Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 22 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Quirinale_Cappella_Paolina_base_del_balcone_Roma.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the base of the balcony of the Cappella Paolina chapel in the Quirinal Palace in Rome. --Moroder 18:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good light and compo, but unfortunately blurred everywhere. --A.Savin 08:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version. Please evaluate --Moroder 13:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      •  Comment You can sharpen as much as you want; but bad focus is bad focus. --A.Savin 10:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too blurry, sorry. --Basotxerri 17:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Cuíca - Marmosa paraguayana.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cuíca - Marmosa paraguayana by User:Renato Augusto Martins--Rodrigo Padula 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 16:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs much better categories and the photo is probably downsampled. This needs to be fixed first. --W.carter 17:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 22:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 04:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I guess the category for the Roman name was added. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And as with the photo below, it's inadmissible not to credit the photographer. I've added his information, but Rodrigo Padula, next time, you need to do it. -- Ikan Kekek 07:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment 1. @W.carter: How do you know it has been downsampled? 2. If it has been, then we must all oppose Images should not be downsampled. Charlesjsharp 14:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • See my answer below on the second nom. --W.carter 17:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 21:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Perereca-macaco - Phyllomedusa rohdei.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Perereca-macaco - Phyllomedusa rohdei by User:Renato Augusto Martins --Rodrigo Padula 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 16:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs much better categories and the photo is probably downsampled. This needs to be fixed first. --W.carter 17:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Category created. Down-sampling seems fine here considering the shallow DOF in this pose. Jkadavoor 07:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question - I respect your opinion from your experience, but would you have down-sampled this much? -- Ikan Kekek 07:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • First, I would like to thank W.carter for bringing this to Consensual Review; that's why I noticed this on this busy week (for me). 1. I noticed that nominator and photographer are different. I noticed no species category exists for this frog. It is difficult for a new user to create a well defined category; so I decided to help. 2. And for down-sampling, it depends on several parameters. I well lighted macro in base ISO need not be down-sampled. That's why some of my FPs are 24MP. But when I started a diffuser that cuts a lot of light and I forced to use ISO 320/400, I need to down-sample them to 80%. If I shoot at ISO 800, I need to down-sample a lot more. Other than this, this particular angle of a frog photo needs a lot of DOF which is not possible to achieve in a larger resolution. (No need to downsample and reviewers can review the image in a reasonable resolution is a good argument. But Unfortunately my experience is not many people follow it. They simply check the image in 100% and reject.) 3. The image can be cropped; not down-sampled. I didn't check the EXIF in detail; sometimes it mention the subject distance which self explains whether it is a crop. Jkadavoor 04:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Rodrigo Padula, please mention the author as I added here while nominating other's works. Jkadavoor 12:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I have to support, because what a gesture! However, like W.carter, I question the size. -- Ikan Kekek 07:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment My reason for bringing this to CR is not because I question the quality of the photo, they are all very good, but a QI is also about getting all that boring "paperwork" such as description, categories, crediting the photographer, etc. right. Since this involves a user and photographer that seem to be relatively new to QIC, it is better to get things right from the beginning, hoping they may contribute with more of these beautiful photos. Right now the rules says "no downsampling" and I think we should respect that. These bunch of photos seems to be sort of routinely downsampled since the photographer is unfamiliar with our rules. Several of these pics could be FPCs and that section is relentless when it comes to downsampling, it would be a shame if that should stand it the way of a good photo. --cart-Talk 09:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment 1. @W.carter: How do you know it has been downsampled? 2. If it has been, then we must all oppose Images should not be downsampled. Charlesjsharp 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp, not sure you get this 'ping' since they don't work all the time in these QIC templates. I'm not absolutely sure they are downsampled, which is why I wrote "probably" and "seems" downsampled. I had a look at this photographer's photos and 25 of the 26 photos of animals uploaded so far, taken with a 4288x2848 camera are 2144x1424. The landscapes are larger. That raised a question mark for me and I wrote in a related review (above May 17) asking about this to get this clarified rather than 'oppose'. I also had a look at the comments made in another review (above May 15) between the nominator and another reviewer that suggests the photos are downsampled: "Comment Your camera can shoot a larger version than this, do you have one?--Peulle 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)It will be uploaded soon Rodrigo Padula 15:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)"
I'm hoping all have larger versions and they get uploaded.
When it comes to the policy of downsampling, I'm no expert by any means, I just try to follow it as best I can and that discussion would be better to have at say this page's talk page where policy changes should be discussed. Here is where we review photos and try to follow the policy currently in use. --W.carter 15:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I wonder why the nominator doesn't respond? The photographer could be taking images on small image setting that many cameras have I suppose. Charlesjsharp 21:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, they may have other things to do in life than checking in regularly at QIC. Anyway, I've left a note on the nominator's talk page. --cart-Talk 22:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 21:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)