Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 04 2024

Consensual review

edit

File:My_angel_(6869913695).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Smiling young girl wearing hoodie (par Wilfredor) --An insect photographer 01:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is something at the left bottom edge that could be part of a cookie. IMO it needs to be all in or all out. --GRDN711 03:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image was not taken by a Commons user but copied from Flickr, thus is ineligible for QI. --Plozessor 07:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Ville_de_Mali_01.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination 360° view of the city center of the urban commune of Mali (Guinea) --Aboubacarkhoraa 02:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interpolated sky looks too artificiel to me. Coordinates missing. Panorama templates missing. --Milseburg 16:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ⚠️The author and nominator promoted the image himself to QI yesterday, reverted the change now. Otherwise, error in the sky (sharp and blurry part of a cloud stitched together, or poorly retouched). And if this is supposed to be a 360° panorama then the template is missing. --Plozessor 05:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Comment btw, I have promoted this photo because the main part is sharp enough for me and because of the small number of Mali photos --Michielverbeek 08:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Per others Jakubhal 06:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_Basking_of_Spindasis_vulcanus_(Fabricius,_1775)_-_Common_Silverline_(2)_WLB.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Close wing Basking of Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius, 1775) - Common Silverline (2) WLB --Anitava Roy 04:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO an upscaled image. Maximum resolution of the camera is supposed to be 5,184×3,456 pixels. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Upscaled and overprocessed with little real detail. --Plozessor 05:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Mating_pair_of_Catochrysops_strabo_(Fabricius,_1793)_-_Forget-me-not_WLB.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Mating pair of Catochrysops strabo (Fabricius, 1793) - Forget-me-not WLB --Anitava Roy 04:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO an image upscaled to a level above the camera resolution --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Probably AI-upscaled with little real detail. --Plozessor 05:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Blacktip_reef_sharks_(Carcharhinus_melanopterus)_Moorea.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Blacktip reef sharks (Carcharhinus melanopterus) --Charlesjsharp 11:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose would be a cool shot if the above section wasn't of so bad quality--The Blue Rider 17:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Benjism89 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    To explain my vote : given the very good quality of the underwater section (where the subject is) and the interest of a partle-underwater, partly out-of-water picture, I think the fact that the top section is very blurry is not a big issue. ---Benjism89 04:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Benjism89. The mountains are not above the sharks but far in the background, so naturally they are out of focus. --Plozessor 05:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Deutschherrenhaus_(Koblenz)_an_einem_Winterabend.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Das Deutschherrenhaus in Koblenz an einem Winterabend. By User:Rolf Kranz --XRay 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Nikride 17:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Isn't it too blurry to be QI? --Екатерина Борисова 00:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness is acceptable IMO but perspective is not (left side is leaning in heavily). --Plozessor 06:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Hallo Plozessor, I really don't see your problem with the perspective here. I know the building in Koblenz well and can confirm that I see it in reality exactly as it does in the picture. Do all photos have to be unnaturally distorted in order to be considered QI? Best regards -- Spurzem 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately that's what I have learned here, yes. Right side of the castle is vertical but left side is leaning in, and windows are distorted. I would skew the upper left corner to make it appear vertical. --Plozessor 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, we could totally distort the image to make it look like many of the quality images we've seen here. -- Spurzem 17:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that our eyes automatically correct any perspective, so we always see buildings and other objects vertically. But the camera can't do that, that's why we have to correct the perspective manually just to make image look natural. At the same time, I personally strongly oppose verticals for the sake of verticals and do not pay attention to slight distortions if the overall quality of image is high. Here the building looks very natural IMO, and the only thing that bother me is the lack of sharpness. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful, atmospheric image; very good -- Spurzem 14:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Foreground is blurry because of low DoF, but the subject is not. Very nice picture. --Benjism89 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Écluse_de_la_Petite_France_à_Strasbourg_(2014).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Strasbourg: La Petite France with the Ill lock. --JoachimKohler-HB 00:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Focus too much to the foreground --Michielverbeek 05:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Other opinions? --JoachimKohler-HB 08:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Focus adequate for the scene IMO. --Plozessor 05:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see it like Michielverbeek. -- Spurzem 15:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for an A4 size print. Very nice colours. --Smial 11:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wrong focus, low sharpness. --Benjism89 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Would it make any sense to focus more on the background anyway? It's raining. JoachimKohler-HB 19:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Henkerturm_Nürnberg_02.11.2024_001.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The executioner's tower (centre, built in 1320-25) with the executioner's bridge (right, reconstructed in 1954) and the former water tower (left, built in 1320-25) at the western tip of Nuremberg's Trödelmarktinsel.--Nilaxus 20:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. To me it looks oversaturated and oversharpend. --JoachimKohler-HB 10:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per JoachimKohler-HB. --Kallerna 07:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 12:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree that the colours look unnatural, and it looks as if too much “Clarity” has been added in post-procession. – Aristeas 15:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback so far. Any tips on what I can do better next time or whether I should make a correction? --Nilaxus 19:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Nilaxus: I like your picture as it is, but other think that that colors are too intense and what Adobe calls "clarity" (local contrast) is too high. Thus you should lower saturation or color dynamics, and reduce clarity/structure/contrast during raw conversion to make it look more natural. --Plozessor 05:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: Thank you for your feedback. Unfortunately, I'm the type of person who likes clarity and structure in photos rather than noise :D. But perhaps I still need to develop the right sensitivity. --Nilaxus 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversaturated. Destructive noise reduction. Oversharpened. Despite the big file size (30MB) surprisingly strong JPG compression artifacts in the sky. What happened there? --Smial 12:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial: I think I just overdid it with the photo editing and still need to develop the right sensitivity. But thanks for your comments. --Nilaxus 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment The colours are more saturated here, but I think it works in this composition – I like it, it's atmospheric. My criticism at this point would be the crop of the trees in the top section of the image, otherwise QI. --A. Öztas 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @A. Öztas: Thank you very much for your feedback. Yes, I can understand about the trees. I think it was a bit difficult to get everything important in one picture. --Nilaxus 23:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, it's more saturated and contrasted than many pictures here, but I think it works and I don't think it's overprocessed. I share the same small criticism as A. Öztas, but this issue is not big enough as to prevent me from supporting this picture as QI. --Benjism89 17:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Herbstliche_Pappelallee_auf_dem_Damm_zur_Reichenau.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Poplar avenue on the causeway to the island of Reichenau in Lake Constance --JoachimKohler-HB 19:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the far and middle ground (where cyclists are riding) are very blurred. But maybe it doesn't matter, because the front trees are ok. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 00:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Екатерина Борисова. --Sebring12Hrs 12:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, this is a matter of taste and intention. We can try to give a wide impression of the avenue and use a wide-angle perspective, or go for telephoto compression with a long focal length; we can try to get much of the avenue in focus or we can try to give a feeling of depth with limited depth of field. All of these goals are legitimate. Here the photographer has selected a long focal length (165 mm on FF) and hence telephoto compression. This more or less urges the photographer to choose a limited depth of field, too; and the photographer has already choosen it the depth of field almost as wide as possible (ƒ/10; more than ƒ/11 would certainly have introduced serious diffraction). I have often seen this approach even in photos from well-known photographers, so I see no need to argue with our photographer. – Aristeas 15:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Although I can understand that a low DoF is an artistic choice, I don't believe it's the best choice here. --Benjism89 18:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support per Aristeas --Smial 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Юрий Д.К. 15:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)