Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 24 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nasturtiopsis coronopifolia --Gidip 09:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  OpposeVery unsharp. --Mattbuck 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
For this image size, sharpness is excellent. You can downsample to get a sharp image at full resolution. --Gidip 07:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Downsampled version by wikimedia software https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpg/731px-Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpg it is still not very sharp. -- Smial 06:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 Support The first plan stems are sharp. At f/18 with an APS-C camera I'm not sure what more can be done. I would have cropped a little tighter, especially on the right, but this is a QI to me. --Jastrow 07:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I can not understand why there is so extreme shallow DOF. Due to http://eol.org/pages/5159295/details the plant is typially 10 to 25cm high, so this is not really a macro shot. f/18? Even with 250mm f/5.6 or f/8 250mm I get more DOF. -- Smial 06:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 Support With Jastrow here.--Jebulon 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 05:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Anoplotrupes_stercorosus_01_(MK).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Anoplotrupes stercorosus by Leviathan1983 --Gidip 05:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  Oppose This photo was already declined April 4 by me. Nothing changed since then. Original reason was "Unfortunately the DoF is so shallow that only a tiny part of the beetle is sufficiently sharp." --Cccefalon 05:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support The photo is sharp enough. --Gidip 05:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support no reason to rejection, good photo and QI --Ralf Roletschek 07:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Info There is an ongoing Discussion about the Renomination of declined photos. --Cccefalon 07:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your name there Gidip 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the hint. Must have been a mistake of the script. --Cccefalon 11:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice pic but not QI. --P e z i 16:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be nice to give some reasoning, esp. if you oppose. Gidip 08:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, in addition to the reasons already mentioned by Cccefalon: 4.4MP coming out of a 12MP camera (digital zoom or downsampled?); overexposed areas on back of the beetle; burnt out red channel in the upper right corner. --P e z i 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cccefalon 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)