Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 22 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:16-01-11-Wien-Schwarzweißfilm-28.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schwarzweißaufnahme Wien 2016 --Ralf Roletschek 23:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olaf Kosinsky 05:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this series is IMHO not QI. B/W does not mean that sharpness can be neglected. --Poco a poco 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness is as good as one can expect it from analog photography. Good quality. --Code 06:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@Code: For your information, see [1] It might be, that something happened to the process while scanning from analoge negative. The grain for ISO 100 in analogue material also should be much finer and not blotchy. --Cccefalon 08:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

File:16-01-11-Wien-Schwarzweißfilm-22.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schwarzweißaufnahme Wien 2016 --Ralf Roletschek 23:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olaf Kosinsky 05:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this series is IMHO not QI. B/W does not mean that sharpness can be neglected. --Poco a poco 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness is as good as one can expect it from analog photography. Good quality. --Code 06:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Code: there is actually a discussion about at Ralf´s Discussion page! --Hubertl 09:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

File:16-01-11-Wien-Schwarzweißfilm-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schwarzweißaufnahme Wien 2016 --Ralf Roletschek 23:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olaf Kosinsky 05:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this series is IMHO not QI. B/W does not mean that sharpness can be neglected. --Poco a poco 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness is as good as one can expect it from analog photography. Good quality. --Code 06:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Code: there is actually a discussion about at Ralf´s Discussion page! --Hubertl 09:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

File:16-01-11-Wien-Schwarzweißfilm-09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schwarzweißaufnahme Wien 2016 --Ralf Roletschek 23:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Olaf Kosinsky 05:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. and this one is not difficult. --Herzi Pinki 09:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are some problems with the image at full resolution, but for me it is acceptable. The problem for me is as Herzi Pinki points out above (description, etc) --Prosthetic Head 10:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Timios_Stavros_Sunset_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset at Timios Stavros mountain behind the bay of Damnoni, Finikas, Crete --Uoaei1 06:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I´m sorry, but without a hard edged grey filter, you won´t get this lightening conditions. It´s more than one houre before the actually sunset. The foreground is too dark and I´m afraid, you can´t brighten ist without heavy noise. --Hubertl 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sun itself is burnt, but this is not a big issue, this is expectable and can be tolerated. But the image seems to be somewhat blurred, probably by noise reduction. If the raw file is available, I'd try to develop it 1/2 f-stop darker to reduce burnt out reflections on the water, and add some s-curving to get more crispy midtones. I think it is a nice composition and could gain QI status if carefully reworked. -- Smial 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info @Smial and Hubertl: I have reworked it from RAW (of course this is available). Please give it a second look. And there is no noise reduction - not necessary for this low ISO. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support quite better now! --Hubertl 09:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Sharpness not really great, but good rework and acceptable now. --Smial 11:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)