Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 30 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Mt. Kennedy from Lowell Glacier to north.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mt. Kennedy from the Lowell Glacier to the north. By User:Nomdeploom --DavidJRasp 11:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too noisy. Sorry. --Ermell 17:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my support As this must have been shot on film in 1984 I think this type of grain is normal and adds to the aesthetics of that composition. --Augustgeyler 11:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) / --Augustgeyler 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree. My only question would be about the blue color. Is that natural, or was a blue filter applied? It's a QI to me either way, but if a filter was applied, that should be noted. -- Ikan Kekek 11:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unlike the recently presented slides, I do not consider the scan quality satisfactory in this case. The image corners are quite blurry after all. I also consider the white balance to be insufficient. --Smial 12:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Augustgeyler. It's a 1984 photo. Blue colors is not a problem IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 16:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 Comment If the technical quality of the reproduction is inferior, it cannot be QI. The age of the original is completely irrelevant. The scan is blurry. --Smial 10:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment To my understanding, we are supposed to judge the quality of each photo considering what good quality would be the year it was taken. Is that not your understanding? -- Ikan Kekek 13:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I certainly take into account that historical photographs on conventional film must be evaluated differently than digitally created photos. A technically flawless slide in 35mm format or larger is still good enough for a QI if it is in a good state of preservation. But for this, it must also be scanned flawlessly. In the image shown, however, only the center is sufficiently sharp (not really convincing, but it still works to some extent). The corners are out of focus, and you can tell that from the film grain itself. This indicates that either the scanner used was of insufficient optical quality, or that the slide was badly bent. Both are technical errors that would be criticized in any reproduction, and that's exactly what I'm doing here. --Smial 14:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I see. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek 19:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 Comment You are right. I changed my mind. --Augustgeyler 19:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No QI per Ermell, but a good VIC in my eyes. --Milseburg 17:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 03:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)