Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 22 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:F-ZBMC_(6).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aircraft F-ZBMC on the sky of Onet-le-Château, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed. --Kallerna 11:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colour fringing around wings - dust specks above plane --Virtual-Pano 13:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:F2_E-SRFR,_Interboot_2020,_Friedrichshafen_(IB200091).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Presentation of the F2 E-SRFR electric inflatable board at at Interboot 2020 --MB-one 19:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Agree with the comments below, I oversaw it... Poco a poco 17:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry to oppose. But the main object is cropped at the bottom. --Augustgeyler 09:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree. It may be a minor flaw, but there is room on the top, so the aim should have been lower.--Peulle 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Snapshot. --Kallerna 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the framing is unfortunate --Jakubhal 13:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:2017-08-29_Alperstedter_See_IMG_8653_by_Stepro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Floating huts on Lago di Alpi. --Stepro 22:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Burnt sky and WB far off --Poco a poco 08:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I want to discuss this. --Stepro 17:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition. But I am with Poco a poco. The white balance is very far off. --Augustgeyler (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sky seems acceptable to me, but is everything in fact this purple? For example, there's a purple pole, seemingly on a boat. And the very tops of the huts are sort of light lavender? -- Ikan Kekek 09:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info OK, I've uploaded a color corrected version. But as you may see the strong purple color is real - on the boat in the back as well on the name signs above the doors. --Stepro 10:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, I support now. For the others, though, I think you'll need to dial back the brightness of the sky, and I'd also prefer a slightly less glary sky. -- Ikan Kekek 12:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Sandro Halank 20:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB off, too bright, no English description, messy composition. --Kallerna 11:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Monumento_ai_Caduti_piazzetta_affresco_600_Gardone_Riviera.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination War memorial in Gardone Riviera. --Moroder 05:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The top of the building is unsharp. Image is slightly oversaturated. --Augustgeyler 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I don’t think that we need now focus stacking to be QI --Moroder 14:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree with Augustgeyler, too much saturation and the top doesn't look good, I'd just crop it Poco a poco 09:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. Apparent camera shake and/or stitching error. The thin wire in front of the gutter is also broken. --Smial 09:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Moulin_Lindekemale_(DSCF3284).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Lindekemale watermill in Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium --Trougnouf 05:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but there is a lack of depth of field, 1/60 was the wrong decision for a moving subject; there are also overexposed spots on the left wall. --Gordito1869 06:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment The subject (wheel) is well in focus and f/10 is plenty to capture its depth, it's not blurry and 1/80s (not 1/60s) is plenty fast for this subject yet it shows movement from the water. The left wall has bright sun spots but it's not overexposed in either raw or jpeg --Trougnouf 06:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this image is well composed, it has balanced colours and lights and a sufficient sharpness. The only thing I found eventually not meeting the guidelines is the noise level. Some parts are looking if this was shot in film. --Augustgeyler (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've increased denoising, thank you for reviewing. --Trougnouf 09:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is still visible. Not a big deal. But I am wondering how that could happen. Was it really taken at ISO 200? Looks like 800. --Augustgeyler 10:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've increased denoising a bit further. You are right that the noise levels are not those you would see at base ISO. I've increased the exposure in software to 2.55 EV overall and up to an additional 0.75 EV on the wheel. Most modern cameras are more or less ISO invariant, which means that an image taken at higher ISO (without overexposure) should be the same as an image taken at base ISO which had its exposure value increased in software. Using this, one can expose to the right to avoid any raw overexposed areas, then increase the EV and balance the light to fit the high dynamic range in software. This was necessary to avoid overexposing the wall which was getting direct sun patchs through the trees' shadow. Here is an extreme example: File:Basilique Saint-Materne de Walcourt (DSC 0272).jpg, it was also captured at ISO 200 and there was a lot of noise along the dark background, yet none of the light coming through the stained windows got overexposed. --Trougnouf 11:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment fun facts: this is what the image looks like with the same processing settings but no localized masks and a standard base-curve instead of custom filmic, so what it would have looked like as an in-camera jpeg had I taken it at the standard exposure value: File:Moulin Lindekemale basecurve+2.55ev (DSCF3284).jpg: the walls are pretty overexposed and that is probably the most detail I could hope to get out of them. Then the same as above but without the +2.55EV is what the in-camera jpeg and preview should look like when I actually took the picture: File:Moulin Lindekemale basecurve+0ev (DSCF3284).jpg.--Trougnouf 12:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 11:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support No disturbing flaws. --Smial 00:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan Kekek and Smial Poco a poco 09:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support As mentioned above: Very good image. Just a bit too much noise for me. --Augustgeyler 09:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jakubhal 08:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Étendage_à_linge_à_Molina.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Clothes lines --Touam 05:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 07:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I think its slightly tilted ccw. --Augustgeyler 18:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please, what mean "slightly tilted ccw" ? --Touam.
  •  Comment It is leaning to the left, look at the walls of the building in the background. That should be easily correctable. Greetings --Dirtsc 06:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Done, I hope. Thanks you for your advice and explanation. What do you think about new version ? --Touam (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It improved but the correction did not compensate the full tilt. I think a little more tilt correction needs to be done. --Augustgeyler (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the sky to the right of the building is overexposed - the building is still listing ccw (counter clock wise) --Virtual-Pano 14:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Castle_of_St-Alban-sur-Limagnole_10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle of Saint-Alban-sur-Limagnole, Lozere, France. --Tournasol7 06:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The image is a bit too dark for me --PantheraLeo1359531 18:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. 4 AM. It's a morning blue hour ;-) --Moroder 09:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's dark but somehow OK for that time of day. There could have been some highlights or a bit more light at all. But I oppose because of the very low sharpness, especially at the roof. In addition there is chromatic aberration at the chimney. --Augustgeyler 09:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the quality is good enough, but Tournasol7, please eliminate the big dust spot below the upper left corner. -- Ikan Kekek 11:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler --GRDN711 16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral for now per Ikan Kekek. Would support without the dustspot. --MB-one 09:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose dust speck (visible even in thumb - soft roof --Virtual-Pano 14:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)