Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 22 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2014_Kłodzko,_pl._Chrobrego_13_04.JPG[edit]

File:Parking_and_dumpster_in_Rome.jpg[edit]

Kreuzschnabel Maybe we have not understood, I treated you badly? For me this is a hobby. I think that is understood. But if a person decline me a picture saying "there is only a tree" or "bad shadow" then I run a little bit. But if you give valid reasons i don't cry, and just accept it. Thanks.--Livioandronico2013 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church_of_St._John_of_the_Malva_in_Trastevere.jpg[edit]

File:Kipaku_Sabah_Cemetery-Kipaku-02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kipaku, Sabah, Malaysia: The cemetery of Kipaku is featuring christian and animistic burial traditions in one place. The christian tombs are clearly marked with a cross. But before being christened, the Dusun and Murut people both burry their beloved ones in jars. Also visible are small stones for the spirits of the deceased --Cccefalon 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Oppose DoF is too shallow, but more importantly, the composition is wrong. Should have been taken from an angle to remove the road. --Ram-Man 01:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not FPC. Declining because of the presence of an empty road in the background is absolutely ridiculous. So far I had a certrain respect for your reviews, but I'm in severe doubts now, if you understood the purpose of QIC. --Cccefalon 05:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I gave two reasons (DoF and composition). Either one alone might not be enough to oppose, but combined it pushes it below my threshold. (1) My eye is first drawn to the left side and then to the road. Simply taking this shot at a different angle would have fixed that and also not cut off the front left grave. (2) Even at a 2MP viewing, the gravestone in the back (with the writing on it) is noticeably not in focus. -- Ram-Man 20:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the purpose of QIC, that's being discussed on the talk page and there is anything but full agreement on that. Ram-Man 20:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm not challenging your opinion about DoF. I know that there are a lot of different opinions about the use of DoF, though there is no reason IMO, why all inscriptions of visible tombs in a cemetery view should be readable. The reason for me to send to CR is your statement "but more importantly, the composition is wrong". There is nothing wrong in the compo. In this view it shows exactly what it should show, the menhirs and the crosses. I would not nominate that photo to FPC but for the composition and the crop, this is more than good enough for QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, perhaps the composition isn't the most important reason and I was engaging in some unintentional hyperbole. I've corrected that. I should be more precise in my language. Nevertheless, I still believe it is the combination of both defects. Ram-Man 12:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about compo being alright, but I don't think that this just out of focus background is supportable either. Imo this should either be f2.8 or f8, but here this is stuck just inbetween. Also the bokeh is quite unpleasing (but this is of course not so important for QIC) --DXR (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DXR, no problem to oppose this photo for said reason. I sent it to CR because I don't want to get wrong compo standards implemented in QIC. --Cccefalon 12:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do I overemphasize composition? Do others overemphasize framing, CAs, perspective distortion? Possibly. Yet, they're all legitimate reasons for opposing. The guidelines clearly state that the background elements should not be distracting. I've detailed exactly the way they are distracting. You don't have to agree, but please don't suggest that I have no right. Instead of taking my review personally, consider that are numerous ways to improve a photo. Increase the focal length and back up to tighten the field of view. Walk to the left and eliminate the road entirely and replace the background with unobtrusive bushes and trees. Narrow the depth of field to blur the distracting background (as per DXR's suggestion.) Maybe not all of these would be effective, but that doesn't invalidate the advice. If I felt that this was the only possible composition, then I wouldn't have even mentioned it. And by all means, if you feel that the composition rules should be changed, discuss them on the talk page. -- Ram-Man 13:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]