and I have to agree about the background. This should be relatively easy to reproduce. Pitke (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Pitke. "Claustrophobic" composition, without space around the center or focus--Lmbuga 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Trier Palais Kesselstadt rueckseite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Trier, Palais Kesselstadt, back yard --Berthold Werner 16:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood. --Cayambe 18:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor sharpness at the roof -- 320td 11:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Need broader DOF for buildings. Also has vertical distortion outwards. Pitke 07:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Hiyoriyama Coast Toyooka Hyogo pref07n4380.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hiyoriyama Coast --663highland 12:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Nice :)--Gaeser 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Chromatic aberrations top left and horizon too curved. --Archaeodontosaurus 01:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Horizon should be fixable, will you oppose if it's done? Pitke 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
CA should also be fixed, visible at 100% view without magnification. -- Smial 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If the horizon is corrected I change my vote!--Archaeodontosaurus 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral If the mentioned issues are fixed I might support this. I would have liked a broader DOF however, this being a landscape. Pitke (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus & subexposure (left part)--Lmbuga 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

File:128-ov-Friisin-Raketti-03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The handler's trousers and gloves were *really* white. Pitke 09:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Oppose Sorry, partially burnt. --kallerna 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I turned down the highlights a bit. Let's see what the others think. --King of Hearts 18:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Could have been better result if the same would have done to RAW-file? --kallerna 14:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info sadly the camera is not able to create RAWs. I can't say that the newer version looks good, the fixes should have been applied locally, now the woman's figure is full of weird stuff. Pitke 18:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

File:6875 Neoplan N4020td.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Neoplan N4020 in Warsaw, Poland. --Crusier 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Strong tilt. -- Smial 23:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Now better? --Crusier 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy. You should make such a picture in a better lighting conditions. --Sfu 11:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The reason for the noise is ISO 500, considering the 1/640 seconds that was not necessary --Mbdortmund 21:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too noisy. --High Contrast 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 01:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Ichikawa river Ikuno Asago Hyogo01s5bs4272.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ichikawa river in Asago --663highland 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 16:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The right part of the image looks quite tilted and not very sharp. --Quartl 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The houses are fine, but the mountains are too soft and have too much CA. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The ca on the mountains makes it unacceptable to me for QI I'm afraid. --Herbythyme 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Applied red-cyan CA correction. At 100% it is barely visible. --King of Hearts 04:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 04:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kamikochi Mt Roppyakusan01n3200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination at Kamikochi in Japan --663highland 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - White parts overexposed. --kallerna 09:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Yes, a little, but the rest of the image makes up for it. --Quartl 04:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per Kallerna. Mattbuck 10:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 14:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Doughnut burger.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Doughnut burger with cheese -663highland 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Only in America would that be considered food.... Decline on grounds of taste, waist and overexposure at the top right. Mattbuck 09:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support A personal dislike for the subject is not a valid reason to oppose, unless it is unencyclopedic, but here it does have a Wikipedia article. The shiny frosting should be slightly clipped to produce the appearance of luster. --King of Hearts 04:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't decline it because I hate American culture, I declined it because I don't think it's a quality image. Mattbuck 07:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The white bg shines onto the object and eats its borders. For me, it's a re-shoot with a non-white bg, then, if needed, the bg can be removed by some editing software. Pitke 14:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tihgt crop. Yarl 15:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 14:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Obiki-no-hana Kasumi Coast Hyogo pref01bs5s4200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Obiki-no-hana in Kasumi Coast --663highland 14:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I really like the composition, but the rock is too unsharp at full res. --Quartl 08:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
On second sight, it is probably ok. --Quartl 06:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find it unsharp at all. --King of Hearts 03:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Officer carbin-Reymond-circa 1780.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Officer carbin, made in Vaud by Reymond circa 1780. -- Rama 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • It seems somewhat out of focus, and the reflection from the original background distracts me somewhat. Can't decide though. Pitke 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok IMO. --kallerna 14:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • {{opp}} Bad mask: You can see note in the image. If you correct it, possibly I will agree--Lmbuga 00:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support It seems to me that they are part of metal.--Archaeodontosaurus 07:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment It seems to me a small error, but the image is excellent--Lmbuga 15:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is actually a metal plate held by screws, but I don't have close-ups from a different angle to prove it, sorry. ~ Rama (talk)
  •  Support Very nice. Yarl 17:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. Agree with Archeo and with Rama about the "bad mask". Not sure a white background is the best, but it is only an aesthetic and personal opinion.--Jebulon 22:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good, QI, sorry--Lmbuga 10:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 22:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Wakayama Yosuien13n4272.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Yosuien Garden in Wakayama --663highland 14:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice nature.--PetarM 19:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Has disturbingly much noise in the water, not too sharp, also seems tilted. Pitke 19:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • noise and CA should be reduced but composition is good --Mbdortmund 19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the lens gets pretty unsharp in the corners. --King of Hearts 04:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 14:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Bréhec - côte.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Breton coast. --Eusebius 10:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, don't like the composition. No encyclopedical value. --kallerna 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I request another opinion. --Eusebius 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Remarkable comment really. Good image of the coast. Good light and colours, Maybe a little soft in the distant parts but quite definitely of value. --Herbythyme 14:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No encyclopedic value? However, I oppose due to high amounts of noise and posterizeation. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  SupportCriteria satisfied, in my opinion. I don't agree with the criticisms. --Wsiegmund 04:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • {{opp}} the part of back is too blurry. Not natural color--Lmbuga 21:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to look like I'm fighting for this picture to gain QI status (it's not my best one), but: - It's strange to see "blurry background" as a reason to oppose, and - Colours are pretty natural IMO, they're the reason why I took the picture. --Eusebius 07:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I am not safe to dominate the voting criteria nor to value the images suitably--Lmbuga 16:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good value encyclopedic. The light is special interest in image QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good to me. Very breton, indeed.--Jebulon 22:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 22:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Thymelicus lineola qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Essex Skipper. --Quartl 06:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC))
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good detail, good DOF, but partly overexposed. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)}
  •  Support Yes, a little, but I don't find it to be a huge problem. Let's discuss. --King of Hearts 18:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You are probably right regarding the wings. But if the tail and the "knee" of the animal appear pure white although they are not white in reality, I would not call this "a little" overexposed. --Johannes Robalotoff 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I uploaded a new version with reduced brightness, better now? --Quartl 19:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 07:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Wsiegmund 04:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 14:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:065 Musée archéologique de Grenoble.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sarcophaguses in the former Saint Martin church of Grenoble, Archaeological museum of Grenoble --Otourly 18:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
    *If I understand the description right, the picture is not by a wikipedian. --Mbdortmund 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    *The author is a collective UID of a museum, so there's no guarantee this particular picture was created by someone who actually uses Commons. Pitke 14:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    *Well, they use commons but they don't have lot time for this. Otourly 08:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is particularly important that institutions, like museums, working with Commons. We must encourage this process. Unfortunately this image is in IQ because there are too overexposed areas and aberrations of prospects in the background..--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed areas in the foreground. --Cayambe 14:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 14:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Palkinnot.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Prizes at a horse show. Pitke 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Underexposure?--Lmbuga 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not so much I think, her hands were really tanned and the items were placed under her shadow to keep the shine from overexposing. Can be a problem with the brightly lit background though. Pitke 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • With photoshop lightroom I see underexposure, and a little overexposure in the brightness of the trophy--Lmbuga 23:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fix attempt made. Pitke 08:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Palkinnot - retouched.jpg has an alternative version, with data corruption near the hand edges though. Pitke 11:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposure and noisy in the hands shades. Also, I don't like the crop--Lmbuga 00:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 14:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Spear fisherman in Hawaii--Mbz1 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment - Cool, but not entirely sure it's QI. Mattbuck 17:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    Honestly, I am not either, so let's discuss it.--Mbz1 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose It's below the 2Mb minimum, and looks weird to me. Sharpness is almost bearable for underwater, but could be better. Pitke 07:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you know what are you talking about? The image is 3.0 megapixel.--Mbz1 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I have been confusing file weight with file dimensions. Pitke 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. Yann 15:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • {{support}} I do not understand of this type of images, but it seems to me QI--[[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] 18:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I don't understand--Lmbuga (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until the tilt of the water surface is corrected. Wsiegmund 23:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment to correct the tilt isn't easy, because the water horizan is sidled. I've tried it (and rotated ~5°), see here. Looks like a cw tilt now, but the correction is very close to reality. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better, and I could probably support the corrected version, but I agree that the correction looks a bit cw tilted. The reflections of the diving trunks, as well as the tilt of the water horizon, provides cues. Thank you. Wsiegmund 16:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft. --kallerna 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 14:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Azusa River01bs4272.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination at Kamikochi in Japan --663highland 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Unsharp, posterized and noisy (there must be something wrong with your camera or lens), but man I love the composition. --kallerna 09:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is QI not FP, it is about the quality of the image --Herbythyme 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality looks a bit strange, but not too bad imo. Nice image! --Carschten 20:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:San Xacobe na igrexa de San Martiño de Noia - Noia - Galiza.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint James the Greater in the church of San Martiño, Noia, Galicia (Spain)--Lmbuga 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'm not sure: 3200 ISO, hard shades?--Lmbuga 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)ISO may be OK with this camera but the harsh light isn't. The statue itself is beautiful. --Ikiwaner 14:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks--Lmbuga 15:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
     Support I don't agree with the criticisms above. To me, this pic is good enough for a QI. And I like the little coins.--Jebulon 23:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Steyr-PinzgauerAR.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pinzgauer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle. --Manuguf 13:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  SupportGood. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC). Comment Bad exposure IMO. Needs a discussion.--Jebulon 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    I think that the exposition is correct, and actually quite a success, given that you have a dull and dark military vehicle against a background of bright sky and mountains. Rama 07:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The vehicle is too dark. The flash of a compact camera as DMC-LX2 is for this kind of photos too weak. Joadl 18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate lighting --Mbdortmund 09:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Kitzingen town church[edit]

  • Nomination Kitzingen, Bavaria, town church --Berthold Werner 15:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Light was not best on that day obviously. I would have tried a curve correction to bring a bit more light to the main subject, perhaps masking the sky in order not to loose too much of its structure. Unfortunately the region under the trees on the right is also severely underexposed. However the main problem that would make me decline at the moment is something that looks like strong barrel distortion. (Take a ruler and measure the tower. It is not tilted, but bent to the left. Also the top of the tower in background looks a bit squeezed.) --Johannes Robalotoff 14:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I tried to corecct it. --Berthold Werner 21:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment You definitely succeeded with the light conditions, and the barrel distortion is also gone. But the towers look very overstretched now. If you use hugin, could you try a different projection? Although rectilinear is correct in theory, another method could look more natural and could avoid the stretching problem. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Or we let it as non-QI. ;-) --Berthold Werner 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support This is the way we want people to do perspective correction: Also with correction of perspective foreshortening. The light actually is very good - it makes soft shadows. However one could correct the colour aberrations on the roof of the left building. --Ikiwaner 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I aggree with Ikiwaner that perspective shortening should be corrected in pictures of that kind. But here the end result looks so unnatural that I have to oppose. As the facade is not in parallel with the image plane, the correction produced angles that are more inconsistent than before. Thus the geometry looks rather unpleasant for me. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Agree with Johannes Robalotoff (please see annotation). Furthermore, the purple CA on the roof left is very visible (the one on the cross too)--Jebulon 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kath. Kirche Helminghausen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Catholic Church „St. Maria von der Immerwährenden Hilfe“ in Helminghausen, Marsberg, NRW, Germany --Carschten 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Somewhat overprocessed, blown out clouds. Are the upper parts of the tower, and the roof really darker than the lower? -- Smial 15:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
     Comment mir wurde mitgeteilt, dass mit overprocessed „zu stark bearbeitet“ gemeint ist. Wo bitte soll das im Bild der Fall sein? Dafür, das Wolken von der Sonne angestrahlt werden, kann ich nichts. Die Kirche wird auf jeden Fall real, wie auf den Einzelbildern, nicht überbelichtet und auch vom Licht her korrekt wiedergegeben. --Carschten 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    (zu stark?) aufgehellte Schatten unter dem Turmhelm wirken etwas grünlich, der Turm leicht rosa im Vergleich zur übrigen Kirche, das Rosa der Wolken gefällt mir auch nicht so richtig, auch wenn der "Farbstich" Natur ist. Sonst schön. mfg --Mbdortmund 17:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Das der Turm unterschiedlich farbig ist hat einen recht einfachen Grund. Schau dir die Wolkenschatten im Hintergrund links und rechts an. Die Turmspitze bekommt gerade etwas Schatten davon ab. Stammt also nicht von einer Bearbeitung. --Niabot 17:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Ich meinte die grün verfärbte Kante unter dem Turmdach, ich will aber nicht den Besserwisser spielen, vielleicht ist es auch Moos und der Kirchturm kantenscharf in einer etwas anderen Farbe gestrichen als der übrige Baukörper. Sonst gefällt mir das Bild. --Mbdortmund 23:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Der Grünton sollte vollkommen normal sein. Der stammt vom Licht aus der Umgebung, das üblicherweise grünlich ist. Anderes Licht kommt an diese Stelle auch kaum hin. Direktes Sonnenlicht ist es nicht. Allseitiges Licht aus der Athmosphäre strahlt auch nicht wirklich von unten. Zur Verdeutlichung habe ich mal dieses Bild mit LuxRender erstellt. Kommt zu einem ähnlichen Ergebnis. --Niabot 13:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - high resolution, nice view and high quality. -- Felix Koenig 12:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - good. (Wir sind doch hier nicht bei KEB ;-) --Berthold Werner 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Darf ich auch auf deutsch mitspielen ? Scheint mir gut zu sein. Maybe a little dustspot im Himmel, oder ?--Jebulon 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - A perfect photo for a building. A beautiful cloud formation or evening or morning mood is for this type of assessment not necessary. Joadl 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Joadl 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Girl playing drum, Gurgaon, India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Girl playing drum, Gurgaon, India. Yann 16:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Flash makes hard shadows, and reflections. -- Smial 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose in this case I see no harsh shadows, flash is used in portraits because the reflections make the eyes living. To me the contre-jour lighting and the scattered background speak against qi. --Ikiwaner 18:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is not a stage picture. I cannot choose the light and the direction. Yann 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are some circumstances that make it impossible to shoot a really good picture. If you had enough time you could have asked the girl to move a bit, just as an esample. --Ikiwaner 13:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Boletus_impolitus_2010_G1.jpg[edit]

Thanks to Archaeodontosaurus!
I will try renominate it later (improved version) -- George Chernilevsky 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Westfalenpark-100818-16933-Gallinula-chloro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination young Gallinula-chloro in Dortmund --Mbdortmund 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition - the lillies distract from the subject of the image. Shame, because the images are otherwise technically good. Mattbuck 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support In the opposite, I think that the lillies add something here. Yann 10:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Natural background is very good IMO. -- George Chernilevsky 11:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Nevit 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Nevit 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Theobroma_cacao_001.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Flower of the Cocoa / Cacao, Theobroma cacao --Llez 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Looks overprocessed (denoising?). --Quartl 13:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Replaced by a lesser processed version. The stem is wet, therefore the glance in some areas -- Llez 07:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Still lacks detail, imho. --Quartl 07:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Gaspard, marquis de Clermont-Tonnerre.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gaspard de Clermont-Tonnerre (1688-1781) by Augustin Pajou, Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, France--Jebulon 23:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noisy and unrealistic white balance. -- Smial 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what do you mean with "unrealistic" ?--Jebulon 08:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Changes made, I can not vote. Go to the discussion.-- Archaeodontosaurus 12:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • @Archaeodontosaurus: you deleted the exif data --Berthold Werner 13:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Then you have to vote with your eyes only !--Jebulon 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment sculpture not really sharp, partially overexposured --Mbdortmund 09:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

* Oppose Too soft. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

voted too late, 48 hours are over --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kusatsu-Shiranesan01s5s4272.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination at Mount Kusatsu-Shiranesan --663highland 15:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Wonderful. --Gaeser 07:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No details on lake, noisy, unsharp, posterized. --kallerna 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Posterized but QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The blue white of the crater lake makes it hard not to keep it for snow, but otherwise ok. --Joadl 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 11:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Castle in Malbork, stained-glass window in the church02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle in Malbork, stained-glass window in the church. --Lvova 20:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Needs to be straightened. --King of Hearts 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Straightened. Check again, please. --Rave 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now -- George Chernilevsky 14:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too wide In my opinion. The correction is not enough. Look at the helm, very "fat", isn't it ?--Jebulon 23:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please add to the description the approximate date of fabrication of the stained-glass window to avoid questions regarding copyright infringement. Wsiegmund 01:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Width fixd. --Rave 20:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the copyright tag should be {{PD-Art}}. Please see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.
  •  Support good to me now.--Jebulon 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Wsiegmund 23:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Escudo de Santiago de Compostela-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of arms, Mazarelos square, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia (Spain)--Lmbuga 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Really sharp. At the upper left windows you can see there are different screws used! --Berthold Werner 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC
  •  Oppose Looks overexposed IMO. --kallerna 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is not overexposed with photoshop lightroom 3. What program you use? It is possible that the author varies the exposition. But he will not do it by a personal feeling--Lmbuga 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support It's bright, but not overexposed. Quality of the images differs depending on the computer monitors; on my screen it's OK. -- MJJR 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. The name of the file is wrong maybe. It is an "Escudo IN Santiago", but not "Escudo DE Santiago". The COA above is of the king of Spain, but I cannot identify the below one (of a bishop or archbishop, because of the hat). Could somebody help ?--Jebulon 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have proposed it to rename--Lmbuga 10:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Where is the pic ?--Jebulon 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Wait: are we voting on or ? --King of Hearts 19:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment It´s the coat of arms of archbishop Yermo and the King Charles III in the facade of "Casa de Ejercitantes" (old Jesuit School. --Lansbricae 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ---Jebulon 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Westfalenpark-100818-16976-Gallinula-chloro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination young Gallinula-chloro in Dortmund --Mbdortmund 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition - the lillies distract from the subject of the image. Shame, because the images are otherwise technically good. Mattbuck 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support In the opposite, I think that the lillies add something here. Yann 10:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Natural background is very good IMO. -- George Chernilevsky 11:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, same as first one. --PetarM 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DOF. Head of left bird is out of focus. Only the lilly behind it is sharp. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Datong Traffic.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Street in Datong, China, --Sfu 16:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Poor composition. --King of Hearts 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes. I wanted to show chaos. --Sfu 21:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      •  Oppose I understand you. Im sorry, but the white car to the right is disturbing.--Ankara (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support A good urban photo of a chaotic intersection IMO. --Elekhh 01:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Saint-Antoine-l'Abbaye - voûtes du choeur.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gothic vaults. --Eusebius 21:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support good quality --Mbdortmund 13:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Need a CR IMO, because of the need of a little crop right for better centering, and because of the (little)purple CA visible at high resolution around the stained glass windows.--Jebulon 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
     Info The axis of the church in centred, but the intersection with the borders of the picture is not 100% perfect (perspective not fully symmetrical: perhaps a bad positionning of the camera, but please admit that from the lamp cable it looks pretty much in the axis). --Eusebius 09:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yes you (and the picture !) are right, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice image, but CA correction is definitely needed (and should be easy). Would support if CA were corrected (although the chandelier at the bottom is cropped). --Johannes Robalotoff 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Updated. That's the best I can do regarding CA, I'm afraid. Now the image seems to suffer from our current thumbnail issues, but the original's there. --Eusebius 10:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Your correction helped a lot. QI for me now. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with above. No more reasons to oppose. I change my vote.--Jebulon 17:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Peter Stehlik 2010.08.21 012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Multi-storey car park from the mal LOOP5 in Weiterstadt . --PS-2507 14:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp, noisy, very blurry, CA --Carschten 14:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is sharp at full screen, don't punish the uploader for uploading 10 MP resolution. The composition is excellent, a classic triangle composition. However I consider a correction of the chromatic aberrations as mandatory. Same applies for the perspective correction. But this is fixable. The composition of this image is better than here because there the street is visible but cropped too much. --Ikiwaner 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 09:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Nottingham Pride MMB 86 Kenelis.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mel Sanson of Kenelis performs at Nottingham pride. Mattbuck 11:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - interesting pose, nice quality --Carschten 13:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - would be inconsistent with previous decisions to decline this type of composition. --Elekhh 21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Maybe the previous ones should be revisited then - decisions have gone both ways. Mattbuck 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hair, hand, microphone, closed eye (only one visible): frankly impssible to recognize who's that girl. Pretty sure not my daughter, but who knows ?...--Jebulon 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same reason as Jebulon --Ikiwaner 14:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Nottingham Pride MMB 88 Kenelis.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mel Sanson of Kenelis performs at Nottingham pride. Mattbuck 11:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - very good --Carschten 12:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose would be inconsistent with previous decisions to decline this type of composition. --Elekhh 21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Maybe the previous ones should be revisited then - decisions have gone both ways. Mattbuck 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The placement of the head in the upper third is good. However it's still a rather boring centered composition. DOF could be shallower to blur the uninteresting background more. --Ikiwaner 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    Cropped, blurred the background. Mattbuck 15:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 09:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Sympetrum sanguineum qtl3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ruddy darter, head detail. --Quartl 08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportQI IMO. --Nevit 10:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only head is sharp, most of the image is blurred. Pitke 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    The focus of the image is, indeed, on the head. --Quartl 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
     Support in accordance to the text of the nomination.--Jebulon 13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Common Whitetail (Libellula lydia).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A Common Whitetail (Libellula lydia). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good vision of the sepcimen --Archaeodontosaurus 07:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus is on hind wing. Eyes are out of focus.--Nevit 09:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough to me. --Quartl 10:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Sure about the species? --Quartl 19:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose. Incorrect biological id IMO . I agree with User:Quartl. I will remove my oppose after correct identification and file renaming -- George Chernilevsky 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Women in adivasi village, Umaria district, M.P., India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Women in adivasi village, Umaria district, M.P., India. Yann 13:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - This one good. Other portraits too noised IMO -- George Chernilevsky 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Overexposed on the left hand side. Mattbuck 21:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - I don't find the overexposure to be too much of a problem. Good use of DOF. -- King of Hearts 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find the foreground object at left, distracting. --Nevit 10:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness in the centre of focus, so even cropped it wouldn't do methinks. Pitke 17:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I cropped the image, to remove the overexposed part. Yann 12:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Armure savoyarde IMG 3810.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Footman's armour in Savoyard style, ca. 1600-1610. On display at Morges military museum. -- Rama 10:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support perfect --Mbdortmund 14:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose I realy don't like this kind of cutouts, since the colors of the edges are wrong, because the environment is missing. --Niabot 15:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    Is there another sort of cutout that does not feature this colour problem? Rama 16:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Black is not a colour :-) --Ikiwaner 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support Maybe I would have preferred a version with the original background, not a cutout. But the cutout is well made and the picture is otherwise very good. Some slightly overexposed regions are probably unavoidable with such a reflecting metal subject, and they do not disturb here at all. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded the unedited original at File:Armure savoyarde IMG 3810-original.jpg; I though that the background wasa bitdistracting and messy, hence the cutout. Rama 22:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In a way you are right, but it is a matter of taste. The original picture also has a value of its own. So it is good to have both now. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Carefully done Freisteller, very high resolution, the image is much more encyclopedic as the original. --Ikiwaner 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Czech Sokół 8496.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A Czech Sokół SAR helictopter. --Airwolf 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - distracting background --Mbdortmund 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think it's good. Consensual review, then.--Jebulon 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Nice photo of a helicopter, but the sky really doesn't suit it. Mattbuck 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Has several issues. Helicopter is exposed correctly. BG is overexposed. If you have the raw you can correct it by making an HDR, tone mapped image. Helicopter is in shade and blue tinted. BG clouds are sun lit and correctly tinted. IMO white balance should be made for main subject helicopter not the BG. --Nevit 10:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment HDR toning is not a type of correction, but an invasion into the image structure. Balance between under-, correct and over- exposure in given circumstances create proper overall exposure and you can clearly observe that here, so this argument is simply missed. Chalger 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      •  CommentIt depends on the type of tone mapping you use. The aim of HDR mapping is to fit a tonal range that does not fit in normal tone latitude. --Nevit 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Westfalenpark-100818-16996-Gallinula-chloro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination young Gallinula-chloro in Dortmund --Mbdortmund 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition - the lillies distract from the subject of the image. Shame, because the images are otherwise technically good. Mattbuck 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • They are living there and sometimes walking on them with their oversized feet --Mbdortmund 10:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Natural background is very good IMO. -- George Chernilevsky 11:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Nevit 23:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unsharp, see the head, eye... bottom photo is much sharper. --PetarM 15:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but user PetarM is right. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dies ist bestimmt nicht eines der besten Bilder von Mbdortmund. Die Placierung des Vogels oben rechts finde ich zwar gut. Unverzeihlich hingegen die Perspektive von oben, welche dem Bild zusammen mit der kommunen Ente schnappschusscharakter gibt. Auch ist der Konstrast nicht besonders hoch und der abgeschnittene Entena.... oben rechts stört mich. --Ikiwaner 13:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ich hab nen Haufen Bilder von den wertguten Rallen gemacht, aber es ist verdammt schwer, die ins Bild zu kriegen, die sind sehr klein und bewegen sich ungeheuer schnell, vor allem machen die nickende Kopfbewegungen, die noch bei ner 200stel Bewegungsunschärfe erzeugen. Hier hab ich von oben aufgenommen, um die lustigen Füße draufzukriegen, aber die Kritik ist trotz aller Ausreden berechtigt, sorry. --Mbdortmund 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The subject's head is very unsharp. Pitke 10:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Trier Simeonstrasse 60 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Trier information bureau --Berthold Werner 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline The building is crooked. --King of Hearts 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    Barrel or pincushion? Maybe the roof is crooked in reality. --Berthold Werner 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Why f/19, its sharpless. --PetarM 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm still learning. --Berthold Werner 11:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Aren't we all ;). --PetarM 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Die Summe der Details lässt mich dagegen stimmen: Es soll wohl symmetrisch sein, ist aber nicht genau von vorne. Das Licht ist suboptimal, die obere Fensterzeile versäuft im Schatten. Viele Leute lenken vom Subjekt ab, die abgeschnittenen Personen rechts und das angeschnittene Velo links sind besonders störend. Ich hätte eine perspektivische Ansicht mit weniger Leuten und diffuserem Licht bevorzugt. Das Haus läuft ja nicht weg... --Ikiwaner 13:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Popradské pleso 2008.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Popradské pleso, High Tatras, Slovakia — Rl91 05:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment tilt, part may be corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 08:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment corrected--Rl91 09:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Nevit 09:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose halo, below size minimum, I'm sorry :( Nice compo through --Carschten 09:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentWithdraw my support. --Nevit 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A very good shot... but unfortunately below size requirement (< 2MP). --Cayambe 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm speedy closing as it does not qualify. --Elekhh (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Woman in adivasi village, Umaria district, India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Woman in tribal village, Umaria district, India. Yann 13:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportQI, useful. --Drbug 04:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeMea culpa, I focused on the subject, and missed the background noice. Sorry. --Drbug 23:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSoft and noisy. --Nevit 08:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose regretfully agree with Nevit --Ianare 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 10:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Superb_Starling_Lamprotornis_superbus_3541_cropped_Nevit.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Superb Starling, Lamprotornis superbus--Nevit 07:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose unsharp, pixelated. Looks like a Camera failure?! --Carschten 12:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment We should not be that hard with our comments. This one was done with 4500US$-equipment while the image here is shot with a 450$ camera. That's a factor of 10, no wonder the image is less sharp and has fewer resolution! To me this composition is good and sharpness at full screen acceptable. However the colours are not that popping as I had them in mind when I saw the bird a few weeks ago. Therefore I don't promote and ask for other opinions. --Ikiwaner 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We consider result (photo), not a camera. Result is weak, sorry. By talk way: all my QI and FP taken with compact cameras --George Chernilevsky 15:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Considering the photo, It was shot in nature from inside a vehicle with some unavoidable shake. I can see the some feathers in the mouth of bird. It might be called soft. But I can not accept unsharp, nor camera failure. I can see detail in the eye, nostrils of the bird etc. etc. All the details might be needed to identify a bird in a project are visible. Considering the noise, I usually accept some amount of noise, and do not use noise reduction software as long as it does not interfere with using the picture online or printed. But the amount of tolerable noise varies to taste, so I accept your evaluations. Considering the colors. The bird was lit from above and front. So the red breast is partly in shadow, not as metallic red as you might have seen in Serengeti. --Nevit 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good and certainly valuable shot, the noise is ok to me, but for QI it is not sharp enough, imho. --Quartl 06:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 10:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:ImmaculataAndrášihoPalác.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Main Street (Hlavná ulica) in Košice, Slovakia --Rl91 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. --Cayambe 19:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy, oversaturated, tilted --Carschten 09:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since the picture is taken at ISO 100, I think the noise and saturation is introduced by manipulation. I can see no tilt. --Nevit 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Nevit 07:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The noise appears to have been introduced by oversharpening. Halos are visible around the statues. --King of Hearts 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

File:Capilla real granada1.jpg[edit]

Other version available above, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus in Tanzania 3190 Nevit.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus in Serengeti --Nevit 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Main subject too small. Sorry. --kallerna 10:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentI showed the BG, since according to our guide, plains are being burned by National parks adminstration. Which creates an unnatural environment for animals. Read image description. --Nevit 10:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Subject is bird and habitat. --Elekhh 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bird as well as habitat too soft for QI, imho. --Quartl 09:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Mosque cordoba mihrab background.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the former mosque of Cordoba, Spain. In background, the Mihrab--Jebulon 22:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeCropping, composition. --Nevit 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I need another opinion please.--Jebulon 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cordoba mosque/cathedral is like a forest, composition should be judged as such. There are two supposedly human heads ambigously petruding in the image. --Elekhh 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Mezquita cordoba 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination view of the hypostyle hall of the cathedral (former mosque) of Cordoba, Spain--Jebulon 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose A lot of underexposed areas. Composition. ie. the column in front and placed in 1/3 is dark, occupies a lot of space and adds nothing to image. --Nevit 11:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are columns and some darkness in the mosque of Cordoba... May I have another opinion from somebody else, please ?--Jebulon 16:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cordoba mosque/cathedral is like a forest, composition should be judged as such. --Elekhh 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Zuihoji park12n3200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Zuihoji Park in Arima Onsen --663highland 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportQI for me. --Nevit 11:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice nature, but some over exposured parts on the structure of the building.--Jebulon 16:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Jebulon, also the description is insufficient. --Quartl 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Bonaparte buste musée légion d'honneur.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of 1st Consul Bonaparte, as founder of the Legion of Honor. --Jebulon 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment A little dark, and WB a bit too blue. Could you fix it? --King of Hearts 05:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)I'll try.--Jebulon 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Thanks for review. Better now ?--Jebulon 21:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low contrast. --Nevit 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why in CR ? There is no support vote...--Jebulon 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting image or insignia of Republics are light source and the tyrant in the shade. QI --Archaeodontosaurus 15:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --George Chernilevsky 07:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Rhesus Macaque with bottle, Agra.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rhesus Macaque, Agra, India. Yann 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The small details make this image interesting, but the image lacks contrast and sharpness. --Quartl 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Is it better now? Yann 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The sharpening by software didn't do any good. If the sharpness is not there in the original, you cannot recreate it. --Quartl 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the info, and for reviewing it. Yann 16:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rhesus Macaque, Agra, India. Yann 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lacks contrast, sharpness, background is blown. --Quartl 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Better now? Yann 08:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, the image is still too soft, imho. --Quartl 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rhesus Macaque, Agra, India. Yann 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The face of this one is ok, but the overall image is soft, lacks contrast and also the background is blown. With a crop it might get support as a portrait (not sure though). --Quartl 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Better now? Yann 08:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • A bit better, but the image got too dark. Try to increase brightness as well. --Quartl 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Louis Antoine d'Artois, duc d'Angoulême.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Louis-Antoine d'Artois, duc d'Angoulême, (1775-1844), Louis XIX. --Jebulon 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  SupportGood result -- George Chernilevsky 07:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed and underexposed (see histogram); bad quality: smallest details (for example, crack) are 3 pixels wide (must be ~1). Looks like scaled image or image not in focus, but with sharpness. --Kae 12:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm really unlucky to take pics over- and underexposed in the same time. It's a painting in a room of a museum, with artificial light, but I like the effect on the frame. The canvas is really dark and clear some parts. Furthermore I wonder that one have time to measure wideness of cracks (1 to 3 pixels !! Wow ! Shame !). Info: yes, there is a perspective correction due to the angle necessary for taking this image without reflexion. At the end, not perfect, but may I say that it is not a FP candidate ?--Jebulon 13:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kae. Does not qualify IMO. --Nevit 06:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. Yann 08:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Helix Lussatite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Snail fossil opal --Archaeodontosaurus 10:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Discarding the label, and black area, the main subject, Snail fossil opal is 800x700 pixels. --Nevit 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The label is also important that this poor snail. There is no knowledge without a history of knowledge. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  SupportIMO, we have to "judge" the entire pic. I know that Archaeodontosaurus is very careful of the background of his images. Even "simply" black, the background is very important, and in this case, the label too. To me, the whole composition is good. Despite the name of the file, there is no really "main subject" in this image. QI to me. Then, CR.--Jebulon 16:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support considering the size of the fossil, the image is quite good. --Quartl (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment We have very nice images of small objects. Size should not be an excuse. --Nevit 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment No need for excuse in this case, IMO.--Jebulon 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 06:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Nottingham Pride MMB 89 Kenelis.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination

Mel Sanson of Kenelis performs at Nottingham pride. Mattbuck 17:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Face partially obscured by hair. --King of Hearts 19:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Picture imo OK, the background of the stage is not your fault, management of the event should have done better --Mbdortmund 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I quite liked the hair covering the face. Mattbuck 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me, although a crop on the right would be better. Yann 12:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must admit this is the best of this series of three currently in CR. However the girl is not looking into the camera and the viewing angle is too wide and DOF too deep. Also the viewing angle makes me think of the other 200 point and shoot cameras hold by one hand over the heads of the fans, shooting randomly or even worse filming. Technically it's a good image. --Ikiwaner 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    Well there's not much that can really be done about the angle - I didn't have a pass to take photos onstage, I was just in the front row. I'd like to think my photos are a little better than the crap teenies squee over on forums. Mattbuck 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry I did not want to be offending. Your pictures of this series are technically very good. However if you take pictures of subjects that are popular on Facebook and the forums you can be as good as you want - you must go for something unusual (light, perspective, composition) so that people don't get the first impression this is a snapshot. --Ikiwaner 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above --Nevit 07:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above. --Jebulon 08:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the picture composition and DOF wise, but the lack of sharpness makes it inavertably non-QI. Pitke 10:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 08:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Matsumoto Castle09n4592.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination

a Gate of Matsumoto Castle --663highland 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Promotion
  •  Support - okay --Carschten 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are errors of perspective, which can be corrected. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support No need for an unreal looking perspective correction. --Niabot 20:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment correction of the verticals would imo look better --Mbdortmund 23:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good for me.--Kae 12:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Archeo and Mbdortmund. The wooden pillars are not vertical, especially the left one. It's very disturbing to me, even in thumbnail. Could be easily corrected, which would look absolutely not unreal IMO.--Jebulon 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Nevit 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective looks quite natural. --King of Hearts 20:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 20:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Bob Brown and Richard Di Natale DSC 2958.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Australian politicians Bob Brown and Richard Di Natale, by User:Peter Campbell --Elekhh 00:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I am not sure if framing two politicians in one shot would make it more useful in any projects. It has made photographing more difficult too. The two persons are not in same plane. Left one is in focus while the eyes of the right one is not in focus. Instead the ears are in focus. --Nevit 11:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I am very glad finally somebody cares to comment about usefulness when assessing QI! It is long overdue to take this criteria more seriously. As usually is not much talk about this I did not provide more detail, but now that you raise it: the guy on the left has just been elected Senator after this image was taken, while the one on the right is the leader of the party with the highest gain of votes, so it has some historical value in illustrating the 2010 Australian electoral campaign. Also note that is currently in use in four Wikipedia articles, while most images promoted here are not in use in any. --Elekhh 12:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
QI is not about usefulness, it's about photographic excellence. Mattbuck 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If you revisit the guidelines you'll find under Value: "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects." --Elekhh 14:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The right politician is not in perfect focus (only one point can be considered as such) but is within the depth of field. Since this is QIC, not VIC, any reasonably useful image is acceptable. --King of Hearts 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, and I agree with Elekhh's comments about usefulness of QI in general. This one in particular is of course useful. If not because of two persons, one can crop it !--Jebulon 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - good quality and useful, I think. -- Felix Koenig 16:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iotatau 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Museum of Modern Art Saitama 2010.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Museum of Modern Art, Saitama by User:Wiiii --Elekhh 00:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Opposedisturbing crop on the left side --Mbdortmund 08:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Don't understand, the subject is uncropped. --Elekhh 08:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Mbdortmund means that the image cuts off at the left in a disturbing place, ie it disrupts the composition. Mattbuck 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Well, what I was saying was that I disagree.--Elekhh 12:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
     Comment I set it to discuss so that you can get other opinions --Mbdortmund 13:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks, I appreciate that. --Elekhh (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'd support if you paint out the left hand side of the streetlight on the left. Mattbuck 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The streetlamp is just framing the building, not intended to be equal part of the composition. It is cropped as the tree on the right is. If fully visible it would have a more distracting presence, while if more narrowly cropped, the framing of the building would be too squeezed IMO. --Elekhh 13:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is not bad, the framing is not disturbing to me, and you are happy to enjoy no copyright problems for that kind of pics (which is not the case in my country...)--Jebulon 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Compo garden alcazar cordoba.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination gardens of Alcazar in Cordoba, Spain--Jebulon 22:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed IMO. --Nevit 10:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, no. The sky was so.--Jebulon 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Nevit, see, e.g., the top leaves of the trees to the left. --Quartl 09:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

File:Luxemb Kockelscheuer Alnus glutinosa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Luxembourg, pond scum: pollen and further remains of the flowers of Alnus glutinosa. --Cayambe 08:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good picture, very good caption --Archaeodontosaurus 12:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but leaning about 3° to the left. --Ikiwaner 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Now rotated 3.2 ° to the right. --Cayambe 06:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
fixed,  Support --Ikiwaner 13:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Nevit 07:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit overcorrected imho, though. --Quartl 10:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 21:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Blaenau Ffestiniog railway station MMB 05 Merddin Emrys.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Merddin Emrys arrives at blaenau Ffestiniog. Mattbuck 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support My first promotion for a train picture !! Very nice, good light and composition.--Jebulon 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeComposition. Too much space from left side could be used to see more from train. --Nevit 13:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support not FP but QI for me. --Elekhh 07:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 12:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Lead room is appropriate here. --Ikiwaner 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:MOS KIM-1 IMG 4211.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination OS KIM-1 computer. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne. -- Rama 22:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support very good --Ianare 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • should imo be cropped --Mbdortmund 00:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kitchen spit Beaune.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Automatic old kitchen spit in historical kitchen of Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, France --Jebulon 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportCute device and I prefer minor noise to direct flash. --Iotatau 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNoise and softness. --Nevit 08:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Noisy but QI --Archaeodontosaurus 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Door albayzin granada.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A door. Albayzin. Granada. Spain.--Jebulon 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeOver exposed. --Nevit 10:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support No area is overexposed on my monitor recalibrated. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC).
  •  Info "White" does not mean "overexposured"...--Jebulon 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exposition is OK but cropping to remove the things in the upper left and right would be better. Yann 12:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cloned out the distraction. And it's definitely not overexposed. --King of Hearts 05:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support now. Yann 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Many thanks to Kings of Hearts ! --Jebulon 08:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Legion honneur diamants.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Breast plaque of Légion d'Honneur. Diamonds. --Jebulon 22:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI to me. Rama 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus is on BG cloth. Nice but not QI. --Nevit 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 12:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can any one comment about focus? Not just OK or BAD. --Nevit 16:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    It seems to me that the camera is pointed and focused at the centre of the medal; given the angle, part of the background comes in focus, but that's an inevitable consequence of the orientation of the camera (which is not an absurd orientation). The closest part of the medal are out of focus because miracles don't happen at f/4.5, but I don't find it too disturbing here. You could argue that attention is drawn from the medal to the background; it didn't happen to me, but if is does to a majority of viewers, it could be remedied by editing the background out. Rama 21:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus is on foreground cloth. --Elekhh 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Focus is part on BG, part on center, according to opinions of Nevit and Rama. Due to the angle of view. This angle was a mandatory, because of the risk of reflections of the glass (there is a glass...). I agree it is not perfect, I just wanted to make you know this rare and impressive jewel.--Jebulon 07:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good result IMO -- George Chernilevsky 09:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Apamea 18 - Human head.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Sculpture in Apamea, Syria --Bgag 23:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Very impressive subject and very good picture. How old ?--Jebulon 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lightning, low contrast, cropping. --Nevit 10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Landscape andalusia pinar.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Landscape in Andalusia, Spain, 42°celsius. --Jebulon 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeDistracting foreground plants. --Nevit 07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • short jokes, best jokes. Not "distracting", but part of the composition.--Jebulon 08:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment Please do not bully my comments. I guess you just shoot the image from the window of a car while passing. --Nevit 09:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't mind the plants in the foreground, but the image looks tilted (see the trees in the center, all leaning to the right). --Quartl 09:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support This image deserves a discussion ... between gentlmen --Archaeodontosaurus 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the hills and colours look nice. But the composition is a bit randomly. If the bushes are part of the composition their roots should not be cropped. And the horizon in the middle is against the rule of thirds. --Ikiwaner 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Good composition --George Chernilevsky 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Tilt corrected, sky cropped for proportions. I'm afraid there is unacceptable censorship in comments here. Some of them disappeared. I'm not against appeasement, but I'm against anonymity.--Jebulon 10:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support now. For information: I deleted your comment "Oh ! Look ! Opposition too !! ;)" as inappropriate since it only served to heat up emotions and did not advance the discussion about this image. If this was wrongly done, please exuse my action. --Quartl 10:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment alles gut.--Jebulon 10:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support looks much better now to me with the new format. Not excellent, but QI nevertheless. Another good example how a consensual review can improve quality. --Ikiwaner 10:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment I strongly agree. I like consensual review very much, it is the most interesting IMO. Very much better than a definitive "decline" vote for a tilt or an improvable framing.--Jebulon 14:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Nomination Young street cats -- Alvesgaspar 10:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  CommentThe subject is not hard to find and capture, so I expect better Q from such a photo. Focus is on front cat and the rear cat is not completely sharp. --Nevit 10:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
yes cats are lazy, but they are not models and you wouldn't find those white steps in any country. --Elekhh 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is very good, but concerning quality I agree with Nevit. --Quartl 06:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Color and composition are very good, quality is OK. --Ianare 21:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition and quality OK with me. --Elekhh 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Ilex aquifolium qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Leaves of European Holly. --Quartl 05:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeShallow DOF. --Nevit 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is already f/11 and you wouldn't get more dof without losing detail. This implies to me that you can only get QIs of flowers with any 3-d structure using focus stacking (ok to me and good to know). --Quartl 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Some areas overexposed to show the shiny appearance of young leaves. DOF correct. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentOnly tree leaves at the center are in focus. Other leaves are progressively blurred. This is an static easy to capture object. DOF could easily increased. --Nevit 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Highlights reduced. --Quartl 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Even if diffraction didn't exist at smaller apertures, the background would get pretty distracting if we were to be able to see the lower leaves. -- King of Hearts 04:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me.--Jebulon 10:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 14:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Niche under an arch alhambra granada.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Niche under an arch, polychrome stucco, XIVth century, Alhambra, Granada.--Jebulon 21:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Center object is cropped at top. --Nevit 10:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, no.--Jebulon 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ambiguous, but as author disagrees should be discussed. --Elekhh 21:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 12:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 14:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Carpocoris fuscispinus qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shield bug Carpocoris fuscispinus. --Quartl 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Motion blur, eyes not sharp. --Nevit 10:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 12:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment color space corrected; I don't think there's much motion blur (the bug has two wings which only partially overlap). --Quartl 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If you look at white spots on the bug you can see they have all converted to lines 3-6 pixel in length. Motion can be from the subject move or camera shake. --Nevit 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • If it was motion blur, they would go all in the same direction, wouldn't they? And the black spots in between are not elongated. --Quartl 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • They all go vertically about 80 degrees. --Nevit 07:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Very enough for QI, IMO.--Jebulon 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)