Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 17 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Lentil_soup,_Berlin_(LRM_20210925_125528).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lentil soup, served in a DB Premium Lounge --MB-one 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp --Plozessor 04:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's sufficiently sharp IMO on the focus pane. Please discuss. --MB-one 15:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If I look at the picture from the point of view of "food photography", it can't be a QI at all, because it has an unmotivated focus, unfavorable lighting and a horrible background. As a documentary snapshot one could let it pass, but for that the optical reference to the location is missing. --Smial 10:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough to me, and I'm quite OK with a stark, documentary style. -- Ikan Kekek 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

File:0915_NOR_Hammerfest_Arctic_Princess_V-P.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hammerfest roads --Virtual-Pano 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Too shallow DoF for this composition IMO. Only the rock on the right is in focus. --MB-one 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Comment The rock to the right is several hundred metres away. With 24 mm and f8 on a full frame sensor objects even further away should be well inside DoF. --Virtual-Pano 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for an A4 print, but I would recommend reducing both noise reduction and post sharpening. --Smial 10:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info completly reprocessed version uploaded --Virtual-Pano 20:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support much better now. --MB-one (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization lines in the sky. Oppose for now. -- Ikan Kekek 03:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done thanks for pointing out the flaw that missed my attention - I have started from scratch and uploaded a new version --Virtual-Pano (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Jakob_im_Rosental_Maria_Elend_Schalenstein_26092023_4498.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Offering table at the park north of the pilgrimage church Maria Elend, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Blurry --Plozessor 03:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support I disagree. IMO sharp and good enough. --XRay 03:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @XRay: Thanks for your review. I reduced the noise and uploaded a new version. —- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose slightly out of focus, sorry --Virtual-Pano 20:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support By far sharp enough regarding the resolution. Printable to A3 size or even bigger. --Smial 23:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough given that it is a static subject. --Tagooty 04:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO sharp enough for a QI --Michielverbeek 05:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, some blown whites. --Nino Verde (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, though I don't really care about the blown areas; it's just not sharp enough to seem of high quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 03:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)