Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 29 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Feuerhimmel 4.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination "Heavenly fire" (red sky/"Feuerhimmel"), 2014-12-22, Graz, Austria. --Dnalor 01 11:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. I have the magnificent sunset also photographed yesterday near Wiener Neustadt. --Steindy 18:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Possibly the posterized areas escaped your notice. I made an annotation as an example.Not a QI IMO. --Cccefalon 20:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm really looking forward to the discussion.--Hubertl 22:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's acceptable considering the size. I wouldn't have seen the posterization at all without Cccefalon's hint. --Code 08:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is something, which makes me seriously thoughtful: This shot is made with one of the actual best cameras with the greatest dynamic range (better than Canon 5DMIII, 6D), and its extremely close to the Nikon D810, with probably no quality difference. I don´t know, what lens Dnalor has used, as far as I know, he isn´t using a cam like this with a 200 €-Lens. I don´t think, that this is a postprocessing problem. Maybe we should think about, that under this conditions, there are possibly natural halos, posterisations and other phenomenons, we all don´t know. Usually, when we see something like this, we take only the overall impression. We have to realize, that there is damp and light working together. Normally, we are not surprised, when we see a rainbow. Can´t it be that this is just part of a completely natural phenomenon and this posterization simply reality and not an aberration distortion of the camera and lens?--Hubertl 09:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment For your information: Hubertl was right: I've used an AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, that's not a 200 €-lens, "it offers outstanding sharpness for a broad zoom range, a remarkably versatile zoom lens best suited for travel and other outdoor applications" (product information/Nikon USA). --Dnalor 01 10:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Though I know it's a so called "to-do-everything"-lens, I'm sure it's a high-quality-product (have a look at Ken Rockwells comment). --Dnalor 01 11:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I just have a look, what Ken Rockwell is saying about this lens. Except some distortions, he fully recommends it. I mean - its a extreme telezoom - you can never compare this with a prime lens. But with the given settings, you can´t do it even better. I just hope, you did not make any mistakes during the postprocessing. But in my opinion, you did everything right with this picture in this situation. Maybe we can ask Steindy, if he too has some "posterizations". In the very end, it´s just physics. Maybe you are the conqueror of a new physical phenomenon, we will call it Dnalorisation :-) --Hubertl 10:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I think, Steindy has the same lens. But he does not do Raw-pictures. Because of his main-interest, action photography.--Hubertl 11:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Red channel is clipping in some areas, but the visual quality and appearance is not substantially affected here. -- Smial 15:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Feuerhimmel 3.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination "Heavenly fire" (red sky/"Feuerhimmel"), 2014-12-22, Graz, Austria. --Dnalor 01 11:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Steindy 18:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Possibly the posterized areas escaped your notice. I made an annotation as an example.Not a QI IMO. --Cccefalon 20:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment There is something, which makes me seriously thoughtful: This shot is made with one of the actual best cameras with the greatest dynamic range (better than Canon 5DMIII, 6D), and its extremely close to the Nikon D810, with probably no quality difference. I don´t know, what lens Dnalor has used, as far as I know, he isn´t using a cam like this with a 200 €-Lens. I don´t think, that this is a postprocessing problem. Maybe we should think about, that under this conditions, there are possibly natural halos, posterisations and other phenomenons, we all don´t know. Usually, when we see something like this, we take only the overall impression. We have to realize, that there is damp and light working together. Normally, we are not surprised, when we see a rainbow. Can´t it be that this is just part of a completely natural phenomenon and this posterization simply reality and not an aberration distortion of the camera and lens?--Hubertl 09:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      •  Comment For your information: Hubertl was right: I've used an AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, that's not a 200 €-lens, "it offers outstanding sharpness for a broad zoom range, a remarkably versatile zoom lens best suited for travel and other outdoor applications" (product information/Nikon USA). --Dnalor 01 10:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Though I know it's a so called "to-do-everything"-lens, I'm sure it's a high-quality-product (have a look at Ken Rockwells comment). --Dnalor 01 11:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 11:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Also for me, its OK.--Hubertl 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Red channel is clipping in some areas, but the visual quality and appearance is not substantially affected here. Btw: Lens quality usually has no impact on exposure. Over- or underexposure can be done with 50$ lenses and with 5000$ lenses. -- Smial 15:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 22:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Udo Jürgens - Der Soloabend 2010 (08).jpg[edit]

File:140928_Berlin_Nordbahnhof_Eingang.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Entrance of Berlin Nordbahnhof. --Code 11:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  OpposeSorry,but noise and overprocessed --Livioandronico2013 14:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the noise level is acceptable. I don't know what you mean with overprocessing here. Other opinions, please. --Code 16:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Hubertl 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 13:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)