Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 21 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Eiche beim Wasserhochbehälter (03).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Water supply building in the Rhön --Verum 19:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Needs perspective correction. Rather noisy, especially in the dark parts, perhaps not satisfyingly fixable? --Basotxerri 08:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Better? --Verum 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, for my taste that dark wall show too much noise. To be sure, I would like to hear some other opinions. The perspective is much better now, though. --Basotxerri 18:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment as I already told you, Verum: Check your monitor! It seems, you are using your notebook. But even these kind of displays are able to configure. --Hubertl 05:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky colour looks unnatural blue --Michielverbeek 06:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Land Rover Range Rover Evoque Convertible 2016 - rear.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Range Rover Evoque Convertible --DeFacto 23:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose manipulated number plate --Ralf Roletschek 19:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd like other views as to how to obscure private number plates because I believe they should be kept private for courtesy reasons. DeFacto 19:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to manipulate and deface the photos. --Ralf Roletschek 14:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • There is a reason - it is respect for the privacy of the vehicle owner. DeFacto 17:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture for QI. @DeFacto: Don't worry, our friend Ralf has two frequent behaviours: he supports, by principle, all pictures needing a perspective correction (he refuses to correct his own production, saying "I don't distort my photos"), and he opposes the pictures where are shown blurred, blanked, obscured faces or car plates. This is "to make a point", he was told about, but he doesn't care. But apart of that, he is a good guy (and a good photographer!).--Jebulon 00:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • There are two posts, sorry, in german: [1] and [2]. Yes, in my eyes is a picture with a blanked number plate no QI. --Ralf Roletschek 22:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ralf Roletschek. No need to manipulate the registration plate! --Alchemist-hp 07:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment, @Alchemist-hp and Ralf Roletschek: Number plate cloning is a big problem in the UK. I always obscure the number plates on images of private vehicles to reduce the risk of cloning and to protect privacy, as a courtesy to the owner. Please reconsider your positions on this. DeFacto 06:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • You can change the number. But the blank is unacceptable. It makes the picture unnecessarily ugly and contradicts the truth at first glance. --Ralf Roletschek 08:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Bose QuietComfort 25 Acoustic Noise Cancelling Headphones.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bose QuietComfort 25 Acoustic Noise Cancelling Headphones --Florian Fuchs 12:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeSorry, looks overprocessed --A.Savin 14:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Question @A.Savin: : Which part looks overprocessed? I did not change any colours. All I did was some focus stacking to make the DOF greater, make the background transparent, and slightly increase the clarity. --Florian Fuchs 15:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    • {{s}} It looks good to me, sharp, natural, no noise, no distortions, colours and WB OK. Is there some defect I do not see? --Basotxerri 08:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I mean that the separation is actually unnecessary and make it all look unnatural and also there are some remains of the original background visible, if you look at the edges of the pads --A.Savin 15:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment OK, A.Savin, you are right. These defects have been too subtle for me but now I've seen them. Thank you. --Basotxerri 06:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
          •  Question @A.Savin: : Could you mark the areas with remains of the original background in my picture, please? I can't see any. I made the background transparent so the picture could be used for all purposes. This is quite common for this type of pictures. --Florian Fuchs 17:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment I added some annotations. There are abrupt changes from sharp to unsharp (too few frames been stacked). The two cutout flaws can easily be fixed, the sharpness issues less so I’m afraid. --Kreuzschnabel 06:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment Thank you very much for the annotations! I corrected the mistakes and uploaded a new version. --Florian Fuchs 09:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Valle_de_la_Luna,_San_Pedro_de_Atacama,_Chile,_2016-02-01,_DD_182-184_HDR.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Valle de la Luna, San Pedro de Atacama, Chile --Poco a poco 16:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, not a QI for me - too much noise, and the man looks painted in (see notes). --Peulle 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree --Jacek Halicki 16:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment True, not the sharpest, but given the size and with a bit of denoising should be ok now Poco a poco 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 18:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, too. --Basotxerri 20:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Absolutely a beautiful composition, but unfortunately too noisy --Michielverbeek 22:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. The size to be QI is 2 megapixels. Do you see this image with two megapixels?--Lmbuga 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 Comment In my opinion, all the images with 45-50 megapixels are QI--Lmbuga 15:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Quality images candidates will eventually be an absurd situation, a renewal is necessary IMO--Lmbuga 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
es: (no estoy seguro de haber dicho lo que quiero, lo repito en español) El tamaño para que una foto pueda ser considerada imagen de calidad es de 2 megapíxeles. Una imagen de 50 megapíxeles deberá ser, salvo incompentencia suma por parte del fotógrafo o por ser mal juzgada, QI. Los parámetros para juzgar de hace cinco o diez años no se ajustan al mundo actual. Si "QI candidates" no evoluciona, no cambia, no solicita, muere. Seguir solicitando fotos de dos megapíxeles es lo mismo que esperar lentamente la muerte del proyecto, pero solamente es mi opinión.--Lmbuga 16:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, Lmbuga, we are accepting pictures as small as 2 MPx but argue about a bit of noise in pictures with 50 MPx. It does not really match together, and I don't think that the solution is to downsample Poco a poco 20:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
You're right, Poco a poco --Lmbuga 15:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
(es) Pienso que ya se habrá empezado a considerar QI fotos de móbiles. No me extraña: con el punto de partida de 2 megapixels, 8 es una barbaridad aunque no se trate de una buena foto: Hay que actualizar QIC.--Lmbuga 15:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
(es)Gracias. Si opino en este espacio es porque es el de tu foto. No me siento con cabida en otro lado. Gracias--Lmbuga 15:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 CommentI tried to understand the discussion per google translate. The 2-mpixel hard limit should be kept for difficult situations in photography, e.g. macro shots of moving objects, where focus stacking is impossible, or wild life shots, where strong crop is necessary, as not everyone owns a f5.6/800mm lens. Those famous "easy-to-take" photos should have 4 MPix as a minimum. This is also possible with old DSLR which have 6 MPixel sensors. Regarding those DSLR with 36 or 50 MPix: especially the Canon is rather noisy compared to the cameras with the 36 MPix Sony sensor, but this is whining on a high level (de:Jammern auf hohem Niveau), because below ISO800 the results are still ok. Another aspect of high resolution sensors is, that many lenses have not really sufficient resolution. So a lens that gives nice, pixelsharp shots used at 8 or 12 MPix appears unsharp at 36 or 50 MPix. Some participants here do not take this into account. Next point: Diffraction can be noticeable already at f/8 with a full format sensor with 50 MPixels, but sometimes you need f/16. The sharpness of high resolution shots should therefore not be judged by pixel peeping, because there are inevitable physical limits. -- Smial 09:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Plaques_on_Church_of_the_Saviour_on_the_Blood.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Plaques on Church of the Saviour on the Blood of Saint-Petersburg in Russia --Reda Kerbouche 05:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{s}} Good quality. --Hubertl 07:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO perspective (bottom) should be fixed. --XRay 08:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment you are right, XRay, there is a significant cussion distortion too. --Hubertl 09:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
i will correct all this.--Reda Kerbouche 06:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done.--Reda Kerbouche 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 Not done see notes! --Hubertl 19:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Hubertl I upload a new maybe correct version.--Reda Kerbouche 08:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad clarity and contrast. Not QI IMO--Lmbuga 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support it´s ok now for me. --Hubertl 20:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --A.Savin 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • A translation would help...--Jebulon 22:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)