Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2012

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2012-10-19 16-58-05-musee-beaux-arts-belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Village nègre, Saïda, by Victor Baumann --ComputerHotline 17:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportVery good. --Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yellow cast IMO--Jebulon 23:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC) acceptable, even if the file name is very bad...--Jebulon 16:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 22:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-19 16-59-33-musee-beaux-arts-belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Geryville, by Victor Baumann --ComputerHotline 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportVery good. --Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yellow cast IMO.--Jebulon 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC) acceptable, after thinking about.--Jebulon 16:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 22:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Genève Mouette03 2012-09-16.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Boat called Mouette on Lake Geneva. --KlausFoehl 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC))
  • Decline Not sure this is good enough - sky is a bit noisy, all a bit dark, bit unsharp... Mattbuck 01:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition. Is it the boat or the fountain that is the subject? This photo would benefit from rule of thirds, see Commons:Image guidelines. --Esquilo 09:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Brockenhurst railway station MMB 14 421497.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: 421497 at Brockenhurst. Mattbuck 12:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment chromatic aberration, see lamp posts oder the Brockenhurst sign --Kreuzschnabel 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    Fixed Mattbuck 14:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    I’m not convinced, sorry … there’s still some CA (not a reason to decline IMHO) and the pic does not look really sharp. Let’s discuss. --Kreuzschnabel 17:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days.
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 07:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Sikh_man,_Agra_11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sikh man, Agra, India. --Yann 18:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC) New version uploaded. Yann 12:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp. --Mattbuck 00:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is absurd to decline these images with high resuoution because of minor unsharpeness. If I resize it to meet minimum QIC standards, it would be perfectly sharp. Please compare file:Sikh man, Agra 11-edit-2012-23-10.jpg. Do you want only 2 MPix-Images from Yann in the future? Only because of some lack of fine contrast if you zoom in to 400%? -- Smial 11:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I want them good quality at 100% zoom. This is not, therefore it is not QI. Mattbuck 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Please consider some technical aspects: We are talking about a camera with about 3.8µm pixel pitch. You will hardly find any zoom lens that would be able to deliver such a high resolution. Even primes will be rare. It is simply unfair to decline a photograph where the sensor has more resolution as any lens can give. So you cannot judge on pixel base. -- Smial 20:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
        • It’s my topic any time: What’s the use of uploading an unsharp hi-res image instead of a downscaled sharp version of the same image offering the same amount of detail at a quarter the file size – and being perfectly sharp at 100% view? Whoever wants a higher resolution, though unsharp, may upscale the image to quite the same result as the original unsharp image looked like. --Kreuzschnabel 17:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I agree with Kreuzschnabel.--Jebulon 14:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
            • The more you down-sample, the sharper the image becomes; end up in the minimum threshold limit (2MP). :) -- Jkadavoor 16:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
              • @Jkadavoor: I was talking about downscaling without loss of detail. In other words: Eliminate nothing but your photographic system’s weaknesses. High resulution has no value in itself; if it doesn’t show details of 1 px size, it’s useless resolution.--Kreuzschnabel 16:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                • I agree with Kreuzschnabel. Again.--Jebulon 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
                • I know; but not all photographers are good in post processing (including me); they simply upload without much edits. Nowadays I know a little tricks. :( -- Jkadavoor 04:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
                  • If you downscale a photo, you allways lose information. Someone who has great skills in post processing can improve a high resolution image with minor unsharpeness very much. It is impossible to enhance a downscaled image the same way. So it is absurd to promote a downscaled version which looks a bit sharper and to decline the image with the higher resolution, which has, viewed at the same magnification, i.e. as a print of 10 x 15 cm , the same sharpeness, but could be improved to make a print of 60 cm x 90 cm, where the 2MPix-version will only show pixel in the size of sugar cubes. These pixels will be absolutely sharp, yes. -- Smial 11:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
                    • Of course you always lose information when downscaling. My point is that, in case of an unsharp image, the information lost was not useful image information, since it bore no detail the downscaled image doesn’t show (if it does, the original image was not unsharp, i.e. there was a loss of detail, and that’s not the case I am talking about). I define „sharpness“ as „showing detail that uses the full resolution“ – in other words, as „downscaling will always lead to loss of image detail“. I’ve uploaded a 50 percent version at File:Sikh man, Agra 11_1.jpg. Do you see any information in the original which does not show up in my downscaled version? If you don’t, the information lost wasn’t useful information (and can be restored in similar quality by upscaling using a reasonable algorithm to avoid pixelage). --Kreuzschnabel 15:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
                      • Kreuzschnabel, I agree with you. But is it a must to downscale all images from poor cameras (which is difficult for simple photographers)? The Nikon D3200 is just a fancy revision of D40 with 4x megapixels. -- Jkadavoor 06:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Puente_Burate.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Puente sobre el río Burate. Edo. Trujillo. Venezuela --Rjcastillo 12:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Unsure about this, would like more opinions.  Weak support I guess. Mattbuck 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Compression artifacts, also some cw tilt. -- Smial 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done upload new version. Please look again --Rjcastillo 16:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, still the problems with too strong compression. In my experience an image with this amount of detail and resolution should result in a file size of about 4 MB, or more. Please have a look at the edges of the bridge to the sky, there are still those blocky artefacts. -- Smial 12:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment it is image not processing. not understand. but respect your opinion. Please show me where they are exactly "there are still those blocky artefacts", . thanks. --Rjcastillo 13:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Please look at File:Puente Burate Example for JPG compression problems.png. I've marked three regions where you can see the JPG artefacts. If you did no post processing to your image then you have chosen a very low quality setting in your camera. Most digital cameras let you chose different resolution (that is pixel count) and quality settings (that is compression). Both should be set to highest quality. If you are post processing your images, that can simply be cropping, you should save the results also with best JPG quality settings. Most image processing software have sliders for this setting, i.e. from 0 to 100. Never use saving options like "optimized for web use" or similar, those also have usually very high compression settings that will give bad results. Does this help? -- Smial 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment ok. I understanding.Thanks for the explication. --Rjcastillo 13:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days.
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? A.Savin 19:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Escalier intérieur Château de Lunéville.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Stair of the Château de Lunéville (France). Léna 10:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline noise for me --Rjcastillo 13:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    I think it's OK, but unsure why black and white. Mattbuck 11:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective --Moroder 23:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Esbjerg_-_Hauptbahnhof5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Esbjerg: central station --Taxiarchos228 05:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Weak oppose - I'm not sure this is QI, though it's hard to put a finger on what's wrong. Mattbuck 11:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    • without saying what's wrong or bad here it's difficult to improve it --Taxiarchos228 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Gauravjuvekar 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not an eye-catcher, and a bit shallow DOF, but meets QI criteria. -- Smial 14:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Don't like the DOF. Only the gravel in front is focussed. Biopics 20:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days.
  •  Support good enought for me for QI --Ralf Roletschek 13:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Henriksdalshamnen_September_2012_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building in Henriksdalshamnen, Stockholm. different version was declined due to perspective disortion. --ArildV 08:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Smial 10:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Hmm, not really sure - seems noisy to me, also a bit too much sky. Needs discussion imo - A.Savin 10:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)  Info New version uploaded.--ArildV 12:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Florian Fuchs 13:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me now. - A.Savin 19:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. - Achim Raschka 09:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 09:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Felix Koenig 16:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Felix Koenig 16:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:WhereRainbowRises.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination This photo shows the place where the rainbow rises (the end of a rainbow), many mythologies were associated with such places.Taken by Wing-Chi Poon on 1st July 2005 in Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada.Photo taken by Wingchi , Nominated by --Danesman1 12:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Interesting, but very noisy, esp. on the water. - A.Savin 13:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, I disagree, i cannot see alot of noise on this picture, i believe IMO this picture is worth QI having already achieved picture of the day.--Danesman1 19:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If you really cannot see noise in this, please open your eyes. Look at the water surface. Chromatic noise all over. Your fine sense for imaging definitely asks for a better equipment. --Kreuzschnabel 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far from QI threshold: unsharp and strong chromatic noise Poco a poco 21:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy and unsharp. --THWZ 18:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Hearst_Castle_Neptune_Pool_September_2012_003.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Neptune Pool, Hearst Castle. --King of Hearts 09:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Crop ruther confusing, horizontal perspective --Moroder 09:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Lagerfeuer.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Campfire. -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. - A.Savin 19:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Total red-channel blowout in much of the image. Single-channel blowout is an area where digital still doesn't hold a candle to film (no pun intended). If shooting fire on digital, deliberately underexposing and then lightening in post-process (while being careful to keep the red channel manageable) will do the trick. --King of Hearts 10:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Using a Wratten 44 or 80 colour filter will also do the trick. /Esquilo 20:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - pretty, yes, but overexposed red. Mattbuck 02:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Peresechenie2012-angelique-4993.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ilya Belov plays didgeridoo. --PereslavlFoto 10:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp and tilted. --Mattbuck 21:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Where is it unsharp? Tilt is used as an artictic tool.PereslavlFoto 11:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Flash. -- Smial 00:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, dark shadow. This is a real trouble. How can it be avoided? Can you give me some advice?--PereslavlFoto 09:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
      • There is no simple workaround. If you use built-in flash or a flash mounted on the camera and use the flash as main light source you will in any case get those hard and ugly shadows. Shadows will be softer using a soft box. Those small transparent plastic caps don't help much outdoors, as softness depends on the size of the reflecting aera. Another workaround is using High Iso combined with direct flash in a very low setting. Some hints can be found here, sorry I don't know corresponding english wikipages. -- Smial 10:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Le_Buisson-de-Cadouin_-_Abbaye_de_Cadouin_-_Vitraux_de_l'église_abbatiale_-_PA00082415_-_006.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Un des vitraux de l'église abbatiale. --Thesupermat 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good. - A.Savin 19:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please discuss, there is something wrong with the red mantle, IMO.--Jebulon 17:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. I don't see any mistake. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Peresecenie2012-expo-4666.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination «HypnO Design» fashion samples at the «Crossing» festival in Pereslavl. --PereslavlFoto 12:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposure detracts from the composition. --Mattbuck 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Just as it was in real scene with its harsh light.--PereslavlFoto 11:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh light should have been compensated for by shorter exposure. /Esquilo 06:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This means underexposed shadows then.--PereslavlFoto 14:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Torre_de_Belém,_Lisboa,_Portugal,_2012-05-12,_DD_11.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Belém Tower, Lisbon, Portugal --Poco a poco 03:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Top and bottom seem a bit blurry to me. --Mattbuck 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    I think that this decline is quite tough, hopefully you don't mind if I move it to CR Poco a poco 22:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 Support I can't see any "blurry" parts in this very sharp and detailed picture. QI --THWZ 12:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-20 21-11-13-lightpainting.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lightpainting --ComputerHotline 18:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Interesting technique. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • compare with this ;-) --Berthold Werner 18:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't see any Q in this I. Biopics 07:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support King of Hearts 03:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't get the point of this picture: why two stick figure characters? Why the peculiar design of the character in the left? I don't see how the background complements the light painting. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose i dont see any Quality, for me its boring technology and nothink art. --Ralf Roletschek 13:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Berthold Werner 13:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Lampaul-Guimiliau_-_Église_Notre-Dame_-_PA00090020_-_018.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vue du calvaire de l'église Notre-Dame de Lampaul-Guimiliau. --Thesupermat 15:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mattbuck 14:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please remove the artifacts between the legs and also at the right of the man at the left. --Cayambe 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC).
Will change my vote once done. --Cayambe 18:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Very strong shadow but excellent photo. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Sonoma_Dry_Jack.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dry Jack still life with prunes, pomegranate and roasted almonds. --Frank Schulenburg 00:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blown highlights, unfortunate low DOF. Biopics 07:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Histogram of the picture under discussion.
  •  Comment I challenge this decision. I've never done this before, but in this case I think it's important as we don't have that many photographers here on Commons who are into food photography and I don't want potential newcomers to be scared away by assessments like this. Now, the technique used here is backlighting, which is quited common in food photography and the histogram shows no blown highlights (see screenshot on the right). The depth of field is rather high for this kind of a photo (it's f/4.5). I took a number of exposures with different depth of field and f/2.8 didn't give a convincing result (although the bokeh for the prunes and the pomegranate in the background was much nicer), whereas f/7.1 resulted in almost no bokeh at all, which looked very unfortunate. You can disagree with me when it comes to composition (maybe the prunes are too close) or food choice (why pomegranate) – but I disagree with the assessment of something "being wrong" technically. --Frank Schulenburg 13:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree, the first comment doesn't apply and makes me wonder if this review was accidentally for another pic. I'd prefer if the whole cheese was in focus, as it is the subject, but looks like it wasn't possible given the close arrangement. -- Colin 13:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and nice picture in a difficult discipline. Perhaps a horizontal composition would be even better? --Jastrow 10:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't rely too much on histograms, as they do not show small areas of clipping. There is some clipping in small areas, but those are not disturbing, as it does not make unnatural colours. DOF is allways also a matter of personal taste. Many wikipedians demand complete sharpness from foreground to background, others do not. In this image DOF ist perfectly suitable. -- Smial 11:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral This DoF can be a good choice for food, however I'm not convinced by the vertical composition. --PierreSelim 12:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I do agree with Frank's arguments in every point. Concerning the composition: This is QI, not FP! --THWZ 12:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I too a fan of big aperture photography in Flickr, but here the purpose is different (only educational contents). So we have a guideline that "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image. The overall image should have clearly defined focus, for example, the main subject is in focus and the foreground and background are out of focus, or else, the whole scene is in focus". The DOF is acceptable for me if the subject is "Sonoma Dry Jack"; all others are just to improve the composition. It will be nice if you improve the nomination title in that way. I like OOF items in background; but in foreground is a bit distracting to me (here a few almonds which are too close to your camera). [I have previous experience that you will be very angry if I say you do something wrong, so utmost care is taken to make this review.] Jkadavoor 15:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nice picture, its QI. DoF is no optimal but it is good. --Ralf Roletschek 13:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 13:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Moritzburg von Süd-West.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Moritzburg (by Chaosbastler -- Achim Raschka 19:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I was quite surprised that this one has got WLM winner in Germany: it is unsharp, has tilt and chromatic aberrations; the composition is not that convincing either. - A.Savin 20:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's sharp enough at 2000px. Also, the CA can be easily fixed. Usually one just upload a correction over the image at QIC, but I'm not sure what should be done here as we probably shouldn't be making changes directly to a contest winner. --King of Hearts 00:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose+ sky extremely noisy. It is not the first time that I think WLM winners are not good enough, even for QI, it was the case last year in France (IMO), that's why I did not participate in 2012...--Jebulon 16:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition is nice, but the quality is not up to it. --Iifar 07:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry even at 2000px it's not a QI for me, lacks of details, lacks of sharpness, and composition could be better (lots of empty spaces that do not magnify anything). --PierreSelim 11:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Like Nebulon and PierreSelim. I wonder if the jury has judged this image on a mobile phone display? --THWZ 11:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I totally agree with Pierre. --High Contrast 15:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose keine Ahnung warum aber das ist einfach unscharf. Defekter Wackeldackel? --Ralf Roletschek 20:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Here's a much sharper version of my image: [1]. Does this change your mind? --Chaosbastler 09:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks better indeed, but we still have chromatic aberrations at the edges, also noise in the sky and some sharpening haloes. I'd change to neutral if you fix CA and haloes. But basically, sharpening tools of Photoshop etc. are not a panacea; it's always better to care for better quality while photographing (e. g. by using a tripod). - A.Savin 09:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --PierreSelim 11:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-19 16-50-16-musee-beaux-arts-belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chemin près de Crozant, by Armand Guillaumin --ComputerHotline 18:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very nice photo of the frame, but the lighting reflects too much off the paint. --Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is not so disturbing, + the balance looks good here.--Jebulon 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    I can't help but feel you just decided to be contrary with these pictures... saw what I thought and did the opposite. I'm on to you matey. Mattbuck 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much reflection. Consider using a polarizing filter. --Esquilo 08:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 22:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-19 16-56-04-musee-beaux-arts-belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Moulaï Abbas, chef arabe, by Alphonse Baumann --ComputerHotline 17:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Excellent photo, shame about the picture. --Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yellow cast IMO--Jebulon 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Offer an option (white balance correction). --Aleks G 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support New version has better colours. --Esquilo 08:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 22:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-19 17-03-31-musee-beaux-arts-belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Paysage à Alger, by Eugène Fromentin --ComputerHotline 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Excellent. --Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yellow cast IMO.--Jebulon 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? A.Savin 22:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-19 17-04-55-musee-beaux-arts-belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Entrée de la petite mosquée à Alger, by Eugène Fromentin --ComputerHotline 14:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  SupportVery good. --Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (removable) Yellow cast IMO--Jebulon 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? A.Savin 22:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Taj_Mahal_Tomb_at_sunrise.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The Tomb of Taj Mahal at sunrise during monsoon time. --Sreejithk2000 10:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose perspective distortion --Iifar 19:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it looks fine like that. Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion per Iifar, + very noisy. Please let's discuss.--Jebulon 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its good so it is, with distortion isn't it a QI --Ralf Roletschek 17:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Another time, it is not allowed to vote to make a point. It is forbidden and no more funny. Our (yours and mine) common images guidelines say that perspective must generaly be corrected, there is no current debate about that. If you disagree, please start a discussion to change them, and after that, initiate a vote in the relevant page. Thank you--Jebulon 22:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
      • You can't "correct" it in all pictures, an example. And this photo is also one of this examples, who are better no "corrected". Also this "Correction" is a distortion. People see it so as it is. --Ralf Roletschek 15:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "People see it so as it is". Wrong, sorry. This is due to the lens. The humain eye and brain correct it by itself. Vertical is vertical.--Jebulon 18:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I tried a little to reduce the noise and correct the distortion (file updated). --Aleks G 21:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
          • So you can expect an instant oppose from Ralf. :) Jkadavoor 06:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
            • I have a opinion but i dont will argue. Also this version is pretty to me. --> pro --Ralf Roletschek 13:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per new version. -- King of Hearts 03:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version is much better. --Esquilo 08:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Vaca_Pastando_I.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Cow --Rjcastillo 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review  Neutral - unsure, I like the idea but it's a bit overexposed and a lot of "wasted" space. Mattbuck 14:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days.

File:Plaza_del_Comercio,_Lisboa,_Portugal,_2012-05-12,_DD_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Commerce Square, Lisbon, Portugal --Poco a poco 02:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Tilted mildly CW, and very dull. Mattbuck 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Brighten maybe? Mattbuck 23:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    Agree, ✓ brigther Poco a poco 17:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    After both of us got involved, we will need a third opinion Poco a poco 00:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Do you want mine ? It is a QI. (Even if I have had removed the crane...)--Jebulon 15:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not involved so far. :) -- Jkadavoor 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The last version has overexposed sky, especially above the crane. --ℇsquilo 09:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 08:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Rear_side_of_Tajmahal.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A shot of Tajmahal on a foggy morning --Sreejithk2000 09:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support for me its QI. --Ralf Roletschek 09:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, JPG artifacts. Nice atmosphere does not automatically mean QI. - A.Savin 09:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support By definition, fog makes distant things unsharp. What do you expect? -- King of Hearts 09:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization is a real problem though. Biopics 09:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jayarathina 10:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose JPG artifacts. EXIF-information missing. --Esquilo 08:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Opposeartifacts, no EXIF-Information, no geocoding, posterization. Atmosphere is very nice, indeed. --THWZ 11:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Pułtusk ratusz 2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pułtusk Town Hall, Poland. --Sfu 21:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Is the tower leaning that way in reality, or is it due to distortion?--V-wolf 20:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    It's not leaning, it's just staight (maybe too much, but I won't change it). --Sfu 18:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fits all QI criteria. -- Smial 23:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much shadow on the building IMO. --Avenue 23:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is good enough for QI -- Achim Raschka 09:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No geocode, no detailed and full description, visible noise on dark surfaces. The sharpness must be improved with high pass technology.--PereslavlFoto 11:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Description added. Location added. I don't agree however on the sharpness. I think it's good enougth, and it doesn't have to be improved additionaly. --Sfu 11:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The so called descriptions lacks even the age of building. What about sharpness, we have different opinions, for I see a way to make it better .--PereslavlFoto 13:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
        • A picture of a commonly photographed object is not a place for making detailed descriptions. Article, category maybe, is the right place. If you're interested the tower and the basement of the main building is 16th century. The main building itself is 19th I suppose, judging by the architecture. --Sfu 14:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Any image at Commons wins from a detailed description. The years and centuries may be found with Google Books. Those are the reasons that prevent me from supporting this as QI.--PereslavlFoto 11:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
            • I don't fight over this image. I see it will not pass due to shadow (it just seemed that it's at the limit for me, so I did let people tell if the shadow is too strong). I just think a picture of a building needs just a basic description, an identification. Everything more should be described elsewhere. Of course, the more descriped picture wins, but I don't think it's really necessary, especialy for QI. Basic identification is enougth IMO. --Sfu 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
              •  Info "A small hill to the south side of the market features a castle with the town hall tower in the middle, which houses a museum. The upper floors feature impressive archaeological exhibits. All of the exhibits come from Pułtusk. Pictures showing archaeological sites accompany them. The objects remained in good condition owing to the moisture. There is a lake four meters underneath the market. Archaeologists have dug out several layers of objects. These include pottery, wooden bowls and other utensils for everyday use. Well-preserved old leather shoes are worthy of attention. The items collected in this part of the museum come from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. When you get to the top floor you can enjoy the view of the countryside through a telescope. The tower was the seat of the municipal government and it was built around 1405. Its founder was Bishop Jakub z Korzwi, called Kurdwanowski. Apart from administrative and judicial functions the tower also played a defensive role. All throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it was gradually increased, and a more spacious and functional building was added to the eastern side. During the "deluge" in the eighteenth century fires haunted town hall. Later, the building fell into disrepair. Since 1880 it had been the seat of a fire brigade. At the beginning of the twentieth century the building was demolished. Luckily, the tower remained. In 1964 a Regional Museum was opened in the tower." Jkadavoor 05:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Avenue. --Vamps 10:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Jkadavoor 05:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Avenue.--Jebulon 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Torre_de_TV_de_Tallin,_Estonia,_2012-08-12,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

File:Holland on sea windfarm.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination New contructed off shore wind farm along the essex coast line which can be seen in the distance, photo location Holland On Sea, Essex, UK. --Danesman1 12:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tilted. Lack of details. Artefacts. Biopics 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, please can you tell me what lacks detail and where the artefacts are? I also cant see that the picture is tilted, the horizon is straight and was meant to be pictured like this.--Danesman1 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness. Please, before nominating a bunch of similar pictures and questioning the assessment of other users, nominate only one or two and proceed later on depending on the result Poco a poco 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - general lack of detail. You can see pixellation. Mattbuck 22:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 04:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Церква Святого Пантелеймона 17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Panteleimon Church, Shevchenkove, Halych Raion. Photo by Klymenkoy --Lystopad 10:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--ArildV 10:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Perspective distortion, disturbing foreground; resolution only just above the minimum of 2 MP. Needs further opinions imo - A.Savin 11:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion is too much even though I'm not a supporter of full perspective correction (may not look natural). This image should be perspective corrected and cropped. --THWZ 12:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per other opposers.--Jebulon 22:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Schlachtengalerie Decke.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Central part of the ceiling of the Galerie des Batailles at the Palace of Versailles. (by -donald-) -- Achim Raschka 07:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support If it's an FP, it better be good... --King of Hearts 07:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose FP is not a higher quality of QI, typically here the picture is quite soft, and the central part is totally overexposed. --PierreSelim 07:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. For modern DSLR photos, I cannot see an image not good enough for QI pass FPC. If you think the defects you mentioned are significant, nominate it for delisting, but FPs are by definition QIs with a "wow" factor IMO. --King of Hearts 07:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    I totally disagree with your opinion. FPs are more about composition and wow than quality. Often you'll have both quality and wow because the photographers have made the effort to get a very good picture, sometimes it's just impossible like with this featured picture of Fencing. --PierreSelim 12:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not crisp and as Pierre said, blown skylight. Biopics 07:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Comment Even in 800px the picture is too soft for a QI. Owning a 10mm zoom lens I can assure you that f/3.5 will get very soft picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Here the picture is soft due to the chosen aperture and the window is overexposed which is almost unavoidable. The picture may be sharper if a small aperture is used; but the result will be like a flat painting, losing all 3D feel which is the most important feature of this subject. F3.5 at 10mm is not that much shallow; here everything is in focus even though soft. (Hmmm, FP and QI are different; at least my ego says so. Further, it is better not to depend on such previous certifications to make a good review. But I just noticed that most supporters of this picture in FPC are well known reviewers in QIC too.) Jkadavoor 07:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not a butterfly shot ;-) where you have to decide fast and shoot fast, this is a none moving item where with a tripod you have all the options like z-stacking, pano stitching and HDR. For all named techniques there is free software available. So no excuse nor mitigation to make a near perfect picture even with limited hardware. QI is all about technical merits, FP carries no weight here. Biopics 08:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
      • My only concern is how to maintain a 3D feel in a whole sharp F>8 picture. I will agree with you, if it is possible. :) Jkadavoor 08:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Who cares about the sky in that picture? It is overexposed, so what? Is it really necessary to always use techniques like HDR or stiching in high contrast environments? I don't think you can get a better result, if you just use a single shot. In my opinion this is a great quality image. --Florian Fuchs 17:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded a version with somewhat more sophisticated denoising which keeps more detail and sharpness. -- Smial 11:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:London MMB 21 Trafalgar Square.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Trafalgar Square. Mattbuck 12:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please discuss. The composition makes it hard to understand what the picture is about. --Jastrow 11:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition. -- Smial 23:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. I was about to say, what are you guys talking about, it's clearly flooding, how obvious does it need to get? And then I read the file description. -- King of Hearts 03:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. The image does not show what the description says. Instead, it shows a safety warning sign and a lot of water around that could be anything. --Kreuzschnabel 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    It is a photo of one of the fountains in Trafalgar Square - you see that water? THAT'S PART OF THE FOUNTAIN! Mattbuck 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Stenopus Hispidus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Banded coral shrimp Esquilo 21:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rzuwig 19:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor focus, Disturbing light at the back. Biopics 07:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Focus is on subject. Lightsource dimmed out. Esquilo 10:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, nice colours.--Danesman1 21:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 09:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Holleday 16:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Japansk röding.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Japanese trout Esquilo 21:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rzuwig 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and the glass (scratches) show on top of the fish. Biopics 07:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneNoice reduced and scratch removed. Esquilo 11:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice good quality close up.--Danesman1 21:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Holleday 16:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-25 16-02-25-Amanita-muscaria.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Amanita muscaria --ComputerHotline 16:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support --Iifar 17:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavily over-saturated (14.5%). Biopics 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as biopics. Also a vertical composition would have been better I think. Jastrow 10:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated, artifacts due to tone-mapping (see annotations). --THWZ 11:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it very good. The tone-mapping artefacts are not this disturbing in my view. --High Contrast 23:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with High Contrast, nice photo, nice colours and detail IMO quality photo. --Danesman1 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its a QI. --Ralf Roletschek 13:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not allowed to vote to make a point. It is forbidden and no longer funny. Our (yours and mine) common images guidelines say that Quality images must have reasonable colours, there is no current debate about that. If you disagree, please start a discussion to change them, and after that, initiate a vote in the relevant page. If you want a facebook style popularity vote system then start a discussion. As it is we adhere to technical verifiable properties. Thank you. Biopics 18:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Where can I look up those rules you are referring to? The #Rules section doesn’t say anything about that. --Kreuzschnabel 22:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI like the composition, but the colours are really very oversaturated. IMO that can be fixed. --DKrieger 18:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I also like the composition, but imo it's a bit oversaturated, and the "trunk" is also overexposed. --Kadellar 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Estatua_de_Don_Juan_I,_Plaza_de_Figueira,_Lisboa,_Portugal,_2012-05-12,_DD_04.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of D. Joao I, Figueira Square, Lisbon, Portugal --Poco a poco 01:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice but maybe you can lighten up the shadows a bit and geotag - tschüss --Moroder 11:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Poco a poco 16:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      •  Support The horses b.... now look better --Moroder 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose current second version,  Support old original version. Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    •  CommentI have uploaded a new version inbetween Poco a poco 22:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Light and sharpness ok, nice details (i.e. the pidgeon on the spur!) QI for me. --THWZ 11:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (temporary)  Oppose missing contrast. Prefer a middle course of the old and new version. --Carschten 16:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded, hopefully the final one Poco a poco 19:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me. --Kadellar 15:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - new current version is ok. Mattbuck 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 15:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Audiovisual.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Audiovisual. --Colin 22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very disturbing background and bad crop -- Achim Raschka 08:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Would like another opinion as the framing and background were carefully chosen for the theme. -- Colin 09:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose background disturbs me. its no sharp, its no unsharp. --Ralf Roletschek 13:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I do like the idea and composition, I just don’t like the setup of the background image. The microphone is so large and its head hardly visible, not evident it’s a stage shot – I leave it to everybody’s imagination what else it could be). --Kreuzschnabel 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think it's a bit pink, but it's generally a good photo. As for your argument Kreuzschnabel... please leave the schoolboy jokes at school and vote without devolving into fits of giggles. Mattbuck 15:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Schoolboy jokes – I see. I think I just pointed out the distortion of the background pic is unfortunate. Anyway, I can surely live without reviewing images here. --Kreuzschnabel 18:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Blasenbecherling_Peziza_vesiculosa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Peziza vesiculosa --Holleday 21:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose The right one seems a bit unsharp towards the top. Basvb 23:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
     Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 10:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support Agree with Archaeodontosaurus - for me it's QI -- Achim Raschka 15:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support --JDP90 18:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- JDP90 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Holland on sea rainbow.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Photo taken during a storm forming a rainbow, taken in Holland On Sea, Essex in November 2012.--Danesman1 12:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tilted. Lack of details. Artefacts. Biopics 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, please can you tell me what lacks detail and where the artefacts are? I also cant see that the picture is tilted, the horizon is straight and was meant to be pictured like this.--Danesman1 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp/grainy, strong perspectve distortion Poco a poco 21:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment it would be interesting to reunite the two images for the rainbow.--Archaeodontosaurus 09:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 14:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Holland on sea rainbow 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Photo taken during a storm forming a rainbow across the sea, taken in Holland On Sea, Essex in November 2012.--Danesman1 12:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tilted. Lack of details. Artefacts. Biopics 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, please can you tell me what lacks detail and where the artefacts are? I also cant see that the picture is tilted, the horizon is straight and was meant to be pictured like this.--Danesman1 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp/grainy and strong perspective distortion Poco a poco 22:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment it would be interesting to reunite the two images for the rainbow. --Archaeodontosaurus 11:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 14:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Holland on sea essex.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Photo of the Essex coast line of Holland On Sea, Essex, UK. --Danesman1 12:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tilted. Lack of details. Artefacts. Biopics 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, please can you tell me what lacks detail and where the artefacts are? I also cant see that the picture is tilted, the horizon is straight and was meant to be pictured like this.--Danesman1 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp/grainy, Poco a poco 22:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment it would be interesting to reunite the two images for the rainbow. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Old_Town_Salzburg_across_the_Salzach_river.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Old Town Salzburg across the Salzach river (by User:Jiuguang Wang) --Kadellar 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed area in the left side, compression artifacts in the sky (see annotations) --THWZ 01:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see compression artifacts, I think that's a hill. --Kadellar 11:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I think, you're right about this, but I'm not sure how to judge about the overexposed area. For me not bad enough to decline. --THWZ 00:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Overexposed area is disturbing, but otherwise good quality and a nice composition.--ArildV 09:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support overexposed Area me no disturb. --Ralf Roletschek 13:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per ArildV, good (enough) for QI. --Carschten 16:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support definitely not perfect, but good enough for QI. -- Felix Koenig 16:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support, but I'd like it sharpened. Mattbuck 22:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Felix Koenig 16:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Taunton - FGW 150121 three-car set.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A First Great Western three-car Class 150/1 -- Geof Sheppard 08:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Rzuwig 09:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Unsharp, high contrast. Mattbuck 12:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. --JDP90 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --JDP90 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Bärenbach (Urschenbach).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Bärenbach, a stream in Tyrol --Haneburger 08:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rzuwig 09:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice light and exposure time, but there is quite a bit of CA and none of the stones are really crisp. Biopics 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like this photo alot and agree its good quality.--Danesman1 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Crisp and nice colours. --Esquilo 23:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment No CA visible, nice colours. Really good quality. --THWZ 00:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this picture is good quality --Rjcastillo 02:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too -- Achim Raschka 09:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 09:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until CA is fixed (upper left corner). Please add English description. --Kadellar 14:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice picture, QI. I dont need any english description. --Ralf Roletschek 16:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA removed, English description added --Haneburger 15:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for reworking and for the translation, good now. Ralf, eine Beschreibung auf Englisch ist nötig, damit (fast) alle Leute können sie verstehen ;) --Kadellar 15:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • More people know Chinese and Spanish. :) Jkadavoor 06:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I can't do this all the time but... Spanish added ;) --Kadellar 11:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 15:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Fendt 308 LSA, Bauzeit 1991 - 1996 (Spu 2008-08-17).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fendt 308 LSA, built from 1991 to 1996, at a agricultural market -- Lothar Spurzem 21:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Blown out roof. Basvb 23:08, 31 October 2012
    Commentary: Corrected now. But the metal roof on the right side is very bright in reality. I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 13:10 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI tom me. --Ralf Roletschek 13:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --THWZ 18:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 13:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 8.jpg[edit]

File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 8.jpg

  • Nomination: Berlin Festival of Lights -- Der Wolf im Wald 14:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Very nice. - A.Savin 17:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems tilted on the right side of the building there is no straight line, on the left side there is. Basvb 21:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? A.Savin 09:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Clownfisk.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Clownfish Esquilo 21:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rzuwig 19:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown whites, reflections on the glass. Biopics 07:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Rreflections reduced with the "burn"-tool. --Esquilo 15:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, like this photo alot, nice colours and good detail.Danesman1 14:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 09:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Holleday 16:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfectly sharp, but good enough for aquarium photography. -- King of Hearts 11:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Obra_en_el_Boulevard_Urdaneta.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Mural en el Boulevard Urdaneta. Maracaibo --Rjcastillo 23:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Too dark. Mattbuck 08:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done now? --Rjcastillo 01:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure, still fairly dark and I'm not very sanguine about general JPEG quality. I think I'll ask for more comments. Mattbuck 19:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ford Consul f.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Consul front. --Vizu 05:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline I declined this 4 days ago. --Mattbuck 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC) * Not. [2]. --Vizu 22:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Huh. I'm sure I checked. Perhaps there was some issue with thumbnails updating. Anyway,  Oppose due to CA and general overexposure. Mattbuck 12:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wide angle are unfavorable in automobiles. --Ralf Roletschek 16:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Dolmen_de_Berneuil_n°2_vue_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Français : Dolmen de la Betoulle (no 2), La Pierre Levée (Inscrit, 1982) --El Caro 09:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Please remove the unecessary border, otherwise probably a little yellow cast but good quality. --PierreSelim 11:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done--El Caro 18:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Still yellow. Mattbuck 11:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I can't remove the yellow cast, could you do it? (if necessary: I like this picture because it's yellow - but it may be better without this yellow cast, I don't know) --El Caro 18:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Having tried several colour tweaks, I'm not entirely convinced there's a strong yellow cast. The D3S is also known for a reliable auto WB mode. In the whole I think it's good quality so  Support. Jastrow 14:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC) (clarified on 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC))
  •  Support To me the yellow cast is typical for a sunny afternoon in the autumn, it looks natural (yesterday I had the same light). Therefore I vote QI --DKrieger 17:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 11:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Triumfbågen, Paris2.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Jopparn 19:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very pretty, but a bit tilted. Mattbuck 00:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)✓ DoneThank you. I have fixed the tilt now :) Jopparn 00:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    Better, but I'm not convinced. Colour me  Neutral and let's get more opinions. Mattbuck 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support i thimk, its better to crop ist to square? But its QI. --Ralf Roletschek 13:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 19:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

File:11-07-31-helsinki-by-RalfR-016.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Helsinki Lutheran Cathedral --Ralf Roletschek 13:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Florstein 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. Biopics 18:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • What is tilted? I only would like the photo not so bright. -- Lothar Spurzem 20:17 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Some VERY small amount of tilt & shift repaired, should be QI now. -- Smial 10:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 17:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Cabot Tower - Signal Hill.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cabot Tower (Newfoundland) (by Wrzimmerly)-- Achim Raschka 07:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Looks overprocessed; lots of noise in the background. Without any context (before a thunderstorm?), it looks rather unrealistic. --Jastrow 08:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I like it, but might be better with perspective correction. Mattbuck 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong vigneting and perspective distortion (the image also feels overprocessed) --PierreSelim 13:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of compression artefacts. --Smial 13:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Lemna_minor_from_Zulia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Eichhornia crassipes from Zulia, Venezuela --The Photographer 13:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wrong id. Biopics 16:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done --The Photographer 01:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
en:Lemnoideae? Biopics 01:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
What about the ubiquitous Eichhornia crassipes? Biopics 01:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank Bio, but, please read the reference in image description. Thanks for the help --The Photographer 13:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The flowers look like Eichhornia crassipes; Lemna are very small plants and have no such flowers. Jkadavoor 06:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This study (References in image description) was completed by more than a dozen scientists, I'm no expert on the subject, however, recommend that at least open the document. --The Photographer 13:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I read that pages with the help of Google Translator. But how can I assume they are talking about this plant? I didn't see any picture there. A request is made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. -- Jkadavoor 16:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I will listen to the recommendations of the experts. At first I've placed lemna local term due to overcrowded and even in scientific employee, however, because of the evidence, I will proceed to change the identification. Thank you very much to all, especially to Bio. Sorry if I have done wasting time, I was not clear --The Photographer 18:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks. Jkadavoor 06:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Mayenne_-_Chapelle_Saint-Léonard_-_PA00109560_-_PA00088878_-_001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La chapelle Saint-Léonard à la périphérie de la ville de Mayenne. --Thesupermat 12:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good sharpness and nice light, but imo the sky needs cleaning and denoising. --Iifar 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded new version. Please compare and you can revert, if you don't like it. --Iifar 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sold - trees on left are a bit blurred. Mattbuck 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Main subject is nice and sharp. --Iifar 17:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support not a FP but QI to me. --Ralf Roletschek 19:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Cardiff MMB 02 Millennium Centre.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: The Cardiff Millennium Centre. Mattbuck 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review I don't really see what the topic is, it would be nice if the letters were readable as a hole, blown out part bottom left. Basvb 23:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    I accept the statement about blown-out bottom left, but the letters are something like 10ft high, and readability was not a consideration for this photo - I never meant you to be able to see the whole thing, I just liked the composition. You can get a bit more context by looking at File:WMC at night.jpg. Mattbuck 11:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I know the point wasn't to show the reading. But because of that decision I am missing the subject of this picture. Basvb 16:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days. --Iifar 11:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Sector_Pichincha._Maracaibo.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Pichincha. Sector popular de Maracaibo --Rjcastillo 18:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    it needs perspective correction Poco a poco 20:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review ✓ Done now ? --Rjcastillo 12:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    It got better, but not yet there, I made also a try, feel free too revert if you want. Since I got "involved" I'd like to move it to CR in order to get a third opinion Poco a poco 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days. --Iifar 11:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Albert_Hall_(Museum).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Albert Hall --Sreejithk2000 10:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Perspective correction needed. --JDP90 18:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I applied a perspective correction. --NorbertNagel 20:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    That's a lot of pigeons. Mattbuck 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Something went wrong with the perspective correction. the right part of the building looks awkwardly skewed. Biopics 07:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good and interesting photo. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Amargosa_Opera_House_in_Death_Valley_at_night.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Amargosa Opera House in California. --Moroder 23:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Tilted and needs perspective correction. Mattbuck 01:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Comment Thanks for the review. I checked the pic did not find it tilted (I took the pic with inbuild level) The poles up front and the old structures of the building might be misleading), please look at the sign (private) on the right and the pole on the parking lot --Moroder 16:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    I don't know what to say, it looks like it's falling over to me. Mattbuck 11:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a slight CW tilt. About 1° I'd guess. --Esquilo 08:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
No, look at the sign on the right, the letters, the windows, the pole on the left - the walls and the pipes, the door are naturally tilt and I repeat I took the picture with the inbuild level in the camera. Thenks for the review anyway --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The tilt is propably caused by a slopy perspective correction, not by a tilted camera. --Esquilo 14:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you please put a note on the tilted lines? --Moroder 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days. --Iifar 11:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Liskeard - FGW 150248 passing branch connection to main line.jpg[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Brücke_Knittelfeld-4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Straßenbrücke, Murbrücke by Brezocnik Michael --Iifar 05:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very nice shoot but blurred, ISO 200 and neutral density filter could be better, i'm sorry --The Photographer 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree - lets discuss. For me its a QI.  Support --Ralf Roletschek 15:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see any blurred areas in the targeted object. QI for me. --THWZ 15:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support There is some motion-blurr in the vegetation, but that is only to be expected. --Esquilo 15:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As for Esquilo. -- Smial 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Fachwerkhaus Ærøskøbing 1 THWZ.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Timber framework in Ærøskøbing --THWZ 18:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment tilted, overexposed, CA --Rjcastillo 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Tilted: yes. The whole building, that's the point. No CA, no overexposure. --THWZ 21:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
      •  Comment see notes --Rjcastillo 12:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • OK Corrected. --THWZ 22:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm not sure. Please more comments --Rjcastillo 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - subject too dark, background too bright, tilt and/or perspective distortion. Mattbuck 16:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Disagree: there's no detail of the house lost by "darkness". The perspective is correct, concerning the left neighbour house. The right neighbour house is displaced to the targeted house, so it isn't possible to correct perspective for this house too. And the sky is bright. Should I paint it grey? --THWZ 16:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
No, you should choose an appropriate time of day instead (e.g. early morning for an east facade, or afternoon for a west one). - A.Savin 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky overexposure is really not good for a QI. - A.Savin 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
A new version (a little bit brighter) was uploaded. The sky ist not overexposed, there are just 0,09% overexposed pixels. Under certain circumstances, a snow-white sky is just reality, not a technical fault of the photographer or a problem of equipment. I don't like the high-noon light too, but in this case, another daytime would have helped nearly nothing, cause the front of the building ist in strong northern direction. --THWZ (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
In this case, special weather conditions (heavy clouds etc.) may help. But on this image, overexposure should be obvious, and for QI there is no exception based on the fact that northern facades on the northern hemisphere are difficult to lighten well. - A.Savin 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CA, overexposed sky and posterization in the top left corner. Biopics 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB O5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination University Park, Nottingham. Mattbuck 14:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too dark, underexposed--Jebulon 15:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I have brightened it. Mattbuck 16:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still underexposed. Lack of sharpness. Target is undefined. No encyclopaedic value. --THWZ 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'll accept criticism on the first stuff, but encyclopaedic value is not relevant given that Commons is not an encyclopaedia. Mattbuck 17:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:12-07-13-washington-by-RalfR-63.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Washington D.C.; Luisiana Avenue at evening --Ralf Roletschek 19:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support ok for me --Rjcastillo 20:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's tilted. --Kadellar 21:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • OK its correctet. --Ralf Roletschek 19:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Nicht perfekt, aber besser jetzt ;) (I don't oppose anymore). --Kadellar 11:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --THWZ 15:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Morlaix_-_Maison_Cornic_-_PA00090134_-_003.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La maison Cornic sur les bords de la rivière de Morlaix --Thesupermat 11:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 17:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rather unsharp, I'm afraid. Needs discussion imo - A.Savin 20:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree. Lack of sharpness. --THWZ 17:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Smaller aperture would have been better, but it is good enough for QI. Why did you deliberatly put it in aperture-priority mode? --Esquilo 11:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? A.Savin 11:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

File:2010-04-25-breda-by-RalfR-62.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination cyclist in Breda, Netherlands --Ralf Roletschek 09:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Please sharpen. Mattbuck 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC) OK --Ralf Roletschek 13:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    It's better, but I'm not sold. Mattbuck 16:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support DOF very well chosen for this theme. QI --THWZ 15:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Heimerdingen Burghof 6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Timber framing in Heimerdingen, Germany --Harke 19:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Insufficient quality. Don't like the car up front --Moroder 22:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    Cropped the car out; might be acceptable. Should be discussed. --Óðinn 16:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
     Comment I do not like your tight crop at the bottom. I tried another crop now and removed the car. Better? --Harke (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support So didn't I, now it's perfect --Moroder 20:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nearly perfect. The front of the building culd be a little bit darker, with mor contrast. --THWZ 15:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Żelechów-Weisenberga4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Building in Żelechów, Poland. --Sfu 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review I'm not convinced - building seems mildly unsharp (but already haloes around wires), and it just generally seems off... Mattbuck 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-14_Севастополь._Большой_десантный_корабль_проекта_775-II_БДК-67_«Ямал»_(4).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Large landing ship BDK-67 Yamal. Sevastopol, Ukraine. --Art-top 06:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Exesive noise reduction, blurred --The Photographer 20:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't agree. --Esquilo 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is definitely blurry. Mattbuck 16:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Original upload has somewhat noise, but much more detail. I suggest not in any case supress sensor noise whatever the cost. I suggest further not in any case decline an image only for some minor sensor noise in the sky or some luminance noise in shadowy parts. We will get sharper images in the future. -- Smial 14:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you for your helpful comment. I will take note of. --Art-top 13:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Hafenamt Ærøskøbing 01 THWZ.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Official building in the harbour of Ærøskøbing --THWZ 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Compression (?) artefacts on the sky (esp. in the upper area). Some tilt at the left. Facade is partially too soft. - A.Savin 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Picture corrected. Now ok? --THWZ 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Still unsharp and tilted, I doubt that the software may improve it up to QI level. - A.Savin 10:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Could make some further improvements, should be ok now, IMHO --THWZ 12:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good for QI in my opinion. --Ralf Roletschek 14:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some overprocessing apparent: haloes on dark/light interfaces and places where detail is lost (right side). Also quite a bit of CA. Biopics 15:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Faktoriholmarna Eskilstuna solnedgång.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Faktoriholmarna with the former weapon factory, in sunset. Eskilstuna, Sweden.--V-wolf 09:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Could you bring up the low level brightness? Mattbuck 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done Brighter version uploaded.--V-wolf 09:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I still don't like it, but I'll put it for discussion. Mattbuck 10:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support The brightness-adjustment should apply to the buildings and maybe the water only, not the sky, but I like it anyway. --Esquilo 08:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful. -- King of Hearts 07:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Moscow 05-2012 StSophia Church.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Bell tower of St. Sophia Church in Moscow (Russia). - A.Savin 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration see note --Smial 18:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • CA fixed - A.Savin 19:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Slight improvements, but I'm not convinced yet. More votes necessary -- Smial 21:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 09:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? A.Savin 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Church Ærøskøbing 01 THWZ.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church in Ærøskøbing --THWZ 22:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 23:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavily overprocessed removing all details: Grass and bark are smooth colours, brick surface structure has all but vanished. Also quite a bit of CA and some haloes. Biopics 17:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your critics: the image is nearly like "out of camera", I did a little bit light correction (shadows brightened, light peaks damped), a little bit CA-correction and a whiff of sharpening. The brick-surface has a thin finery, so there isn't more structure to be seen. Don't blame me for the perfect weather on this wonderful day! --THWZ 00:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't blame you for anything ;-). Overprocessing can happen in-camera too. There is little you can do about that. Biopics 16:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its good enouth for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 13:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose After looking at 100 % view, I have to agree with biopics. - A.Savin 09:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Perhaps the photo should not be so bright. But in my opinion it is not overexposed. Further I see no CA or haloes. Therefore: good quality -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Please watch the pic carefully and think for yourself. Where did you read "overexposed"? For your interest, overexposure and overprocessing are two quite different things. - A.Savin 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective problem, CA, gausian selective blur excesive --The Photographer 12:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, had no chainsaw to lay down the trees. And no dynamite to lay down the graveyards wall. So I had to use my wide-angle lens to take the picture. CA doesn't exist. Your criticism is far beyond QI. --THWZ 23:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA (see notes) and blurry noise reduction in big parts of the image. Is this really a photo directly from the K20D? I owned the K10D, but never found so strong blurring with that camera. Ok, never used JPG, only Raw. Perspective, composition, and colours are ok. -- Smial 13:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
OK Did some minor improvement and uploaded the jpg.-file with 100% quality (I#m used to upload with 90%). I use only RAW and don't ever let the camera convert to jpg. For me it seems ok now. --THWZ 15:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Ich hab das mit dem blur markiert und da einen Vergleich verlinkt mit sehr ähnlichem Objekt und Licht. Ich benutze den Brenzlax-Raw-Konverter, evtl. ist bei deinem acdsee irgendwas unvorteilhaft konfiguriert. Wenn du mir das raw zukommen läßt, kann ich gerne mal versuchen, ob die Pentax-Soft das evtl. besser hinbekommt. -- Smial 10:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? THWZ (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:12-10-28 Friedhof Gymnich Frings.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of family Frings at the graveyard of Gymnich, Erftstadt, Germany -- Achim Raschka 21:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The trees don't look right, and bad crop on the left. --Mattbuck 03:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, do not understand what you mean with "The trees don't look right"? Changing the crop will be no problem ... -- Achim Raschka 11:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Bom_Jesus_Basilica,_Goa.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Its a well known site in Old Goa and has the relics of St. Francis Xavier. Here is the basilica shot during a morning, when the morning light engulfs it. The photograph attempts to depict the basilica and the surrounding environment and tries to encourage tourists to visit this wonderful place. --Dey.sandip 07:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support really a great picture, for me QI --Ralf Roletschek 10:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The backlighting and the image are nice, but the whole sky is burnt. We need more opinions, sorry. --Kadellar 15:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support  Comment The sky is not relevant in the context of the image. Its a realistic representation of the scene and not a HDR. --Dey.sandip 17:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not relevant up to a point, it wouldn't be a problem for me if only a part of the sky was burnt (near the tree), but not everywhere. It shouldn't be so overexposed over the roofs at the right side. --Kadellar 11:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I uploaded a new version today, after some Exposure corrections. Please check the new version. --Dey.sandip 09:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If I try to restore some details over the roof, can it be reconsidered? I shoot in RAW, so I can give it a shot. --Dey.sandip 11:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • An improvement can always be reconsidered. Biopics 13:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Kadellar. Biopics 07:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice atmosphere, but the targeted object is blurry, the totally burnt sky could have been avoided --THWZ 15:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The building is covered in sunlight. Its supposed to appear like that. Something like when you shoot through the fog.
      • You're right, an I like this picture. Bu the blurry church and the overexposed sky reduce the encyclopadic value of the picture too much for QI. My opinion only. --THWZ 16:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think, I wont be able to restore the sky, to make it a QI. I will probably have to withdraw my nomination. Trying to restore the sky will need serious digital correction and the photo won't remain any more realistic. I'm sorry and I sincerely thank you for your review comments --Dey.sandip 17:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Reißt zwar nix mehr raus, aber die sehr spezielle Beleuchtung kann nicht mit 0815-Kriterien bewertet werden. Die Kirche ist übrigens durchaus ausreichend scharf, nur durch das Licht eben sehr kontrastarm, was gerne als mangelnde Schärfe interpretiert wird. --Smial 15:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Putting it back to discussion, as I see someone else supports it. I'll observe the nomination for some more time.
  •  Comment A new version of the file has been uploaded after some Exposure corrections. Please let me know, if the new version looks OK.--Dey.sandip 09:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The burnt sky doesn't bother me for this kind of image. -- King of Hearts 09:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The burnt sky doesn't bother me, but the constrast on the building is too low. --Esquilo 11:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Have you checked both the versions ? There is a new version that was uploaded today. --Dey.sandip 13:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 11:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-10-25 20-41-01-waxing-gibbous-moon.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Waxing gibbous moon --ComputerHotline 07:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose CA and rather soft. Biopics 01:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support This is difficult. Maybe CA can be fixed, I think the rest is ok. Let's discuss. --Kadellar 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this picture is very good detailed quality image IMO.--Danesman1 21:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until the CA is corrected (maybe just desaturate? It's not as if the moon is very colourful). It is a bit soft, but I think that's to be expected with standard equipment - you'd need F-5 or something to get a properly sharp photo. Mattbuck 19:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your remark about F-ratio: how does it impact sharpness? Also it's not easy to figure out the actual F-ratio in an afocal configuration. --Jastrow 13:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support High resolution, mitigating factors. --King of Hearts 09:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Despite some CA and relative softness (bad seeing perhaps?), on account of the very high res. --Jastrow 13:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 15:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial_View_-_Burg_Rötteln9.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Castle Rötteln --Taxiarchos228 12:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Main subject OoF and noise --The Photographer 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • IMO not a significant quality issue for QI --Taxiarchos228 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't understand why the castel is not sharp --THWZ (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Many of your aerial pics lack detail Taxiarchos. Perhaps it's limitation of aerial photography, because of low air transparency? Also, how far would you say you were from your subject? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial_View_-_Burg_Rötteln11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Castle Rötteln --Taxiarchos228 12:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeMain subject OoF and noise --The Photographer 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    IMO not a significant quality issue for QI --Taxiarchos228 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't understand why the castel is not sharp --THWZ 16:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • sorry, I can't see lacking sharpness. This picture is for sure a bit more noisy than a normal picture, but this is how to make picture from an aircraft. --Taxiarchos228 14:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial_View_-_Bollschweil_und_Kalkwerk2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view at Bollschweil and lime works --Taxiarchos228 12:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Excellent composition and light, but blurred, I'm sorry --The Photographer 18:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • IMO not a significant quality issue for QI --Taxiarchos228 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't see any sharp area on this image. --THWZ 16:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quercus ithaburensis ssp.macrolepis MHNT.BOT.2004.0.80.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Acorn of vallonea oak.--Archaeodontosaurus 17:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Oversharpened, I think so --The Photographer 17:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't but I'm not a specialist about sharpness. I think a discussion is needed. --JLPC 08:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. --JDP90 18:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Holleday 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too - very good picture and very valuable -- Achim Raschka 07:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Oversharpend? Any halos, any CA?? QI. What else! --THWZ 16:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 11:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 23:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Batzenalpen in Schröcken.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The old Sennalpe Batzen (lower building) and the new Alpe Batzen (upper building), two chalets surrounded by mountain pastures in Schröcken, Bregenzerwald, Vorarlberg. (by Böhringer) -- Achim Raschka 07:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Everything looks almost perfect (only some small stitching errors), but imho visible lens flare could be removed (note added, easy to fix). --Iifar 08:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    I like it, but there's some haloing around the mountain on the right, and I'd like a crop on the left to remove the overexposure. Mattbuck 03:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a beautiful picture for me! The color of green leaves is very nice! --Ximeg 21:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Convento Zafra Santa Catalina de Sienna Granada Spain.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Baroque entrance of the convent of St Catarina de Siena in Granada, Spain.--Jebulon 10:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Could you perspective correct please? Mattbuck 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done Mattbuck 16:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • There is no distorsion, sorry. What has to be vertical is vertical.--Jebulon 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --DKrieger 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --JLPC 09:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still perspectiv distorsion. Vertical tilted about 1,5°, a little bit shifted. --THWZ 16:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Please show me where with annotations and what must be straightened in this 16th-century facade. Furthermore, I'm sad that the discussion about this picture is only about a so called minimum distortion.--Jebulon 22:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not sure about the perspectiv distorsion, some lines are vertical but some are not. I guess the door-frame is a bit askew. --Esquilo 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's difficult to assess perspective issues for this photo, but I guess that's all right. --Florstein 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is very difficult to see a bug, I think there is an excess of rules apply to levels not seen or subjective --The Photographer 15:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Colina_de_las_Cruces,_Lituania,_2012-08-09,_DD_15.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Image of a Virgin on top of the Hill of Crosses, Lithuania --Poco a poco 13:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion I think DOF is maybe too low, crosses on the left don't appear to be in focus. Mattbuck 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    Does it have to? The F-Number is pretty high (f11) and the subject of the picture is in focus. I can crop the crosses out if they are somehow ditracting, though Poco a poco 18:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportMain subject(s) in focus, QI to me. Really impressive picture --DKrieger 23:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --JLPC 09:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic aberration on the big cross to the right. --Esquilo 17:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 23:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support Well done! --Esquilo 08:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Maria-magdalenen-kirche-ebw-by-RalfR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Maria-Magdalenen-Kirche, Eberswalde, Germany --Ralf Roletschek 21:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 03:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not a QI for me. The camera was pointed up, and the church tower looks like it's falling backwards. --Iifar 06:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose with lifar. --THWZ 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction needed. --Esquilo 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial_View_-_Rosskopf2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view at mountain summit Rosskopf --Taxiarchos228 07:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose WB and Blurred --The Photographer 12:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    I see nothing blurred and whats wrong with the WB? --Taxiarchos228 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Info the blue channel should be corrected, there is overexposure in the fan blades and there is little clarity in general --The Photographer 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want, Send me the RAW file to see what I can do --The Photographer (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

File:12-07-13-washington-by-RalfR-53.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination United States Capitol, Washington D.C. --Ralf Roletschek 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality, also to dark. --Clarkcj12 18:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
another picture; 1 minute later


Quality is good enough, but please Ralf, it looks tilted, can you fix that? --Kadellar 21:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  •  Info Please look at the second row of the columns at the capitol, there are left and right outside exactly vertical. I like it to correct but i think, its plumb? --Ralf Roletschek 18:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You are right, most lines look vertical, but I think the problem is the balustrade, which is tilted and I think it shouldn't look like that. The feeling is that the whole image is tilted. It's also the longest line in the image and it's more noticeable. --Kadellar 11:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Can someone else please comment about the tilt? Do you think it's ok or not? Thanks. --Kadellar 11:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Kadellar, there is a slight tilt. Its not a problem for me though, but it would be nice, if it can be straightened slightly. Looks like an easy thing to correct. --Dey.sandip 11:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The balustrade isnt horizontally. If i correct it, the Capitol is tiltet. I also can draw only the balustrade but this had amounted? Or is the balustrade horizontally an the Capitol tiltet? --Ralf Roletschek 14:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I propose: tilt the picture 0,6° to the right. Should be a good compromise. --THWZ 17:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that's a good solution. I like your other picture, and I think it's straight. --Kadellar 20:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Ok, what i have to do? draw a little bit? Sorry, my english is too bad to understand all correct :-( --Ralf Roletschek 15:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Das Bild soll im Uhrzeigersinn gedreht werden, aber nur ein bisschen. Die Balustrade ist die längsten Linie des Bildes und es ist nicht horizontal, am Ende scheint es aus als ob das ganzes Bild gebeugt wäre (weil das Kapitol auch ein kleines bisschen vom Lot weicht ab). Ich hoffe, dass ich nicht zu viele Fehler gemacht habe und dass du mich verstanden hast ;) --Kadellar 20:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Biopics 11:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Châteauneuf_16_Modillon_b_2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Modillion on the facade of the romanesque church (XIIth et XVth centuries), Châteauneuf-sur-Charente, France. --JLPC 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeGood composition but somewhat oversharpened and burnt highlights. --Smial 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think highlights are burnt. Anyway, a new file has been uploaded. --JLPC 10:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is good.--Jebulon 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 07:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Wraxall 2010 MMB 06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Snow in Wraxall. Mattbuck 19:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline WB is a bit blueish, don't you think? - A.Savin 20:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    Disenblueinated. Mattbuck 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC) It has got a little bit brighter indeed, but that grey-blue cast is still there. Not sure if it may be fixed without reprocessing the RAW file. - A.Savin 16:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    I don't shoot RAW, but feel free to redo the curves. Mattbuck 17:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    Also it was a snowy day, it's bound to be blue/grey. Mattbuck 10:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Not done--Jebulon 13:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Better now? --Esquilo 17:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)I think it must go in CR now.--Jebulon 22:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sorry, not convinced. The new version looks like a b/w photo, which is not really an improvement. Also, there is noise on the sky. - A.Savin 10:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Lake Tahoe Shakespeare "Twelfth Night" 25-07-2011 stage close-up.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Tahoe Shakespeare Festival stage. --DimiTalen 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Quite funny, looks like somebody has been to Córdoba (I can't decide about the image).--Kadellar 12:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Suggestions as to how I can improve it? --DimiTalen 13:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Not sure. I don't know if you could do it, but maybe avoiding the pole on the right side would have been good. It's also a pity that everything is in shadow, but that's not your fault, exposure is quite right (only one overexposed column). About sharpness and/or image quality, it's not bad but it could be better. I prefer someone else to decide. --Kadellar 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't decide either, it's neither here nor there. Mattbuck 03:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colours are a bit off. Too much green, specially the sky. --Esquilo 08:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Cayena_(Hibiscus_rosa-sinensis),_jardín_del_molino,_Sierra_de_San_Felipe,_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2012-05-11,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Chinese hibiscus (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis), mill garden, Sierra of Saint Philip, Portugal --Poco a poco 10:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeOver and underexposed, distracting background and too dark, high contrast --The Photographer 15:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    Although you didn't reject the nomination some discussion is needed here IMO. The background is not distracting to me due to the extremely different tone of the hibuscus. "High contrast" says nothing to me. It is not overexposed according to the histogramm (that is a fact) and what you call underexposed are probably the shadows, do you expect none? aren't they emphasizing the hibiscus? Poco a poco 03:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
When the sun is at its highest point in the sky the light is at its whitest and strong. The contrast is very high, the shadows are very dark, so dark in fact that emulsions generally shown as black - even with the naked eye may still be possible to see any detail in the bright light sombra.La has the effect of whitening and these colors appear less saturated than during other times of the day. The strong contrast can make it difficult to create attractive images in this light, even in situations where the contrast is lower naturally can work very well. Water, for example, can benefit from this strong light, and many images of tropical seas are taken at noon. The shadows small and light not show particularly strong shape and low saturation is another drawback. --The Photographer 01:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 23:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 06:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 07:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Foie_gras_IMGP2376.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Foie gras - food product made of the liver of a duck or goose that has been specially fattened. --Nikodem Nijaki 13:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose DOF, maybe -F/5 --The Photographer 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree: why should the DOF be shallow?  Support Good quality I think. --Jastrow 16:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
      •  Info There is a problem with the approach, certain areas are targeted and not others, eg all green leaves are mostly out of focus, I recommend using a more open, for example 5. --The Photographer 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To leave the green leaves out of the focussed area would be ok for me, but the entire target, the foie gras, should be sharp, and this isn't the case: the foreground is unsharp, too. Focus stacking could help. --THWZ (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
For the whole foie gras to be sharp, you would need a tilt lens or a view camera. These are rather specific pieces of equipment. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is too tight. The other two images are better. --Esquilo 15:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support sorry but i like the crop. --Ralf Roletschek 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice crop. ;-) -- Smial 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 11:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong composition IMO due to the angle of view , eyes are catched more by "salad" (?) and berries than by foie gras, which is the main subject.--Jebulon 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The framing is misleading because it does not show the whole slice. It is not "foie gras" but "reconstituted foie gras", which is not the same thing. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Tu as raison ! Tu viens goûter le mien quand ?--Jebulon 14:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Thouars_-_Eglise_St_Medard_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tympanum of the main portal of Saint-Médard church - Thouars, Deux-Sèvres, France --Selbymay 16:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good --Moonik 16:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's blurry imo. --Kadellar 18:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info the door is focused only, however, the main object, statues, are blurred --The Photographer 18:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm afraid it is not sharp enough, indeed...--Jebulon 14:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 10:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Chelon_labrosus_head_from_Maracaibo.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Caribean Fish Chelon labrosus head from Maracaibo --The Photographer 18:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Doubtful identification. You should be careful when naming species as a non-naturalist. If in doubt please ask a specialist. C. labrosus is an eastern Atlantic species. Biopics 19:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 Info I have done further investigation and concluded that this fish is a Mugil curema, please could you confirm this? --The Photographer 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I cannot as yet confirm. There are four Mugil species occurring in the area: M. cephalus, M. liza, M. incilis and M. curema. Unfortunately the key to distinguish the first two from the second two involves counting the soft fin rays of the anal fin, which is not visible here (I used Poissons de mer de Guyane by Marc Léopold from Ifremer, 2007). Biopics 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed the scope to Mugil, I remember that next time photographing all the fish, thanks --The Photographer 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes? Biopics 07:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial_view_-_Lörrach_-_Rathaus1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Aerial view of town hall in Lörrach --Taxiarchos228 07:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Sepia balance problem, noise, blurred --The Photographer 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    can't see s.th. significant blurred and noised, WB can be corrected, but seems for me okay. --Taxiarchos228 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)  Info there is considerable widespread dirty, please see the slabs of green building. The sepia tone with a violet can be corrected but not blurring, sorry --The Photographer 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    because the building is dirty this picture can't be a QI??? --Taxiarchos228 16:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)  Info Yes --The Photographer 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    you don't mean a dirty building, you mean a noisy picture, please argue carefully to avoid misunderstanding next time. thank you --Taxiarchos228 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ich verstehe die Nachbearbeitung nicht, der erste Upload war doch völlig ok? -- Smial 15:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    • wenn ich es richtig sehe, ist das Rauschen schon etwas reduziert worden. --Taxiarchos228 19:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Nuja, aber dafür sind die Farben und die Kontraste sch...lechter. Jedenfalls auf meiner Glotze. Das Rauschen im Original fand ich deutlich sichtbar, aber durchaus noch akzeptabel. Aber ok, ich bin da wohl inzwischen auf einer ziemlich einsamen Position, heute wollen es ja alle glatt wie'n Kinderpopo haben, egal, ob Details flöten gehen oder nicht. Kein Vorwurf an dich, aber schau dich mal um, was hier in letzter Zeit an Verschlimmbesserungen vorgestellt wird. Der visuelle Eindruck geht da gern in Richtung 50-EUR-Billigknipse, bei der sich Nachschärfung und Rauschunterdrückung gegenseitig bekämpfen oder in Richtung Aquarellmalerei - und dann liest man Canon 5D oder ähnliches in den Exif. Ganz schlimmer Trend. --Smial 21:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Klingt wie eine gute Entscheidung, aber die Details gehen verloren. Ich empfehle eine niedrigere ISO (ISO 300) und eine größere Öffnung der Linse, wenn möglich. --The Photographer 13:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Mit Verlaub: eine Empfehlung, die mir zeigt, dass Du bisher keine Ahnung von Luftbildern hast. Und leider finde ich Dein neuerliche Beurteilung über angeblich zu hohes Rauschen auch ziemlich daneben. --Taxiarchos228 13:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wildredo, I don't understand your point: there's no such speed as ISO 300; if you want detail you need more depth of field, not less. As for the picture I much prefer the colour and contrast of your original take, Taxiarchos. Jastrow 14:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yo no hablo Aleman, creo que hubo un problema con google translator, lo que quiero decir es que la foto fue tomada con ISO 500, con un ISO 300 habría tenido mucho mas detalle y menos ruido, sin embargo, esto depende del factor lente usado. El autor de la fotografía me suministró el archivo RAW por correo, simplemente disminuí las luces y la reducción de ruido con Lightroom --The Photographer 17:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Smial has me convinced, I have reverted the picture to the original version. --Taxiarchos228 13:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Compare the note (your version and my version), please --The Photographer 18:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Like original version. -- Smial 22:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Biopics 07:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Caminata_por_los_perros_y_animales_Maracaibo_2012_(13).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Español: Caminata anual --The Photographer 12:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unfortunate composition: Head in the center, right half of frame unused --Kreuzschnabel 13:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info Thanks, Enough room for the subject's head. Space around their head yet not too much. Too low in the frame (too much headroom) makes them appear short. Not enough headroom makes them look tall and scrunched. Correct headroom gives the subject just enough space around their head to make them look comfortable. --The Photographer 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Landscape near Miejsce Piastowe.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Landscape from Poland, near Miejsce Piastowe --Pudelek 14:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Beautiful, but not happy with the grass quality. Other opinions requested. Mattbuck 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. No target to be identified. Nice atmosphere, but no QI. --THWZ 16:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think it is blurred. The powerline is sharp enough. Difficult light-conditions though. A gradual ND-filter would have made this photo better. --Esquilo 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't see blur here, perhaps a bit too much sky, but enough for QI imo. - A.Savin 10:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-11-13_14-50-33-cours-eau-Fesches-le-Chatel.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Long exposure of a waterway. --ComputerHotline 12:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Blurred (not only the water). Biopics 15:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    It's normal, there was some wind. --ComputerHotline 15:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    A windy day is not a good day to shoot long exposure photos. Sorry. --Esquilo 11:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bio --The Photographer 12:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 09:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Avocado_IMGP1053.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fruits of avocado (Persea americana) --Nikodem Nijaki 10:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Florstein 13:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh light, disturbing reflections. Biopics 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics. -- Jkadavoor 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Jkadavoor 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Avocado_IMGP1117.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fruits of avocado (Persea americana) --Nikodem Nijaki 10:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support --Iifar 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh light, disturbing reflections. Biopics 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics. -- Jkadavoor 16:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Jkadavoor 16:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Farm sunrise with a jet overhead.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Early morning shot of farm with jet trail overhead --Ian Furst 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment too noise, CA --Rjcastillo 03:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC) (Rjcastillo initially declined so I guess this should count as an  Oppose? Jastrow 11:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC))
  •  Support Noise is acceptable IMO for this low-light pic. It's also rather grain-like and not unpleasant to look at. --Jastrow 13:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise and chromatic aberration. Crop away the jet contrail and most noise would go away with it. --Esquilo 17:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Jastrow --Ximeg 21:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot, and CA (please see notes), and not categorized picture (please see guidelines).--Jebulon 14:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I removed the dust spot, added categories, and attempted to fix the noise and colour aberration. About the latter, I suspect it's spherochromatism, as it's visible across the frame and in out-of-focus areas. It can't really be corrected, except for manually painting over the green fringe. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise and chromatic aberration. Biopics 08:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:11-07-29-helsinki-by-RalfR-022.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Helsinki; Temppeliaukio Kirkko --Ralf Roletschek 09:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review In architectural images building should stay vertically without tilt. Uninteresting composition - I don't see what is the main subject here. --Ximeg 10:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    Shift repaired --Smial 12:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    Main object is the Rock, its the roof of the Church --Ralf Roletschek 13:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    Err, no, this is the roof of the Church. --Esquilo 16:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB G0 395007.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: 395007 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 14:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Very nice colors and composition, but the focus is not located on the main side of the train, seems to be focused in the middle of the tail, this is a shame, these are the photos I find hardest decline, I propose a discussion --The Photographer 15:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Parliament_Square_London_2-3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View to Big Ben from Parliament Square, London, UK --Ralf Roletschek 13:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad composition and motion blur --The Photographer 13:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 1/40 sec - the motion blur is the intention, i have waitet to the moment as a typical London Tacxi is crossing the picture. --Ralf Roletschek 18:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per The Photographer, perhaps the appearance of the taxi is intentional, but for a quality image it's not a good idea imo. - A.Savin 22:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the tree on the left. I understand that the taxi and the motion-blur is intentional. Useful as an illustration of motion-blur, but not a QI. Sorry. --Esquilo 11:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Tomb_of_Iltutmish_Qutub_Complex_Pallav-journo.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Iltutmish was the Emperor of Slave Dynasty who ordered construction of Qutub Minar in Delhi... --Pallav.journo 20:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose CA, OE and PC, please see the notes --The Photographer 20:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it good enough. --High Contrast 16:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ack The Photographer + perspective distortion on the background + pixelated sky. No QI for me. - A.Savin 22:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pretty tight. Would have liked more spaces around the tomb. --Dey.sandip 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per all others.--Jebulon 13:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Dey.sandip 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Saab_Safir_91B.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Eine Saab Safir beim Start vom Flugfeld Hahnweide. Created by Ritchyblack, nominated by Ximeg 23:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good.--ArildV 01:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice attempt; pity for all the blown parts. Biopics 10:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfect motion control! --Esquilo 12:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Why should it be discussed? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Felix Koenig 16:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - I do not see any issue with the photo. It is very sharp and has a moving smooth bokeh. Consider the difficult shooting situation. Only drawback: Resolution at the low end (2Mpx). However, definitely QI. --Tuxyso 19:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Really impressive, very good image and for me doubtless QI --DKrieger 21:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 09:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Elefante_en_el_Zoologico_de_Barquisimeto_(2).jpg[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 09:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Näljakangur_(22305).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stone heap in Palmse village. Gathered during the time of the Great Famine of Estonia 1695–1697. --Iifar 19:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Technically it's fine but I think the subject doesn't come out very well. -Uberprutser 00:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC).
If you deem it technically fine then you should support, that's what QI is for. this is not Facebook ... Biopics 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but I disagree, main subject is imo well brought out. --Iifar 07:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me --Moroder 10:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per Moroder. --Cayambe 21:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Definitely QI to me, but IMO it would be better to crop out the wire in the upper left corner --DKrieger 22:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colours looks very desaturated. Is it because of the non-standard RGB-profile? --Esquilo 15:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    It doesn't look desaturated to me. All my images are shooted so far with sRGB color profile. --Iifar 21:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    GIMP says it is "Nikon RGB 4.0.0", not "sRGB". The histogram also indicates a strange concentration towards midtones. --Esquilo 11:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, but per DKrieger. --Carschten 12:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --Iifar 19:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Carschten 12:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Gołąb domek loretański 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sculptures by the doors to the chapell in Gołab, Poland. --Sfu 20:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Issues of brightness, the contrast is too strong, over/underexposed --The Photographer 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Better? --Sfu 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the 2nd version was better. Mattbuck 03:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Should I revert? --Sfu 10:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose orange cast, nothing really straight. --Carschten 12:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 09:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Berliner_Fernsehturm5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Berlin: Television Tower, entrance pavillion --Taxiarchos228 06:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction and sharpening. Mattbuck 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • don´t see a lack of sharpness, what´s wrong with the perspective? --Taxiarchos228 14:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The buildings are leaning in. Mattbuck 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
        • sorry, but this is not true, check the building on the right side, the edge is quite vertical, the edges of the tower is reducing, this has nothing to to with leaning --Taxiarchos228 14:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
          • The building on the right is clearly leaning in, as is the one on the left. I am perfectly aware the tower is not vertical, but nor am I blind. Mattbuck 16:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support i think, this picture is ok so and QI. --Ralf Roletschek 14:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. The distortion of buildings is almost not noticeable --Ximeg 21:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective distortion is correctable and should thus be corrected. Otherwise, no QI. --Esquilo 08:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    Better, but there is still some perspective distortion on the buildings at the left and right. Also blown out whites. --Esquilo 08:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I have corrected the perspective distortion and replaced the file. --Ximeg 23:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I reckon that no one of us carries a lot of tilt lenses around, therefore a slight perspective distortion like this should not be a problem, as the image is, IMO, pretty good and useful. Maybe there is a slight tilt to the left? Anyway QI to me --DKrieger 23:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ximeg. Biopics 22:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
If "per Ximeg", then it should be promoted! --Ximeg 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 09:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Ateles_hybridus_from_Venezuela_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ateles hybridus from Venezuela --The Photographer 12:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Great! --Ximeg 19:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient description and categorization. Zoo? Biopics 10:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is something I dislike with this portrait. Possibily the disturbed background and washed out coat. Too much shadows around the eyes. I think at midday sun it is nearly impossible to manage these high contrasts and to bring out the eye sockets properly. --Tuxyso 13:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined King of Hearts 03:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Ateles_hybridus_from_Venezuela_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ateles hybridus from Venezuela --The Photographer 12:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Wonderful! --Ximeg 19:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF too shallow IMO. Eyes are OOF. Biopics 10:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF is shallow, yes, but focus is on the eyes. --Esquilo 12:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 03:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Rua_de_Trinta_e_Um_de_Janeiro,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rua de Trinta e Um de Janeiro, Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 04:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion CA --The Photographer 20:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Fixed Poco a poco 03:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)  Info Red CA is not fixed --The Photographer 13:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    I have uploaded a new version but the difference is small since there is not so much room for improvement Poco a poco 04:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)  Info La veo muchísimo mejor, excelente trabajo de postprocesamiento especialmente al color, solamente corrige la nota que te coloqué y la promuevo, especialmente la sobrexposición. --The Photographer 12:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I had adressed the notes already, I think that we need a third opinion, your reviews are too harsh to me Poco a poco 17:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit washed out, possibly because of the midday sun. Very good sharpness and details. CAs nearly unvisible and not an issue here. QI! Not signed comment of Tuxyso Poco a poco 18:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 03:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Syrischer-Braunbaer-Zoo-Muenster.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Syrian brown bear --Tuxyso 07:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK for QI. - A.Savin 10:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's not OK, it's wonderful!!! --Ximeg 19:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Marginal DOF, confusing background, unfortunate crop. Biopics 10:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but the comment of Biopics is not acceptable for me. 1. It is an animal portrait. An important characteristic of portrait is to bring out the main subject with a small DOF (as I have done it here and with other animal portraits as well) and a nice bokeh. 2. The crop is not unfortunate, it is like a head and shoulder portrait, it is not a full body portrait. 3. The background is not confusing, it is well composed. Look at the "V"-shape between front paw and left tree. The black areas repeat at the left and right side of the photo form a frame. --Tuxyso 11:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition could have been better (think of rule of thirds; eyes one third from the top would have showed more bear) but focus and resolution is wonderfull. --Esquilo 12:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 03:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Waverveen, NH kerk img 9871e.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dutch reformed church of Waverveen -- Basvb 22:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Someone added a note but forgot to mention it. Done. --JLPC 20:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    You haven't fixed it. Mattbuck 03:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not a good photo editor so I wont try to mess it up. If somebody wants to help it's welcome, otherwise this one just wont make it to QI. Basvb 09:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
     Info Dust spot suppressed. --JLPC 22:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you Basvb 14:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    Nice. Mattbuck 01:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    Kerkje leunt een beetje naar rechts. Ook wat CA op het linker doel. Biopics 18:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Also sky denoised. --Iifar 20:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Some CA, but it could also be the low standing sun. Contrast between white frost, bright sky and dark church handled well. --Esquilo 11:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 03:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Roetelpelikan-Zoo-Duisburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pink-backed Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens) --Tuxyso 01:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Loss of detail in underexposed areas, overexposed ares, bad crop (subject cut off at left side) --Poco a poco 10:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right, but only in very few non-inportant areas. Main subject comes out well. Consider the contra-light situation. Other opinions / Discussion? --Tuxyso 08:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok with me. --Vamps 12:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A backlight scene on short distance. So why no flash!? --Esquilo 13:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    Short distance? Mmmh... Have you looked at the focal length in the metadata? 300mm on DX means 450mm on full frame. That is not short distance. --Tuxyso 14:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    About 15 meters I'd guess. Not too far away for a good flash, especially when you only need a litte of it. --Esquilo 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined King of Hearts 04:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Castlepoint Lighthouse.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castlepoint Lighthouse, New Zealand --Karora 09:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Underexposed areas, strong pixelation on right side, overexposed areas, dust spot --Poco a poco 10:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC).
  •  Info New version uploaded. Imho it has amazing composition. --Iifar 10:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Increase bright midtones and try to increase brightness of the tower. If the tower were brighter, it would be a great contrast to the dark sky. Overexposure is marginal. --Tuxyso 12:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Is it underexposed or overexposed? To be honest I can't see how I could have improved either situation much from a single shot! When I examine the lighthouse up close I also don't see anywhere that increased brightness would recover features.
    • I would say that the tower (main object) is a bit underexposed. I would try a selective increasing of the brightness of the tower to form a good contrast to the dark sky. --Tuxyso 08:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition (good example of rule-of-thirds), good colours. --Esquilo 06:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice and good quality. --Vamps 12:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, great light. --Jastrow 14:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Amazing light. --King of Hearts 03:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice, good quality --The Photographer 20:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 09:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Börse (Hamburg-Altstadt).Uhr.2.ajb.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Clock at Hamburg stock exchange building. --Ajepbah 14:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tomer T 15:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeMaybe a scale correction (vertical stretch) is needed, it is too oval IMO, even if I understand that a very round correction should look artificial.--Jebulon 15:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Picture is taken from maximum possible orthogonal distance - it's quite narrow there (see position info, heading is NE) --Ajepbah 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction should preserve vertical/horizontal aspect ratio. In this case the correction made the clock even more oval. Better to do the opposite and stretch it a bit. --Esquilo 08:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
     Info Ratio changed from 4:3 to 5:4 --Ajepbah 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support for the new version. --Esquilo 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 04:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Kranebitter_Sankt_Vigil_Kastelruth_Ostseite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Farmhouse Kranebitter in Kastelruth --Moroder 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose DOF too small (f5): only last third of the house is sharp, colors are a bit washed out. --Tuxyso 20:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry, I bag your pardon but you don't know what you are talking about. At that distance with f5 and focal l 48 mm there is DOF to the end. You can read the license # of the car parked in the back of the house! Do you need more DOF for QI? --Moroder 22:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (double opposition? --Moroder 15:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)  Comment Sorry, no double opposition, the oppose was added by Savin (Rev. 83437533), during counting the votes. He refers not to my vote but to the other of Esquilo. I changed the position of the symbol now. --Tuxyso 06:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC))
    Please stick to the facts and don't attack me personally. I think the problem here is the focus point relatively at the back of the house (I made some notes to the photo). The DOF goes nearly to infinity behind the focus point, but is much smaller to the front. I guess about 10 meters (depending on your exact distance to the house). No reason to choose f5 with 1/1000sec and ISO 100. You cannot compensate wrong shooting parameters with the resolution of the D800. 100% evaluation for all. In this res, no QI for me. Feel free to put it into CR or waiting for other votes. --Tuxyso 07:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for my words. But, how can the two areas in your notation be focussed differently when they are at the same distance from the camera? With the 24-70mm/2.8 lens an aperture of f5 with a distance from the object of at least 15 m and a focal length of 48 mm might not be ideal but is more then adequate. These are the facts ;-) --Moroder 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose The whole left part of this photos looks unsharp regardles of the distance. I don't think it is caused by a focus problem. I would have said motion-blur if it was not for the 1/1000 shutter speed. --Esquilo 15:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand how motion blur could affect only half of an image - besides the fact that I use always a tripod, selfrelease after 5 seconds and mirror up. The lens is also OK and clean so is the sensor --Moroder 18:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-11-16_16-56-06-coucher-sol-ballon-alsace.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset seen from Ballon d'Alsace --ComputerHotline 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. At first I thought it's water, and not fog. --Ximeg 16:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The reflections are too dominant and thus disturbing. --Tuxyso 17:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing glare. --Esquilo 15:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Brandenburger Tor Nachts.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Gute Stimmung --Ueb-at
  • Review Stimmung und Farben kommen zur Wirkung. --Ueb-at 19:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Ueb-at
    Es mag sein, dass Stimmung und Farben gut zur Wirkung kommen, aber das Brandenburger Tor hängt arg schief im Bild. Ich bitte deshalb um Diskussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 20:33 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 09:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Pikk_Hermann,_Tallin,_Estonia,_2012-08-11,_DD_16.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pikk Hermann, Toompea castle, Tallinn, Estonia --Poco a poco 10:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Perspective problem, nice shoot --The Photographer 15:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Poco a poco 03:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The perspective only got worse. Thoe original was better. --Esquilo 15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, I kinda agree, I reverted, it will not get much better with a picture taken close to the bottom of the tower Poco a poco 03:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
          • I gave it another try. Revert again if you don't like it. --Esquilo 12:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Well, I like it, but now we need a third opinion, right? Poco a poco 17:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good. King of Hearts 03:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo, very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 08:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Cannon Row.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination U.S. Civil War cannon at battlefield in Tennessee by Lhughesw5 --Daniel Case 06:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice in thumbnail, but unsharp at full (low) resolution. --Selbymay 08:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC).
  •  Info New version uploaded, please discuss. --Iifar 09:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The low sun pushes the whitebalance towards lower temp. Personally I would have compensated for this by setting the whitebalance to tungsten or rising the blue channel. But this is a matter of taste, not quality. --Esquilo 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice and QI for me now. --Moonik 14:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Selbymay, inspite of new upload.--Jebulon 18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too soft for me. Given the fact that the resolution is rather at the low end, I don't think that the quality suffices for QI standards. - A.Savin 20:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality barely meets my standards. This would have been a great FP candidate in 2005. --King of Hearts 08:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Episyrphus_balteatus_on_blue_flower.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hoverfly (Episyrphus balteatus) on a blue flower in Ornö, Stockholm archipelago 2009. --Hangsna 08:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • (weak)  Support Could be sharper, but OK for QI. - A.Savin 11:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown stamens and no id on the flower. Biopics 23:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Flower is Succisa pratensis. --Hangsna 17:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, I like the smooth bokeh and the statement of the photo. Probably little CA (but not crucial) at the very left wesp (see note). --Tuxyso 21:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Please be serious with your assessments. This is not Flickr. How can you judge a nature image if you can't tell a fly from a wasp? :-((. Biopics 23:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your private lessons in biology. Don't understand your personal attack to me. Episyrphus balteatus (the fly on the flower) is the main object here and is photographed well. The flower is only background and of minor importance. The DOF stresses the attention to the fly (and not to the flower). QI is about photography and not about zoology or botantic. I observe your comments (nearly always opposing and not constructive, others could benefit from your experience in biological photography) for longer. For you as a very technical oriented biological photographer (see your fauna gallery) it is hard to understand that there are other camera settings possible than 100% DOF in front of an monotone background. I accept both kind of photos, but personally I prefer non-clinic ones (despite my missing knowledge in biology). And exactly for this different assesments is consensual review. Remember Surowiecki's "diversity of opinions" as a condition for the wisdom of crowds. --Tuxyso 03:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Looks as the lesson didn't strike home again. This is QI and not FP. People disappointingly keep on confusing the two fora (or even the three if we add VI to it). QI is all about technical issues, and not about wow or pretty pictures. FP is the wow forum and VI concerns mainly best EV for a particular category. Those things are clearly written in the intros of each of the three topics and have been there for years. Both newbies and seasoned users need to reread these. If you want to change those assessment rules, you are welcome, but be assured to get solid majority support following the discussion for the proposed changes. Biopics 14:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
          • I was not talking about "Wow" here. In the intro of QI I read: "The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed." What is meant by "contribute to the overall result" is subjective. I can give you reasons why the flower should not be as sharp as the fly (concepts of photography, main subject accentuation), you can also give reasons (mainly derived from biological photography with a scientific and documentary focus). Thus quality (especially DOF and composition) is in the eye of the beholder. I read nothing in the introduction that assesments should be made with regard to a specific domain but with regard to general concepts of photography. Vote with contra (as you've done) if the photograph is not appropriate measured with your requirements but also accept differing opinions (as you should do as a good democrat). And again: DOF and composition is a subjective matter. --Tuxyso 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Reflections from the thorax, abdomen, and wings are distracting; but may better than my work. Jkadavoor 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. It should be have a little bit more contrast. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 04:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Chatillon sur Seine Seine.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pont des Boulangers at Châtillon-sur-Seine, France -- Velvet 23:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  CommentThere's some CA which needs correcting. nice composition --Rjcastillo 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC) -- ✓ Done Tried to correct some Velvet 23:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Comment Please another opinions --Rjcastillo 12:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 17:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR 09:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Dey.sandip 17:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 04:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Alcea July 2011-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Flower of a Hollyhock (Alcea rosea) -- Alvesgaspar 00:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very strange background for a flower (a wall?) --Tuxyso 09:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC) -- Please discuss, what is the problem with the unusual background? Alvesgaspar 12:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a strange, but an unusual background. Good quality IMO --Llez 15:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing strange nor unusual for me. Hollyhocks frequently grow along walls (in my country). Good for QI.--Jebulon 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. The background is not the best but the flower is of very good quality. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the background. It makes the plant stand out more than a green backgrund with other plats would do. --Esquilo 12:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Jebulon and others -- MJJR 19:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 10:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB Z2 Melton Hall.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Melton Hall. Mattbuck 15:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry no (IMO). Some CA, and sky really too noisy for my taste.--Jebulon 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good quality. CAs are very slight. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    • ...But far below the Melton Hall - Jubilee Campus usual bar...Clin--Jebulon 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Belgrade Military Museum - M3A1 Stuart.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Belgrade Military Museum - tank M3A1 Stuart --Pudelek 22:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sharp photo! But I think the inner parts of the amour are too dark. Slight correction possible? --Tuxyso 06:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    In my computer this parts aren't too dark. Mayby another opinion? --Pudelek 13:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for my monitor too.--Jebulon 18:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


Sorry, for me still not OK - Discuss?. My monitor is hardware calibrated. It is not a technical issue with the histogram (everything OK there). I made some notes. Local correction can easily help here. --Tuxyso 08:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support Enough detail. -- Smial 17:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted King of Hearts 01:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:UBahnhof-Heissen-Kirche-2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Underground Station Heißen Kirche --Tuxyso 23:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment - I see some CA on the right side and it needs some vertical perspective correction Poco a poco 01:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    I think both issues are corrected now. --Tuxyso 01:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    The CA is acceptable but the perspective not yet, please, see the note, Poco a poco 02:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    OK, my last attempt. Perspective correction was very complex here. OK now? ✓ Done --Tuxyso 11:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support - Good work, thanks --Poco a poco 12:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Fine pic, yet you managed to include some ghosts. See annotations. --Kreuzschnabel 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    I know of the ghosts, and it is not a problem to remove them with Photomatix. Here they are intendend for underlining the statement that passengers get off the train. --Tuxyso 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support pretty much up to standard. --Vamps 12:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fix the ghosts and I'll change my vote to support. Good picture otherwise. --Esquilo 13:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    As already mentioned: It is not an techical problem to avoid ghosts. The ghosts support the statement of the photo. --Tuxyso 14:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    I do not agree. Ghosts are caused by technical factors (long exposure time) and are therfore a technical problem which should be solved by technical means. --Esquilo 18:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ghosts does'nt matter in this case. --Florstein 18:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ghosts. Biopics 12:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics, sorry. HDR is actually unnecessary here (imo). If you really want a HDR though, you may try to take it when the platform is empty; or simply make a one-shot (pseudo-)HDR (Photomatix can do it quite good from the RAW file). - A.Savin 20:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'm not against ghosts in principle, in fact I think they can be quite effective. However, the one on the left just looks like an ugly smear. Remove that one and it's QI, because the rest of the photo is frankly breathtaking. Perhaps the lesson is that 2s is too short an exposure here, providing insufficient time for movement. Mattbuck 20:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The ghosts are not really disturbing imo. Excellent picture. -- MJJR 09:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Oh, my photo seems to be very controversial :) According to the constructive comment of A.Savin I uploaded a new version. This time without HDR. Movements are still visible, but ghosts are massively reduced. What do you think? Is it better? If so, please reconsider your votes. Thanks. --Tuxyso 10:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The ghost effects on the people in front of the escalator are still there (perhaps some less than previously). If the new version is (as stated by you) a non-HDR one, how could it come? Normally, ghosts may appear only in a fused and/or stitched photo. - A.Savin 18:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Take a look on the exposure time: 2 seconds. "Ghosts" (I think the term is not appropriate here) are normal traces from the people moving within 2 seconds of exposure. --Tuxyso 20:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it's a motion blur rather than true ghosts. But to me, the blur on that two places is very remarkable (even in preview) and looks like ghosts in a fused image. - A.Savin 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ghosts are not really an issue for me. It's a QI. --Dey.sandip 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz 200 D, Bj. 1967 (2012-06-10 Sp ret).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz 200 D, Baujahr 1967 -- Lothar Spurzem 17:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose unsharp --Pudelek 17:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Please realize that the car is in motion. I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 20:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The car is not just moving, it is turning. Focus follows the grille but not the rear. Taking the photo a fraction of a second later would probably have been better, but I think the motion is well handled. --Esquilo 15:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The car just comes out of the corner, but it is not impossible at all to capture a Mercedes W110 200D in full sharpness. Capturing moving objects like cars fully sharp _is_ the tricky part that needs to be done, not an excuse. --Nichtvermittelbar 18:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Vincent C Rapide, Bj. 1952 (2009-08-07 Sp).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Vincent C Rapide built in 1952 at Oldtimer-Grand-Prix of AvD in 2009 -- Lothar Spurzem 23:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC) --
  •  Oppose -- Extreme crop and distracting background, being sharp is not enough. Alvesgaspar 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment. I can only wonder. The „distracting“ background is typical for the old paddock of Nürburgring. And what part is not sharp enough? -- Lothar Spurzem 18:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I said "being sharp is not enough" ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 12:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    O yes, my English is not good. But now I understand. Nevertheless I see no important lack in the photo. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Really tight crop, but nevertheless QI to me --DKrieger 23:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Wassermühle am Kloster Wienhausen IMG 2111.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mill at Kloster Wienhausen (by Losch) -- Achim Raschka 06:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Could be QI, if the chromatic aberration will be removed. --Iifar 07:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Suggested cut version, maybe FP --The Photographer 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • CA were reduced - but don't see any reason for cropping -- Achim Raschka 17:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA is ok, but it looks oversharpened now. --Iifar 18:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • DXO Optics Pro used exact parameters for the combination of camera and objectiv to improve quality. And the original was a little bit unsharp. Now it's a little bit sharper but not oversharpened in my opinion.--Hic et nunc 08:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 16:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would support a cropped version of the original. The new version is oversharpened and noisy. --Esquilo 12:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Gazania September 2010-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Flower of a Gazanai rignes cultivar -- Alvesgaspar 00:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good Quality --Rjcastillo 03:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; nothing in critical focus; even the stamens. --Jkadavoor 05:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not agreee with Jkadavoor. I like the vaninshing into unsharpness from the pistil and stamens to the petal. The centred position is bit boring, but OK for QI. --Tuxyso 09:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmm; this is a flower profile, and not a single petal in focus. We have too add good bokeh also as an important criteria for QI. Good candidate for Flickr explore. Sharp at 800x600 though. Jkadavoor 17:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Technically, that is not true. This is a composite flower and the petals in the center are focused. :) -- Alvesgaspar 12:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Jkadavoor has a point; The petals are not sharp. Even though there is not much detail lost due to this unsharpness, it is still a quality weakness. --Esquilo 07:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:P-vesyolkin-np-5430.jpg[edit]

I agree with Tuxyso and prefer his version. But before upload it under the old filename you better change the file name towards sthg like Nikolai Petrovich Vesyolkin (18.11.2012) or similar. --W like wiki 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault. Can I still rename the file? --Tuxyso 19:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shivaji Maharaj Raigad.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shivaji Maharaj statue at Raigad --Cj.samson 18:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Nice but tilted Poco a poco 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still tilted Poco a poco 19:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you referring vertical or horizontal tilt? --Cj.samson 17:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • You need to rotate the image in the counter clockwise direction. By the way, I like it very much, I see FP potential Poco a poco 20:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks ! I'll work on the edit and upload edited version --Cj.samson 20:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done tilt corrected --Cj.samson 06:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good done, Poco a poco 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Boy_from_Chaguaramal.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Español: Boy from Chaguaramal, Estado Miranda, Venezuela --The Photographer 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice photo and good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate portrait lightning: Eye sockets are nearly completely shadowed (fixable via selective brightning?). IMHO unfortunate composition: View of boy is comletely straight, no reason to apply rule of thirds in horizontal direction. Remarkable noise (or artefacts from NR reduction), missing sharpness and thus missing details on skin and eyes. Personally I do not like truncated heads in portraiture (but not relevant for QI) --Tuxyso 18:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lightning (a fill flash would have done the trick) and bad composition/crop. --Esquilo 14:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disadvantageous lightning. --W like wiki 17:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Père-Lachaise_-_Monogramme_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination monogram, Père Lachaise Cemetery --~Pyb 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lower part is unsharp (see notes) due to wide open aperture (f2.8) combined with focus point at the top. --Tuxyso 18:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Please don't criticize too far. -- Lothar Spurzem 18:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Good photo for discussion. To me Sharpness (in contrary to minor CA's which are too often too far critized here) sharpness is essential to a photo. Blur is still visible at 40% view. Avoidable (parameters were 85mm, 1/125sec, f2.8 at ISO 100) - why not ISO 200? --Tuxyso 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Tuxyso on this one. A flat, stationary object should be sharp all over. --Esquilo 14:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for reviews. I'll try to take it again ~Pyb 08:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Dôme_des_Invalides_-_PA00088714_-_005.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La coupole et le lanterneau du dôme des Invalides. --Thesupermat 15:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC))
  • Promotion I think it's tilted a bit cw.--V-wolf 20:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above (the tilt is even visible in preview). - A.Savin 10:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tilt removed. --Smial 23:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 12:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Esquilo 15:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reviewers may take a look on this pic in 100% view, there is significant posterization on the sky and the clouds. - A.Savin 13:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral No tilt, but unfortunate file name. --W like wiki 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Felix Koenig 20:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)