Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 01 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Cologne_Germany_MediaPark-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: KölnTurm and Medis Park Forum --Cccefalon 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    the building in the foregreound is very sharp and good, but the main object (tower) isn't really. very strange. --Taxiarchos228 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment The hyperfocal distance is about 13 m (focussing distance 100 m / f8,0 / 60 mm) ... camera mounted on tripod ... when the foreground is sharp, the background is sharp too. It is what you get from ISO 200. In my opinion sharp enough for an object in a distance of 430 m --Cccefalon 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose wrong focus, main object is not that sharp as is could be and should be --Taxiarchos228 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree --Cccefalon 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment The sharpness of the tall tower is ok, given its distance. There is moiré, however, see note --Generic1139 14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Reduced Moiré to a certain amount. However, this moiré pattern is also visible in reality. Removing it completly is like asking to remove the recflection of a building in a lake. Or like removing a rainbow. --Cccefalon 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 Support Sharpness is ok, as well as Moiré in full resolution (in lower resolutions it is worse). --Uoaei1 09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Pterois_volitans_400.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red lionfish (Pterois volitans) --Lewis Hulbert 23:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment - The picture is noisy. In fact it was probably in low-light condition but 3200 iso is generally too high for QI. Waiting for other users review--Gormé 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment - Noise is acceptable for me, but there are a number of zombie pixels. Mattbuck 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
     Support Ok for me --Livioandronico2013 07:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose - This cannot be QI for me until the zombie pixels are fixed. Mattbuck 23:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Have I not already dealt with them? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by zombie pixel. --Lewis Hulbert 12:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, you didn't leave a message. Fine then! Mattbuck 09:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Puig_Major3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Majorca: Puig Major --Taxiarchos228 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Too noisy and left side even blurry, definitely wrong camera settings --Poco a poco 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    I can denoise it, and this are definitly not the wrong cam settings, are you kiding? --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Well, blue sky, best lighting and ISO 250 due to the fact that you have choosen a shutter speed of 1/1250. What for? The subject will sure not move. Furthermore, although ISO 250 is not that high the result is a relatively noisy picture. Poco a poco 18:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Diego --Christian Ferrer 11:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Main object is sharp enough, some blur in the corners is visible, but is not really disturbing. If the noise in the sky is somewhat reduced (please don't overdo that), I'll strike through the word "weak". -- Smial 12:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Diego --Livioandronico2013 13:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB «K1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination University Park. Mattbuck 06:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --Christian Ferrer 05:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose With this fog is QI? --Livioandronico2013 08:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    yes fog can make very good quality images. --Christian Ferrer 17:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I'm sorry Christian but I don't think in this way, I don't see anything that could be called QI. --Livioandronico2013 17:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Fog is not a disqualifier for QI, and I did shoot this because of the fog rather than in spite of. Mattbuck 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment For me yes,expect others say, but I stand by my position, with the fog nothing is clear. --Livioandronico2013 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support because the fog --Ralf Roletschek 08:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support the for gives a mystic scene. QI for me. --Steindy 18:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Kirjastosilta, Aurajoki ja Turun tuomiokirkko, kuvattuna Itäiseltä Rantakadulta, Turku, 8.12.2013.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The new pedestrian bridge Kirjastosilta (Library Bridge) over the Aura River and Turun tuomiokirkko (Turku Cathedral), Turku Finland. Makele-90 20:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion You have a very difficult image to get the white balance set properly with several different color temps on the artificial light. Was the sky really that color of brown? Can you adjust the white balance? --Generic1139 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    The sky was dull and brownish color is from the city lights. It really looked like that, I think. This is a jpg directly from the camera. I have also RAW, but dont have program to edit it. Makele-90 07:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Such brownish sky is typical if street lighting is based mainly on sodium-vapor lamps and you have not absolutely clear sky. If you try to compensate this to get a neutral dark grey or even dark blue sky, all other colors in the image will look very strange. Reducing colour contrast can help a little bit. -- Smial 12:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Desaturating just yellow (or yellow and orange) helps a lot. At least the sky isn't glowing apocalyptic brown, while keeping the blue of the bridge and the natural green on the top of the cathedral --Generic1139 14:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Photographing snow at night is always hell, but this seems ok to me. Mattbuck 14:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. I have a version here that by simply reducing the saturation in yellow/orange results in a more useful image. Letting this one go by as is like accepting the wrong color temp in a tungsten image - if there is a simple fix, it should be made. What's the best way to show you this version?. Upload a new version over the original file, which can then be reverted?--Generic1139 07:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC

 Support --Ralf Roletschek 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Haagen_-_Schlossberghalle5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Haagen: Hall Schlossberg (detail) --Taxiarchos228 11:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Not sharp, more so on the letters on the far left. Overexposed, much of the white on the sign and some of the sky is blown out. Magenta in the tree line on the left. --Generic1139 14:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 14:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    sorry, but the sign as main object is indeed sharp, the sky isn't blown out but white partially --Taxiarchos228 09:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. --Generic1139 05:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC) you already had voted --Taxiarchos228 06:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That was discussion, without the oppose tag. What counts votes, a bot, or a human? --Generic1139 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 Comment to delete or to criticize the only vote that made Generic1139 It's disrespectful. Although I'm accustomed, I have to say it. It is clear that Generic1139 considers his first words a comment. Please, use {{Comment}} tag--Lmbuga 11:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tayassu tajacu.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Collared Peccary --Chrumps 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline It is a small resolution of a comparatively big animal. Nethertheless, the full resolution does not show sufficient sharpness. --Cccefalon 04:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is sharp and resolution is over 2Mpx --Jacek Halicki 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose somes areas have been overexposed --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not QI for me. It is not easy to say why: Oversharpened IMO, overexposed (as Christian Ferrer), not good detail (as Cccefalon)--Lmbuga 01:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)