Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2012

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Euston station MMB 71.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 14:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glendalough en hiver.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Glendalough lower lake, the sky is actually white, not a dynamic range issue... --Cqui 18:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeVery nice composition but insuff. quality - can you share EXIF data? --Moroder 22:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • EXIF of originals added to the picture page, this image shows an impression of the lake, I don't think we should see each tree in the background, the JPG processing bring a hand painted impression. --Cqui 9:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thats exactly what the guidlines for QI suggest to avoid: artifacts from jpg compression --Moroder 18:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Alejandro_Nevsky,_Tallin,_Estonia,_2012-08-11,_DD_45.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Tallinn, Estonia --Poco a poco 21:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. The car in fron looks almost as automotive advertising --Moroder 21:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    Advertising? Having a car in front of a building is not a solid argument IMO, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 21:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Comment Unfortunately it looks bad compared to the nice building ;-) --Moroder 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    I know, but I cannot avoid this and the building is big enough to neglect it :) Poco a poco 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support For me it is clearly QI without dobut. Moroder assessment is more for FI than for QI. No unsufficient quality. Slight artefact from CA removal at the pinnacle (see notes) could be easily removed. --Tuxyso 06:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support IMHO clearly QI --The Photographer 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support --Rjcastillo 13:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quailty. What looks like an artefact I believe is a lightning rod. --Esquilo 16:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Padula certosa ecce homo.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Ecce Homo in the Certosa of San Lorenzo in Padula, Italy. -- Velvet 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry, bad lighting conditions --Moroder 23:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. I don't understand the negative vote. -- Lothar Spurzem 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Me neither, details are good to see, beautiful shadows. Please be more specific. --W like wiki 17:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support after multiple views. Per LS and WlW. --JLPC 18:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit noisy, but per JLPC.--Jebulon 13:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Burgruine_Salegg_in_Seis.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castel ruin Salegg in St. Oswald Kastelruth --Moroder 23:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry, bad lighting conditions. --W like wiki 02:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree, be more specific --Moroder 08:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp at the edges. The 32MP resolution of the D800 makes it a very unforgiving camera. --Esquilo 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 Comment That does not mean that it's not QI imho--Moroder 18:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that I should trade in my D800 with a cheaper camera and a polarizing filter? ;-)--Moroder 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I am suggesting that if you can not get your photos sharp at 7267×4570 px you should scale them down. On other Nikons with lower resolutions (even expensier ones like the D4) these errors are sub-pixel. --Esquilo 06:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There has been a lengthy discussion on WP about scaling down: you don't need to do it because you can upload just a smaller size picture. Besides full res you have all these options: "Size of this preview: 640 × 402 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 201 pixels , 800 × 503 pixels , 1,024 × 644 pixels , 1,280 × 805 pixels." --Moroder 06:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just see that the left and right corners of this ruin are unsharp. Looks like spherical aberration. --Esquilo 15:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It looks like barrel distortion but its the shape of the walls, but, pardon me, what does that have to do with sharpness? --Moroder 10:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I just used ur own words from the image above so I was thinking u ll understand. But to be more specific: The foreground and the ruin are too similar and a bit grayish. And thats difficult to correct cause changes like this will reduce the contrast of the sky. Forthermore I agree with Esquilo. --W like wiki 17:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB 54 395001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Southeastern 395001 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - The train is blurred. - A.Savin 09:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    Sharpened and CA removed. Mattbuck 18:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sharpening didn't do much good. It only made the picture noisier. Would support the original though. --Esquilo 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sry, but quite unlovely background, maybe a more croped version is better. --W like wiki 17:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's not very lovely, it's the problem with electric trains, they need power lines. Mattbuck 08:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    --W like wiki (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Elefante_en_Parque_Zoologico_Barquisimeto.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Español: Elefante en Parque Zoologico Barquisimeto 2 --The Photographer 15:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Good enough. Does the elefant use artificial eyelashes or he is just too old? :) -- Alvesgaspar 17:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review >:) . He looked as if he were to die at any moment, I ask for your age and caregivers told me 78 years old, however, there is no reliable source to confirm. I can only take few pictures, the feeling of seeing animals trapped in a zoo is very unpleasant, I hate zoos --The Photographer 17:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    Needs proper id (especially for a zoo specimen). Biopics 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank Biopics, I added the id from the zoo wikipedia article --The Photographer 13:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Saint-Nicolaus-Unterberger.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: From the parish church of de:Kastelruth painter Franz Sebald Unterberger --Moroder 19:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Very nice in spite of the brightness at the frame in the bottom --Poco a poco 21:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
     Comment. Of course nice, but too bright below. It seems nearly like fog. -- Lothar Spurzem 09:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Flash reflections, especially in the bottom half. Always use polarizing a filter when shooting oil painting. --ℇsquilo 07:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Calle_Altstadt,_Landshut,_Alemania,_2012-05-27,_DD_18.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Altstadt St., Landshut, Germany --Poco a poco 21:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Insufficient quality. I miss the lateral edges of the pediment QI now but i believe a crop without the distracting big sign above and the windows in the back would be nice (maybe a new upload on a different file!? --Moroder 21:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    The subject is the CoA, not the gate or the pediment over the door, cannot agree with the argument. If needed I can crop it tigther, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
     Comment I apologize, I was a bit drastic, why don't you fix the lateral crop on the left at the end of the arch, it's QI no doubt about it --Moroder 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    No problem, ✓ new version uploaded Poco a poco 20:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose removable, until Identification of the CoA, thanks.--Jebulon 13:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I knew it :) Identified, Poco a poco 21:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I knew you could ! Great ! Hurrah ! Yeah ! Come on Poco ! --Jebulon 13:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This time it worked somehow but don't wonder if next time I look for help of an expert :) Poco a poco 17:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

File:2005-08-27 Lloyd 600 Kombi 04c.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Lloyd LS 600, built from 1955 to 1961 -- Lothar Spurzem 18:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Interesting composition, people at the very left looking in direction of the car and white arrow do fit well :) Why did you completely remove metadata? Could be interesting for other car photographers. --Tuxyso 19:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Messy composition with a disturbing background. Very soft and noisy in 100% view. I wonder if you watched the image in full resolution while judging it? If yes, I urgently advise you to read the QI guildelines. It's never ever a QI to me, sorry. - A.Savin 21:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Realized the date of the photo? 2005! Due to sensor capabilities it's OK for me. Have you looked carefully to the compositon (see my previous comment)? --Tuxyso 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • So what? Image guidelines are same for all, no matter how old the photo is. And yes, I looked carefully at the composition. - A.Savin 23:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • May I remind that first the photo was promoted by Tuxyso?  Comment @ A.Savin: Do you really think that the background of this Auto Union 1000 is better than such of the Lloyd LS 600? -- Spurzem 13:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • You're getting away from the topic. The question is, whether the image meets QI standards, and the answer is clear: no, it doesn't. Anyone who claims it to be a good quality image, either has seen it just on a mobile phone display, or isn't familiar with QI requirements. - A.Savin 20:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • First you criticized the background as „messy“ and I asked whether it should be not so good or bad compared with above named photo of an Auto Union 1000. I miss your answer. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
        • The other photo is not perfect either, but it has a more harmonic background and a significantly better technical quality. Hopefully I could help you now, if not, I'm failing to see how I can. - A.Savin 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I see that the car body panels show lot of grain, I don't think the orange is reflexion, it is not perfectly sharp either, but it stand up infront of the background, but it is alive, it describe the object in it's natural habitat and is of quality relative to the condition. If the procedure allows, it should be promoted until a better picture of the subject is proposed. --Cqui 13:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Probable Valued Image (COM:VIC), but not QI, per A.Savin's arguments and current guidelines.--Jebulon 14:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Nottinghamshire Pride 2011 MMB 30 Benjamin Bloom.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Benjamin Bloom in concert. Mattbuck 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 23:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No QI for me. Photo has only snapshot character. Distracting background (letters). Areas around the guitarist are remarkable sharper than the head of him --Tuxyso 13:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Tuxyso. The light is good however.--Jebulon 13:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

File:BMW 2002 Turbo (2008-06-28 Sp).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination BMW 2002 Turbo built from 1973 to 1974 -- Lothar Spurzem 22:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support A little dark but good quality. --Selbymay 08:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  CommentDark and disturbing cars in the back --Moroder 01:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that the photo first was promoted by Selbymay. How far the cars in the background should be disturbing I would like to have explaned. And the image to call dark seems exaggerated to me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The car itself is good, but not isolated enough from a very disturbing and distracting background (big red letters etc...) . Therefore the composition is not good, therefore it does not meet the QI criteria.--Jebulon 13:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever seen the promoted photos from oldtimer meetings last? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Jebulon. --Till.niermann 21:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Col_de_Puez_da_Col_dala_Pieres_.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination TheCol de Puez from Col dala Pieres --Moroder 15:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment It's quite soft (lack of sharpness). --Iifar 08:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Decline per above, sorry.--Jebulon 14:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Uploaded a sharpened version --Moroder 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Nottinghamshire Pride 2011 MMB 29 Benjamin Bloom.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   06:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Coimbra November 2012-7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building of the Joanin Library, University of Coimbra, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC) --  Info An improved version was uploaded -- Alvesgaspar 20:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Weak oppose Unsharp frame on the right. --Iifar 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the sharpness is fine. --King of Hearts 12:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't understand how this image is FP and not QI --The Photographer 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    Because of different criterias. A FP does not necessarily qualify as QI. --Esquilo 08:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    For me, if someone opposes a QIC for being unsharp, they ought to oppose the FPC for being unsharp as well. --King of Hearts 22:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Maracaibo_II.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Catedral de Maracaibo --Rjcastillo 20:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Nice but the car and the lamp on the right do spoil it --Moroder 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Comment Thanks for reviews. I cannot avoid the car and I not have option, was the lamp or building --Rjcastillo 00:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 11:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

File:UBahnhof-Heissen-Kirche-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Underground station Heißen Kirche previously: inconclusive result (5:5). This version is completely without HDR technique but with 2 sec exposure time thus movements of passengers are deliberately visible. --Tuxyso 15:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 Support Good quality, ghosts are not an issue with me --Dey.sandip 16:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 OpposeThe picture has definitely a "wow" effect! But I disagree, the actual version has too much saturation and contrast. The situation looks not real, the tube looks like it comes fresh from the factory. For example, compare the part around the wagon number 5104 with the original uploaded picture. --W like wiki 18:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 Question Thanks for your review. Sorry, but I neither see nor understand your point. The tube was in a very good condition. What "original" picture do you mean? This one? The "original" is an HDR and has much much saturation than the current one. For me rather the "original" than the actual one looks factory fresh. Please make notes to the image. --Tuxyso 19:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I meant that one. Sry, I dont know how to make notes. You can`t find the wagon nr on the image? --W like wiki 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I can, but I still can't see your point. Good for discussion (again) --Tuxyso 19:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
>>Loss of information (e.g. dirt)>> --W like wiki 13:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't still see your point. Of course the previous HDR has more image information than this one. I like the non-HDR version we discuss here. Some former issues (ghosts) are fixed with this version. --Tuxyso 10:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Tuxyso 10:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Acacia March 2008-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Flowers of Acaia saligna -- Alvesgaspar 00:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  OpposeNo clear boundary: Where does the plant begin and end? An Unfortunate crop. --Tuxyso 09:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree, not the best pic for wikipedia. But perfect for commons, beautiful picture! --W like wiki 16:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Better discuss? Alvesgaspar 11:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 11:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Cepaea_sylvatica_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of a West Alpine land snail, Cepaea sylvatica --Llez 06:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unsharp main objects. --Lucasbosch 09:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me --Poco a poco 10:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I would have prefered a litte less tight crop. It is easy to fix since background is plain black. Good quality anyhow. --Esquilo 06:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 08:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 23:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Jebulon 23:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Rathaus-Goes-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall of Goes, Nethderlands --Tuxyso 06:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Left upper corner overexposed --Poco a poco 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Poco, possibly it is better that you not decline directly but first give just a comment. Overexposure is easily to correct. I've resubmitted above. --Tuxyso 00:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • As I argumented in my user page I think that the overexpose ruined the tree leaves and I don't see a way to fix that. You cannot just re-submit the picture, the dicussion -if needed- should continue here Poco a poco 09:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry, i disagree, please discuss. The tree is of minor importance, overexposure only marginal. --Tuxyso 10:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco. -- A.Savin 11:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clouds are overexposed. Messing around with the levels are not going to bring out information that is already lost. --Esquilo 14:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you mark the overprocessed areas? I've not done any special processing of the clouds and would like to understand your issue. Thanks. --Tuxyso 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • What he means is that if an area is overexposed, all the pixels are #FFFFFF. Artifically darkening them isn't going to bring back the shades of grey that real life had, all you'll get is a sea of pixels that are say #DDDDDD instead. The problem with overexposure is it represents a loss of information.  Oppose Mattbuck 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above.--Jebulon 23:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all of the reviews. Obviously there is nothing to discuss here :) 5x contra is a clear result. --Tuxyso 09:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Jebulon 23:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Gamander-Ehrenpreis.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Germander speedwell / Veronica chamaedrys (a very tiny flower)
  •  Commentstill not reviewed, why? --Tuxyso 06:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Partially out of focus --Poco a poco 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  CommentFor me DoF is enough. I ask or discussion. --Tuxyso 00:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poco a poco is right, must f 15: So 1/80s, iso 250.--Archaeodontosaurus 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info As you can read on Photozone: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/394-nikkor_60_28?start=1 the resolution of my optics decrease from f11. >f11 leads to worse quality. I am not a biological photographer and prefer a shallow DoF with very good sharpness. I still do not understand why with flower photography everyhting must be sharp. For me this unwritten "law" is absudity (from the perspective of photography in general) --Tuxyso 16:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment We are here to learn from each other. This image could be exelente changing very little parameter. Leave the manuals and try for yourself. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, that is sense of QI. But the shooting conditions where difficult: Focus distance (according to my EXIFs) was 24cm. According to DOF-Calculator the DOF at f11 is 5,4mm (60mm lens at DX). At f16 DOF is 7,7mm. I am not sure if f16 or f15 (as suggested by Poco) had helped to get the stamens sharp. It was a trade-off between sharpness (at low ISO) and DOF. It is not studio photography but field photography :) I still like the photo (have it as A3 print, quality and sharpness is more than sufficient for me). --Tuxyso (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The DoF is not perfect, but it is a reasonabe compromise to get both the petas and stamens within the DoF. --Esquilo 14:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Estatua_de_Luis_I_de_Baviera,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-04-30,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Louis I of Bavaria, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Moroder 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
     Comment In my opinion colours of the monument base, the large building in the background and the flowers are much too bright for good quality. -- Lothar Spurzem 10:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose I agree with Lothar, unfavorable (too bright) lightning conditions. For sure Poco knows the German saying "Mittags zwischen elf und drei hat der Fotograf mal frei". (engl. In the noon between 11am an 3pm the photographer has free time.) Probably (I am not an expert of perspective) vertical lines of centred building are not straight. --Tuxyso 13:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, ✓ new vesion uploaded Poco a poco 19:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 Neutral I think this version looks better, sharpness is also good, but I still think that the dynamic range of the lightning situation is too extreme to shoot this scene well. E.g. look at the harsh shadows of the monument of "Ludwig I". --Tuxyso (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I support the new version. --Esquilo 20:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall brightness is almost ok now (only disturbing harsh shadows on the statue), but colors are not. Please look at windows on both sides. --Iifar 11:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Improved vesion uploaded (reduced saturation, shadows and CA) Poco a poco 19:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support convinced, the statue and overall shadow and highlight balance is much better now. Good work! --Tuxyso 22:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:FIFA WC-qualification 2014 - Austria vs. Germany 2012-09-11 - Andreas Ivanschitz 01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Andreas Ivanschitz, Austrian soccer player. --Geiserich77 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very good.--ArildV 06:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Maybe a faster shutter speed with ISO 800 or 1000 would have been better for 400mm, what do you think? Nice equipment btw. --Kadellar 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm not sure that the shutter speed has negatively affected the image. The difference between 1/125 sec and 1/500 sec are just two stops. There is no problem at all for a professional lens with image stabilization (if the player does not move). The picture is probably a cropped version of File:FIFA_WC-qualification_2014_-_Austria_vs._Germany_2012-09-11_-_Andreas_Ivanschitz_02.JPG (which tells us two things: it is an uncompressed 22 megapixel photo and the photographer had no opportunity to get closer). There may be small opportunities for improvement, perhaps with less noise reduction. But the picture has a higher quality than many other sport quality images shot in low light.--ArildV (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't know, I thought about stabilization, but I'd like to see a similar picture with 1/500 (for example) to compare and be really convinced. Thanks for your comment. --Kadellar 13:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me, the eyes aren't sharp enough for a QI --Lucasbosch 11:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good portrait! And please don't exaggerate the requirement to sharpness. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Lucasbosch. The exposure time is too long. --Esquilo 22:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good portrayal, please note 400mm focal length! Sharpness is OK. --Tuxyso 12:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    Focal length should not effect sharpness. Settings (ISO and shutter speed) was suboptimal for the situation. That effect sharpness. --Esquilo 22:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good one. -- Smial 20:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Zürich_at_night._View_from_coast_at_Wollishofen_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Zürich at night. View from coast at Wollishofen S-Bahn station. --Ximeg 21:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Vigneting and blurred --The Photographer 12:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I added the vignetting intentionally, because I find it quite artistic. Do you think it ruins the picture? Concerning blurring: the background is sharp, but the boats are moving in the water, so there is no way to get them without blurring. --Ximeg 06:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • logically vignetting is an error, the commons approach is not artistic or upload photos to alter reality. The idea is not to make a lengthy discussion to determine to what extent the alteration of reality is allowed. The thing is, there are other sites like 500px.com where you can expose this type of work. --The Photographer 15:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like this photo, especially the sky, but vigneting and unsharpnes is a problem. The boats, ok, but the background is not sharp either. The unsharpnes is either caused by bad focus or a cheap UV-filter causing the lights to blead out. --Esquilo 21:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The motion-blurred boat in foreground is too distractive to me, sorry.--Jebulon 16:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Tomoplagia_dorsal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Male of a Tomoplagia fruit-fly. --Leonardorejorge 19:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I'm not convinced by the DOF. Mattbuck 07:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It is really hard to get a higher DOF on such a small subject (The image is with magnification above 1:1). What else do you think should be in focus? Leonardorejorge 18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Macrophoto always have a ridiculously short DoF, even at very small aperture. As a rule of thumb focus should be on the eyes, but since this photos is from above I think that focus on the carapace is better. --Esquilo 13:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It would be useful if you write the size of the fly in the description, we can't know how big it is. --Kadellar 23:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done Leonardorejorge 09:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Olympus_OM_50mm_f1.8.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nederlands: Olympus OM 50mm f1.8 op een Olympus E420 body --Uberprutser 15:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Clearly QI for me. But from a compositional viewpoint I am not sure if a green smooth bokeh is the best choice for this motive. --Tuxyso 16:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No. DoF ist too short, noise is borderline, and light is bad.--Berthold Werner 17:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Berthold Werner about DoF. The camera (which is the subject here) is not entirely in focus. --JDP90 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --King of Hearts 22:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I concur with the comment of Berthold. For static photography my expectation is higher Poco a poco 11:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI for me. Natural light is not an issue. --Selbymay 12:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Natural light? Are you sure? To me it looks like flash light and exif data says flash is used ;-) --Berthold Werner 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Damn, I've been fooled :-) But I still find it good. --Selbymay 13:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't forget to change the total if you add an opinion. Thanks. --Selbymay 13:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I would find it better if all parts of the camera were sharp. This could be achieved. --Lucasbosch 13:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-12-01_14-11-24-sun-halpha.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Solar prominence. --ComputerHotline 10:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, unsharp. --Lucasbosch 19:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Wrong !! It's not unsharp. --ComputerHotline 09:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It is, but you could state that it can't be done in a different way. If you consider it being special then nominate it for a FP. We can't rate it's quality...--Lucasbosch 13:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The suns corona is not sharp in reality either, but I oppose this one due to the heavy pixelization/posterization. --Esquilo 06:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support This kind of pictures are different than what's usual. I think quality is good for this shot. --Kadellar 13:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Savigny sous malain église.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The church of Savigny-sous-Mâlain (Côte-d'Or, France). -- Velvet 00:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, overall bad image quality due to the use of a point-and-shot camera. --Lucasbosch 09:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably we should discuss. Clearly, not the best resolution of details, but all in all not a bad photo. What exactly goes agains QI, "point-and-shot camera" (the S95 is not bad) is not sufficient for me. I think the previous version of the photo is better (regarding details). --Tuxyso 16:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)}
    • For me, the image quality isn't good enough for QI, regardless of what camera was used. When looking at the tree next to the church everything seems very blurry to me. Maybe we should ask another User for a vote.--Lucasbosch 20:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are a lot of Q-images taken with similar cameras, but if you look at the crosses, the walls, the roof - there are several parts of the image seriously blurred and kind of smeared. Nice composition, but IMO no QI --DKrieger 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Compression artefacts in the version of 2 december. Chromatic aberration in the version of 28 december. The old version is better though. If you can fix the CA without spoiling it I will support. --Esquilo 06:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, back to the previous version plus tried to correct some CA. Thanks for the review. Velvet 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  weak support Not an excellent shot, but I think this version is good enough for weak support. Why is the image only half of the original one? 3 MB vs. 7MB? --Tuxyso 11:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I support the new version. --Esquilo 21:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  weak support I agree with Tuxyso --DKrieger 21:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Válvula_industrial.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Válvula industrial --Rjcastillo 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for a QI --Lucasbosch 21:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It needs an english description but the main subject is sharp enough for me. --Selbymay 10:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done english description --Rjcastillo 13:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharp below, but not above, IMO...I don't know how to vote...--Jebulon 16:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Main subject is sharp enough. DoF does not cover the background, but it doesn't have to. --Esquilo 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Peacock_Pansy,_Burdwan,_West_Bengal,_India_05_12_2012_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Peacock Pansy (Junonia almana). --JDP90 08:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moonik 09:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, the picture seems a bit blurred, therefore not sharp enough for a QI --Lucasbosch 12:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as Jebulon stated, there are differences in criterias of FP, QI, and VI. This image might not be FP but QI standard is not that strict as FP. -- JDP90 18:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not "featurable" as FP, but good enough for QI, IMO.--Jebulon 16:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Esquilo 22:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination New Michael Palace in Saint Petersburg, Russia. - A.Savin 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp rightwards.--PereslavlFoto 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, but good enough for QI--Jebulon 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Moscow 05-2012 Kremlin 11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Senate Tower of the Moscow Kremlin. - A.Savin 13:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • (+) Beautiful composition. (-) A bit overexposed. --W like wiki 18:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The image has no overexposed areas. - A.Savin 19:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The hole image is overexposed. In my view one f-stop lower or a shorter exposure time whould be better. Check the histogram. --W like wiki 00:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Histogram seems actually OK, maybe parts of the roof are a little bit bright, but it cannot be that the image is overexposed as whole; if you see sth. like that, you maybe have problems with your monitor. - A.Savin 22:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose Purple chomaric aberrations.--PereslavlFoto 13:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No significant CA. --A.Savin 13:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose Overall brightness is OK, but I think due to massive shadow enhancement (+NR) details in the shadows are missing (see notes). CAs are not an issue here. --Tuxyso 12:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info The exposition is fine, and the level of details is the same as with other A.Savin's images, so this cannot be the reason to oppose (as soon as same images were signed with QI). The only real problem is CA on the left part of the wall. Anyway, if noone cares about this, I change from oppose to weak oppose.--PereslavlFoto 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC))

File:Iglesia_de_San_Martín,_Landshut,_Alemania,_2012-05-27,_DD_15.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Martin church, Landshut, Germany --Poco a poco 13:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose CA. --Mattbuck 07:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Cannot see anything at 100%. Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 19:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • CA is blue yellow, with blue especially visible. See around all the roof tiles, top of drainpipe, gate hinges, railings... Mattbuck 07:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
✓ CA reduced Poco a poco 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Soft lighting keeps fine details. -- Smial 20:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe description should be more precise. I've added a category. QI anyway.--Jebulon 16:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks Jebulon, Poco a poco 19:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Laguna_Artificial_en_Parque_Zoologico_Barquisimeto.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Español: Laguna Artificial en Parque Zoologico Barquisimeto --The Photographer 15:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I see too mucho noise Poco a poco 14:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    El clima estaba considerablemente oscuro, dejame ver que puedo hacer --The Photographer 19:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's ok. Mattbuck 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)✓ Done I think so ^^--The Photographer 14:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 16:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 09:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_la_Redención,_Landshut,_Alemania,_2012-05-27,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Redemption church, Landshut, Germany --Poco a poco 11:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose There are a lot of small things wrong - again, an odd sort of lining/pixellation effect (this seems to be your camera), overexposure and CA top left, not quite correct perspective. --Mattbuck 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I can share some of the arguments for the othe declines, but this one, after some improvments, is QI to me. Please, let's discuss Poco a poco 15:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 20:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Llez 10:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Slight perspective distortion IMO (the structure around the rosace)--Jebulon 16:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    I am not sure what spot you are talking about, could you add a note? Poco a poco 20:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jebulon 16:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)(your favourite nitpicker Clin)
    ✓ Fixed, I'd call you rather motivator :) Poco a poco 17:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 09:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Placa._Parque_La_Marina_II-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Placa de reconocimiento. Parque La Marina --Rjcastillo 02:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK to me - A.Savin 10:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Remarkably washed out. Easy to fix. --Tuxyso 10:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment new version uploaded. Please another look ? --Rjcastillo 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Better, but now too dark. The nice brown structure of the stone is not visible at all. If you like, I can upload a version with my edits and you read re-upload it, if you like my version?! --Tuxyso 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, upload your version --Rjcastillo] 18:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you and the others think about this version? --Tuxyso (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent. much better for me --Rjcastillo 12:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportQI now, IMO. --JLPC 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support idem.--Jebulon 16:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 09:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Transporte_en_Maracaibo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Transport in Maracaibo --The Photographer 20:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I like this photo, probably the noise, especially in the dark areas, could be better managed. --Tuxyso 21:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support There is no noiseless digital sensor. Per definition. Really not a featured picture but ok for QI. --Smial 01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For sure is there no noiselesss sensor, but the noise could be much better managed via NR algorithms here. Especially in the dark parts local NR and/or masked sharpening could improve the photo. I agree with you that the photo is QI but the processing is not, let's discuss. --Tuxyso 07:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Tuxyso, You voted twice :| --The Photographer 23:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor composition, not the best lighting. -- Alvesgaspar 15:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Calle_Altstadt,_Landshut,_Alemania,_2012-05-27,_DD_20.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Altstadt St., Landshut, Germany --Poco a poco 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Surroding of the church (espcially the colorfull houses) are much too distracting. Main motive is not clear, I had said: The street with the houses and not the church. This perspective (also by you) is much better. --Tuxyso 21:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    It is like comparing 2 sides of one coin, they have nothing to do with each other. But, I agree, let's say the subject is Altstadt St. Do things change? Poco a poco 23:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    We should ask for a further opinion. Description of the photo and category is still "Heilig-Geist-Kirche (Landshut)". For me the composition is not organzized. Unfortunate crop at the left (missing letter(s)). --Tuxyso 00:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tone mapping leads to completely unnatural colours. Looks like LEGO. Or Playmobil. -- Smial 02:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I have updated the description and renamed the file. I also improved the saturation and the perspective Poco a poco 12:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the sharpness of the photo. Category is still wrong, I would suggest to fix it. --Tuxyso 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now. -- Smial 22:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 17:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Catherine Park - Pond and Upper Bath.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Upper Bath in Catherine Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. By Pedro J Pacheco. -- A.Savin 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment CA, see note Poco a poco 20:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment noise in the sky imo. CA right side. See note. --Rjcastillo 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Reduced ca, corrected shift & tilt. Please review. Really good shot with minor shortcomings. -- Smial 01:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support much better --Rjcastillo 18:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Tanque_de_agua_II.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tanque de agua --Rjcastillo 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeNot sharp enough for a QI --Lucasbosch 21:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough. Please do not exaggerate your criteria for sharpness, --JDP90 06:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Jebulon 16:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough in my awesome opinion. -- Nicolas Perrault III 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Bandera_de_Venezuela_en_yeso_I.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bandera de Venezuela --Rjcastillo 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Not sharp enough for a QI --Lucasbosch 21:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough. Please do not exaggerate your criteria for sharpness, --JDP90 06:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - it is a bit unsharp, but I'd also prefer it rotated 180 degrees. Mattbuck 10:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I don't like the extreme angle and the tight crop. Alvesgaspar 15:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:El_Libertador._Simón_Bolivar.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Simón Bolívar --Rjcastillo 03:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Lucasbosch 20:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me, probably a bit too dark. Lucasbosch, it is a good hint for the creator of an image (in the case of opposing votes) to describe what is "insufficient". --Tuxyso 09:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment A flat and vertical image like this one could be sharper, IMO...--Jebulon 16:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Sorry, Rjcastillo, you have to pay more attention to lighting, which is the most important element of all! Here, a poor lighting (from the wrong direction?) makes the subject undetailed and boring. Alvesgaspar 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank for your comment --Rjcastillo 16:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 09:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Spb 06-2012 Palace Embankment various 12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hermitage Theatre in Saint Petersburg, Russia. - A.Savin 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Strong purple CA.--PereslavlFoto 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I see no CA (and much less "strong" ones). --A.Savin 13:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry A.Savin, but PereslavlFoto is right. I've found "strong" (but what means "strong"?...) magenta CA left and right and magenta chromatic noise. I've corrected and uploaded a new version, feel free to revert if you disagree. If good now (I think so...), maybe PereslavlFoto could withdraw his opposition, because as I'm involved now, I think I cannot vote for support...--Jebulon 16:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info No CA and colour noise now. Yet I cannot support due to my own hardcore ideas about sharpness, but I advice anybody else to support and promote this image!--PereslavlFoto 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 18:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --JDP90 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Jebulon 10:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

File:MosOblast 05-2012 Dmitrov Presentation Church.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Presentation Church in Dmitrov, Russia. - A.Savin 12:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop on the right and unfortunate crop on the left, looks a bit oversaturated too, sorry. --Iifar 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong hue, too yellow. Wrong crop leftwards. Visible wires. Noise. Sharpness can be improved.--PereslavlFoto 13:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The hue is caused by low standing sun (see reflections in the cupolas). There are ways of compensating for this, but I'm not sure if it's a quality issue. --Esquilo 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Crop at the left is too tight (correctable?), but overall mood with beautiful lightning justifies QI for me. Wires, noise and missing sharpness are neglectable. --Tuxyso 12:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Only minor shortcomings. -- Smial 20:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Minor issues (there are some) are neglectable, I agree, but the crop at left is a no-go for me, sorry.--Jebulon 16:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon. Nice image, the colours seem good to me, if there are wires in reality, they are part of the motive IMO, but the crop on the left ..... --DKrieger 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Green Iguana (left side view).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Iguana --Rjcastillo 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moonik 06:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head OOF. Biopics 16:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the upfront grass is pretty distracting  Support Sorry, I wrote the comment to the wrong picture--Moroder 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Segovia_-_Alcazar_ext_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Alcázar of Segovia --Selbymay 10:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good Quality --Rjcastillo 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Tilted, and needs and identification, please (easy).--Jebulon 17:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

 Info Tilt (or distorsion) corrected, but for a proper identification your help is welcome. I just find the upper left part, Crown of Castile. Thanks of you both for reviewing :-) --Selbymay 13:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support Jette un p'tit coup d'oeil à ça ou à ça (par exemple)! Ce sont "juste" les armoiries des rois d'Espagne Habsbourg, avant les Bourbon. Ce sont aussi celles, entre autres, d'Anne d'Autriche et de Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche, épouses de Louis XIII et de Louis XIV, à travers les droits desquelles, justement, Louis XIV a revendiqué (avec succès, après une longue guerre) la couronne d'Espagne pour son petit fils, le duc d'Anjou, dont descend (presque) directement le roi actuel. Chacune des petites parties évoque une des possessions historiques familiales (Castille, Flandre, Tyrol, Bourgogne, Grenade, Autriche, Aragon etc etc...) des rois espagnols, + à cette époque le Portugal (le petit écu en haut au milieu). I see the collar, but sadly I miss the "Golden Fleece" itself, hidden by the cornice below. Good QI anyway.--Jebulon 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I think it would benefict much from a generous crop on the left and right. -- Alvesgaspar 12:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- QI for me. --JLPC 19:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 21 43009.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination FGW 43009 at Bristol Temple Meads. Mattbuck 13:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality and dull lighting. --Lucasbosch 18:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "Insufficient quality" isn't exactly very explanatory. What exactly is wrong? Mattbuck 20:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the best light, but OK for me. --Tuxyso 12:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall quality is barely OK to me. --A.Savin 19:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me. --Ralf Roletschek 20:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Orangeseitling_Phyllotopsis_nidulans.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Phyllotopsis nidulans --Holleday 19:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The guy in the top is partially OOF Poco a poco 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Biopics 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, DoF is too small. --NorbertNagel 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Montjuic_Cemetery_Barcelona_IMGP9467.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture at Montjuïc Cemetery, Barcelona. --Nikodem Nijaki 11:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too harsh lighting --Alvesgaspar 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't agree with above and ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 18:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are both overexposed and underexposed areas. --A.Savin 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support There are 496 Pixel with RGB(255,255,255) and about 8000 Pixels which are clipping in single channels. This is 0,005% resp. 0,087% of this image. Main object has no underexposd parts. Background is partly very dark, but this enhances the photo. Btw: this quality image has about 100k clipping pixels. -- Smial 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC) (vandaag mierenneuker)
  •  Oppose Background aside, lightning conditions result in too high contrast between parts of the main subject. A fill flash maybe could have helped. Moving a bit to the right (if possible) to get less vissible shadow would also have been better. --Esquilo 09:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded. --Selbymay 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is much better! --Esquilo 14:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Really impressive image, QI now --DKrieger 17:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Klosterkirche-Saarn-Altarbereich.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Altar area church of abbey Saarn --Tuxyso 19:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment light brightness disturbing imo, but picture Very Good --Rjcastillo 22:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. I agree with you regarding brightness, but even HDR did not help. Direct sunlight from the opposing window - no chance. I made some perspective correction, I hope it is still OK for you. The perspective problem was, that my shooting position was not exactly in the center of the altar. IMO it is better now. --Tuxyso 08:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    The sunlight is a big problem : some important details have been lost, especially on the left (see notes). --JLPC 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The fresco is a problem indeed. I will try to improve the photo. The altar and the area around the door is OK for me, I can also try to apply some corrections. --Tuxyso 16:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done I hopefully fixed the exposure issues, please re-review, Thanks! --Tuxyso 22:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 Support Some more magenta in white tones but the left wall is now acceptable imo : QI. --JLPC 09:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 Question What do you mean by "magenta in white tones". The white balance? I think both photos need, according to WB settings in LR, less magenta (this one: temperature -6, tint -14). Is that your point? --Tuxyso 06:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Your precise measurements show that my visual impression was good for this picture. Anyway, it wasn't an issue. Thanks to A. Savin everything is all right now. --JLPC 12:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Le_pont_Alexandre_III_-_PA00088798_-_042.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Une statue ornant un des piliers du pont Alexandre III. --Thesupermat 15:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good, even if crop is a bit tight at left. Could you add a bit more space please ? --Jebulon 16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the really tight crop. Let's go to CR. --Kadellar 09:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't oppose anymore, new version is better. Thanks for reworking. --Kadellar 19:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- As above Alvesgaspar 15:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the best crop, but the quality is good otherwise. --A.Savin 19:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop to the left. No QI to me cause letting this through makes failures like this acceptable which is not --Nichtvermittelbar 20:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support New version available. -- Smial 22:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Smial, I was to do the same thing... But it is not visible on the thumbnail above, one must open the picture in full size. Purged now.--Jebulon 11:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • We want to collect images with acceptable quality. I believe it is better to fix minor problems, if possible, than to decline an otherwise really good image. And I believe we should all work together to enhance commons. -- Smial 14:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, of course, and...no, in some cases (needs a further discussion. Shortly: some uploaders try and try again to make efforts, especially in file names or descriptions. Some other don't, never...).--Jebulon 20:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose thanks for the new version, however it's a pity the description gives this low information on the subject (Detailed view of Pont Alexandre III). --PierreSelim 11:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    Replying to myself, It's Pégase tenu par la Renommée de la Guerre by Leopold Steiner (1853-1899). --PierreSelim 13:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    Opposing till the description is fixed. --PierreSelim 13:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Description fixed. -- Smial 10:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    Not opposed anymore --PierreSelim 10:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Neptunbrunnen_Nürnberg_Putto_3.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Deutsch: Neptunbrunnen Nürnberg, Putto auf Drachen. Photo: User:Ailura --Smial 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose There's a bit of lacking sharpness --Lucasbosch 21:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment retouched the picture, plz check again -- Ailura
  •  Comment Image has been retouched, more votes? --Smial 13:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Wrong exposure choice (automatic exposue?), making an important part of the subject out of focus. Too tight crop. Alvesgaspar 15:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment maybe wrong, but on purpose (your camera uses 1/2.8 automatically?). -- Ailura
    •  Comment It can easily be seen, that Focus and DOF and exposure are obviously set to the Face of that figure. Composition (rule of thirds) supports this effect. Playing with small DOF is a common photographic technique to enhance or concentrate a special view. If this photo would have been taken with f/11 or similar to get the whole object within DOF, everyone would protest because of the disturbing Background. -- Smial 23:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      •  Comment -- I'm aware of those techniques and of their problems. If I understand well, part of the central subject was ruined in order to avoid a disturbing background. Thus the patient died of the cure rather then of the disease? Those are the difficult ways of the photographer... Alvesgaspar 00:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
        •  Comment The picture shows what i wanted it to show. i'll upload the dragon portrait later. nobody died. you don't need to like it, but stop alleging me motivations i didn't have. --Ailura 07:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
            •  Comment -- Any regular user here knows that I ever, never, make personal comments about people or their motivations! That was also the case in this nomination. In the comment above I was responding to Smial about the small DOF technique and its risks. Concentrating again on the picture, if you wanted to show the human figure only, you should have framed the photo otherwise. No, nobody died or is in risk of dying but learning to accept the technical criticism of the others is a good way of improving our own work -- Alvesgaspar 11:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
          •  Comment Sharpnes of the main subject is one of the most important factors in the QI assessment, especially for static subjects. Background is usually not. There are post-processing techniques to deal with this such as focus-stitching or brurring the background with a gaussian filter. --Esquilo 07:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
            •  Comment I don't mind if the picture fails here, but are you seriously suggesting to achieve a bokeh generally only via photoshop? this is not the picture of a dragon. --Ailura 08:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Focus is on main object, bokeh is perfect. It's hard to take a picture in this way without photoshop or such stupid things. This is a very good real photography, not a painted one. For me it's more than QI. --Stepro 11:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment -- Welcome to QIC! -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Main object is the angel's face, it is lit by the sun and is perfectly sharp. The background's bokeh is great. Quite tight crop, but QI overall. --Nichtvermittelbar 17:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar (and I'd really wish I could AGF with the two supporting accounts above). --A.Savin 19:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar and A.Savin...--Jebulon 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support main object is in focus, nice light --Ralf Roletschek 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF well used. Photography is not about 100% sharpness of every part of an image. It's a portrayal not a technical image thus QI. Postprocessed bokeh with Photoshop is (for me) a no-go. There are wonderful optics producing a much better bokeh than PS. --Tuxyso 20:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 10:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's good image --Ximeg 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Vendedor_de_Raspao_en_el_Paseo_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Vendedor de Raspao en el Paseo --The Photographer 12:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Lucasbosch 11:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Good composition, especially the sub-frame of the vehicle. Can you be more precicely, Lucasbosch. What is "Insufficient"? --Tuxyso 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Imho QI because main subject is the guy with the trolley... --Isiwal 19:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- An excellent camera and a poor exposure solution (automatic mode?) results in poor quality. There is no excuse for the extensive noise and lack of detail! -- Alvesgaspar 15:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It was noon, shadows and light make up is difficult at this time. It's no excuse, I should take the picture at a different time of day --The Photographer 10:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You misunderstood me, the terrible sin you have committed was the combination 1/1600 and ISO 320! The available light was probably enough for ISO 100 and a much lower shutter speed. ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Thanks for your review :) --The Photographer 01:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Photographer_with_telephoto_lens_on_football_game.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A professional photographer taking shorts of football players. --Ximeg 00:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good photo, but too noisy and unsharp. Especially loss of details at the back of the camera body. --Tuxyso 09:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info Image was updated --Ximeg 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  weak Noise is much better now. For me the level of detail is still not sufficient. The image is still blured and not as sharp as it could be. --Tuxyso 22:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose remains unsharp and won't become better by retouching it yet more. --Nichtvermittelbar 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is really sharp, sorry.--Jebulon 16:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. Perhaps you have moved (1/50 at 120mm), or perhaps the focus has been made a bit in front of the subject. --PierreSelim 13:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Definitely motion blur, the photographer moved his camera (from bottom left to top right or vice versa). --Kreuzschnabel 08:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --PierreSelim 13:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Peugeot_3008,_cockpit.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peugeot 3008, cockpit --CherryX 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Underexposed in the lower half and overblown at the top, definitely too harsh contrast. --A.Savin 17:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The lower half isn't underexposed, there is just nothing to see; the seats were shifted backwards to take this panorama. --CherryX 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed dashboard and too small DOF, so e.g. the part with the climate control and the gear lever is unsharp. --Nichtvermittelbar 13:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Partly burnt out highlights, no details in shadow, artifacts, noise, composition (background). -- Smial 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Estación_de_tren_São_Bento,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_08.JPG

[edit]

 Support Good quality. --ArildV 09:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Sorry, I disagree, what are the bluish reflexes --Moroder 10:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean the purple ones, to be honest, no clue, cannot tell you now Poco a poco 19:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Reflexions (please see notes) are disturbing (flash ? glass?), sorry--Jebulon 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruhrort-in-Flammen-2009.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Firework at Harbour party "Ruhrort in Flammen" in Duisburg previously not reviewed --Tuxyso 16:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Beautiful but very unsharp, and overblown at the highlights. --A.Savin 11:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. I think sharpness is on the left bridge pile, but could be better.  Question But I do not know how to avoid blown out areas with long exposure times. How would you manage it? I think it is normal with a firework at night and should not avoid QI. --Tuxyso 12:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Smaller aperture would have both given a deeper DoF and avoided overexposure. Easy to say in retrospect, but not so easy when you are standing there in the dark. --Esquilo 10:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It were my first attempts of firework photography. As you already stated: In retrospect it is easy to say which parameters were wrong... But I think you're right that probably somethin about f11 (+RAW) had helped. --Tuxyso 15:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Callao,_Preciados_y_Gran_Vía.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Puerta del Sol of different buildings in Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 13:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Unsharp --A.Savin 11:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    It's not, you can see the neon tubes inside the Schweppes advertisement, which are 350 metres away. I ask for discussion. --Kadellar 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It _is_ unsharp. Seems to be a great depiction of the limitations of cheaper lenses. --Nichtvermittelbar 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Unsharpness results from air turbulence by heat. I don't believe, a better lens would be able to avoid this. -- Smial 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is not a bad lens and I don't find this photo very unsharp as in blurred or unfocused. Hovever, there is significant heat haze causing wave-patterns. --Esquilo 10:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you two for your comments. Nichtvermittelbar, I accept donations to buy this or this, for example, and then I'll retry this shot. You wouldn't dare say that if you saw a different thing on the exif data... --Kadellar 21:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
        • By the way... if this is caused (I don't know exactly where, I think I haven't seen this before) by heat turbulence in the air and this day it was very cold, in which kind of weather should I take this picture again to avoid that effect? If it can't be improved in any way, the image is a good as it can be (until I have my new L tele lenses, of course...). --Kadellar 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    That a photo is "as good as it can be" does not necessarily means it is a QI. Heat turbulence is caused by warm air rising, but hot weather is not a prerequisite. Worst heat turbulence I've seen was in wintertime and at -10 °C. --Esquilo 09:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe in spring, without any heating or air conditioning? That street is full of shops (no empty walls at all) and usually crowded, it will be difficult. --Kadellar 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Westbury railway station MMB 43 43181.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 43181 at Westbury. Mattbuck 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline To me, lacking sharpness and a rather harsh contrast. --A.Savin 10:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have sharpened it and tried a new colour balance due to not having worked out the settings on a new camera yet. It was a very sunny day which explains the contrast I think. Mattbuck 14:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Set "Highlight Correction" to "on" (your manual p. 189) and also set "Expanded Sensitivity" in custom menu to "on" (your manual p. 81). Set ISO to 200. This will give somewhat better results in such lighting situations. You can also try "Shadow correction" (your manual p. 190), but in my experience this is less usefull. Using RAW gives you much more options to enhance your images. -- Smial 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Will you please stop with the RAW evangelising. I'm not interested, it's just getting annoying. Mattbuck 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Now if you're not willing to accept a friendly advise I wonder if QIC is really sth. for you, --A.Savin 20:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Except the RAW notice, all the other functions are directly working on JPG in the k-x. Additionally this camera can correct CA and distortion with known DA lenses, but this works quite slow. On the other hand: Maybe the hints can help other photographers. -- Smial 11:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Polish War Memorial MMB 03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Polish War Memorial, RAF Northolt. Mattbuck 12:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Very dark and odd composition. --Selbymay 09:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    I'm unsure what's odd about the composition - I was at the base of the pillar (column, whatever) looking up. As for being dark, it was in shadow, but I can probably lighten it a bit. Mattbuck 12:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Why "too dark"? Looks natural to me. -- Smial 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Mattbuck. The angle is way too steep, the bottom part is missing and all of the subject is in shadow. --Esquilo 09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark and blue cast. Wrong light.--Jebulon 23:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fringilla coelebs (common chaffinch) (by Merops) --Matthew Proctor 03:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI author must be commons user. --JDP90 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Merops is a commons user... -- --Matthew Proctor 14 December 2012
    Look at the author in the file description. It redirects to a web page. If the author and the uploader is same then it is ok. -- JDP90 08:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Merops is Andreas Trepte. That is evidet from his user-page. --Esquilo 10:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Фонтан в нижнем парке.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain detail in Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. By Виктория Балаян. - A.Savin 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If you state, that this was shot in Peterhof, then the category (Kislovodsk) is WRONG. Please check it. It also would be very good to apply a geotag. --Ximeg 23:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it's my fault, of course it's in Kislovodsk. --A.Savin 07:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I reckon the locationis sorted out now - good image (would IMO be still better, it the shadow on the bottom would be cropped, looks like the head), good quality --DKrieger 20:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For me it's QI if you fix the bottom shadow --Moroder 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:ERA R4D u. Cooper T45 (2011-08-13 Sp).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination ERA R4D and Cooper T 45/51 at Oldtimer Grand Prix of AvD on Nürburgring in 2011 -- Lothar Spurzem 22:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me. --Kadellar 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree - too noisy when viewed in full resolution. --NorbertNagel 20:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ack NorbertNagel + unsharp + purple CA at the borderline. --A.Savin 09:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Unsharp? OK! I see you obviously did never take a photo of a racing car in motion. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Maria_Hilf_Kirche_in_Seis.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Our Lady Help church in Seis Kastelruth --Moroder 09:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Tilt distortion over-corrected. --Danrok 11:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review, I uploaded a corrected version --Moroder 12:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Bubo_virginianus_DM.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Great Horned Owl, Domaine Maizerets, Quebec City, Canada --Cephas 16:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Nice. --Selbymay 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Schone van verre moa verre van schone. or blurry feathers at 100%. Biopics 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good shot! It would be nice if the owl would stand out more from the background. Perhaps by adjusting the brightness the background somewhat. --Esquilo 11:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ik ben het met B.p. And I see some chromatic noise (look at the beak).--Jebulon 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:London MMB 68 Polish War Memorial.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Polish War Memorial, London. Mattbuck 13:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Good quality. --Ajepbah 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    Additional  Comment: The vertical is a little bit tilted. Is it possible to apply a slight rotation? --Ajepbah 22:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    I think the issue is I was not quite central. I'll try a distortion tomorrow. Mattbuck 02:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Mattbuck, imo it looks blueish, because it lies in the shadow, maybe a warmer WB can improve the image. --Kadellar 21:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    The blue is realistic for the lighting at the time. Tried different colour balances, it just makes it look green, which is worse. An attempt to make it less green then made it more blue. I don't think a deblueinated image would look right. Mattbuck 20:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, thanks for trying to get an improved version. I'll stay neutral. --Kadellar 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Colours are realistic. DOF is somewhat small, but not really a problem. -- Smial 10:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as for #File:Polish War Memorial MMB 03.jpg above. A bit better crop though. A flash would have been good. --Esquilo 10:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 09:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Zoutelande-Promenade-Sonnenuntergang.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset at the promenade of Zoutelande --Tuxyso 19:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose  Neutral There are different problems, see notes Poco a poco 22:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ DoneI've fixed your issues. Please re-review. --Tuxyso 06:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It is better, but the house is still distorted and the people (incl. the lady with that distracting jersey), too. Poco a poco 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I think the lady is not distracting much (we are at QI not at FP). I've corrected again the distortion. Do you think a different crop is better? --Tuxyso 08:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Ok, I'd leave it at neutral, it is much better indeed Poco a poco 21:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
            • What do you think about the alternative crop? --Tuxyso 07:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The "stretched" people at the right bother me a bit, but otherwise OK for QI. --A.Savin 19:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I assume this is a HDR. There is some merging-missmatch, mainly at the waves to the left and the people to the right. But the most annoying problem that the people and the wastebasket to the right are stretched horizontaly. If that can be fixed, I will support. Beautiful photo anyway.

--Esquilo 09:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is an HDR. Could take take a look on this crop: . What do you think? Is it better? --Tuxyso 10:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, it got rid of most of the problem, but now you don't see the promenade. Anyway, it's a beautifull picture. --Esquilo 11:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the promenade is an important part of the photo, I withdraw the crop. --Tuxyso 12:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. I like crop more --Ximeg 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Orgel-Klosterkirche-Saarn.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Organ of church of abbey Saarn --Tuxyso 20:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice quality but the perspective correction distorted a lot the pillar on the right (visible on its capital). --Selbymay 22:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I cannot really see your point. You're right perspective correction was applied, but I think sharpness is still at a high level. Can you mark the mentioned areas. No chance to photograph the organ another way. The organ is high on the wall, I stepped back as far as I could. Do you think a version without correction is better? --Tuxyso 07:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course not, note added. QI anyhow, sharpness and composition are very good, but the distorsion of the capital could easily be reduced IMO. --Selbymay 09:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I would gladly correct, but I don't know how to do it. I use Lightroom 4. Have you got a hint? If you like, you can correct. --Tuxyso 10:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, I tried but it wasn't as easy as I thought. It implies to reshape the whole pillar. So it'll be good like this. :-) (but I hope you understood the minor flaw I pointed.) --Selbymay 09:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd like another opinion about the loss of details on the left (see notes). --JLPC 11:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 Info Sorry, but with this photo I disagree with you. What details do you expect on a white wall? It is sunlight I cannot switch it off :) --Tuxyso 13:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 Info Thanks for your suppressing "completely" but this word wasn't a problem for me. Just one point : I didn't write " Oppose" at any time and I didn't ask anyone to write it for me. I only asked for someone else's advice.--JLPC 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I did it, it is my fault, but as the pic is in CR, for that I think that a "support" vote needs an "oppose", if not, the picture is promoted, and not discussed. Sorry for misunderstanding. But at the end it was useful: the picture is far much better now !One point: "Completely" was written before my intervention.--Jebulon 15:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done "Completely" was a bit harsh thus I corrected it. I've uploaded (hopefully) improved version. The previous "loss of details" on the left wall is a reflection from a balustrade. If you think this one is better, please re-review and support :) It is now an HDR with -4 (Pseudo), -2, 0, +2, +4 (Pseudo) --Tuxyso 22:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Support Less magenta in the white tones, lest contrast. The lower part of the picture could have been darker (the main subject is the organ) but it's easily fixable. Apart from this slight restriction I completely agree with your work. QI. --JLPC 09:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good QI now, with a very good job on the overexposed areas at left. Yes, the lower part could have been darker, and moreover I find it a bit busy in comparison with the rest of the picture. If I have to re-use this image, I'd crop it as suggested by note (only an idea)...--Jebulon 15:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review. I see your point on the lower part, I will work on it later - I think it is fixable via gradient filters in LR. Probably if it is darker it is not as busy as currently. According to the license you can re-use it, but I prefer my crop. With your suggestion the photo loses deepness (missing foreground and missing background (the area around and behind the first and second door)) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, maybe you are right. Anyway, a new QI !--Jebulon 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I've corrected the brightness of the lower parts. I think it is better this way. Thanks for the advice. --Tuxyso 08:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Not good now but... very good imo ! --JLPC 11:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank you very much for your elaborate reviews. Due to your advices the photo could be visibly improved. --Tuxyso 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Tuxyso 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Euston station MMB 30 390026 43062 390010 221116.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trains at London Euston. Mattbuck 13:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 13:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of CA. --A.Savin 13:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    But negligible. -- Lothar Spurzem 14:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, CA is not negligible. It is noticable in the whole left 1/4 of the picture. --Esquilo 07:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA.--Jebulon 11:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ CA has been fixed - unsure why this image was so aberrant, that lens was pretty good usually. Mattbuck 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Better, but there are still CA. To me, it's hardly worthy desaturating everything manually. Consider shooting RAW and correcting CA's by converter. --A.Savin 13:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Better, but there are still CA. To me, it's hardly worthy desaturating everything manually. Consider shooting RAW and correcting CA's by converter. --Jebulon 15:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      Which of you actually said that? And that camera was not capable of shooting RAW, and, frankly, I'm not interesting in fitting 10 photos to a 32GB card. Mattbuck 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Of course the *istDs can shoot raw, and if you had used this, you would have found out, that the *istDs can deliver MUCH better quality with a good lens. The JPG engine in that camera is not the finest one. -- Smial 21:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    It was? Meh, whatever, it was several years ago. But really, I look at it this way: currently there is space on my 32GB card for whatever's there plus ~2700 JPEGs at highest quality. That compares to ~600-1000 at RAW quality. I'll stick to JPEGs thanks. Just decline if you don't like it. Mattbuck 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --King of Hearts 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Rajavartiolaitoksen_OH-HVJ_-helikopteri_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Agusta Bell 412 -helicopter of Finnish Border Guard. --Kallerna 09:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good for me -- Lothar Spurzem 10:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - almost half the image is overexposed. Mattbuck 17:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)*
  •  Support Good shot. If the clouds were not overexposed, it would be disruptive. Taken like this, the chopper stands out, which is what matters. -- Nicolas Perrault III 21:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- As above, maybe it can be corrected. Alvesgaspar 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Bright sky, but not totaly washed out. Exposure have to be set high to make the helicopter (main subject) stand out as more than a dark silouette. --Esquilo 07:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt out sky. -- Smial 23:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt out sky.--Jebulon 11:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    Is this a photo of a helicopter or is it a photo of a patch of sky? --Esquilo 14:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    This is a photo of an helicopter on a burnt sky.--Jebulon 15:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo of a helicopter --Ximeg 17:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support main object is ok. --Ralf Roletschek 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • A picture is a whole, not only made by the "main object"...--Jebulon 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, sorry. --Kadellar 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Villebois_site.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination North-west view of the castle, village and church, Villebois-Lavalette, Charente, France. --JLPC 19:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very well done --Rjcastillo 19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    It's a good composition I also like it. But I think there is something wrong with your processing. Details disappear, pixel merge with their neighbours, especially at the yellow rape field and with the houses and trees in the background. Fixable? --Tuxyso 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    No better file to upload. --JLPC 13:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Possibly a problem of too strong noise reduction. -- Smial 10:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done ? -- New try with Selbymay's help (he did a lot !). Is it QI now ? Anyway, thanks to him and to the three reviewers. --JLPC 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now. And really a nice composition. -- Smial 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Cayambe 13:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 17:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think with your version of 7 December there war something very strange with the processing. Good improvement. Details could be better, but I think nonetheless QI now. --Tuxyso 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Tuxyso. Voilà un "support" inutile, mais qui est donné de bon coeur !--Jebulon 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 01:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Photographer_with_telephoto_lens_on_football_game.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A professional photographer taking shorts of football players. --Ximeg 00:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good photo, but too noisy and unsharp. Especially loss of details at the back of the camera body. --Tuxyso 09:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info Image was updated --Ximeg 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  weak Noise is much better now. For me the level of detail is still not sufficient. The image is still blured and not as sharp as it could be. --Tuxyso 22:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose remains unsharp and won't become better by retouching it yet more. --Nichtvermittelbar 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is really sharp, sorry.--Jebulon 16:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. Perhaps you have moved (1/50 at 120mm), or perhaps the focus has been made a bit in front of the subject. --PierreSelim 13:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Definitely motion blur, the photographer moved his camera (from bottom left to top right or vice versa). --Kreuzschnabel 08:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --PierreSelim 13:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Peugeot_3008,_cockpit.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peugeot 3008, cockpit --CherryX 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Underexposed in the lower half and overblown at the top, definitely too harsh contrast. --A.Savin 17:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The lower half isn't underexposed, there is just nothing to see; the seats were shifted backwards to take this panorama. --CherryX 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed dashboard and too small DOF, so e.g. the part with the climate control and the gear lever is unsharp. --Nichtvermittelbar 13:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Partly burnt out highlights, no details in shadow, artifacts, noise, composition (background). -- Smial 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Estación_de_tren_São_Bento,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_08.JPG

[edit]

 Support Good quality. --ArildV 09:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Sorry, I disagree, what are the bluish reflexes --Moroder 10:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean the purple ones, to be honest, no clue, cannot tell you now Poco a poco 19:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Reflexions (please see notes) are disturbing (flash ? glass?), sorry--Jebulon 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruhrort-in-Flammen-2009.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Firework at Harbour party "Ruhrort in Flammen" in Duisburg previously not reviewed --Tuxyso 16:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Beautiful but very unsharp, and overblown at the highlights. --A.Savin 11:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. I think sharpness is on the left bridge pile, but could be better.  Question But I do not know how to avoid blown out areas with long exposure times. How would you manage it? I think it is normal with a firework at night and should not avoid QI. --Tuxyso 12:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Smaller aperture would have both given a deeper DoF and avoided overexposure. Easy to say in retrospect, but not so easy when you are standing there in the dark. --Esquilo 10:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It were my first attempts of firework photography. As you already stated: In retrospect it is easy to say which parameters were wrong... But I think you're right that probably somethin about f11 (+RAW) had helped. --Tuxyso 15:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Callao,_Preciados_y_Gran_Vía.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Puerta del Sol of different buildings in Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 13:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Unsharp --A.Savin 11:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    It's not, you can see the neon tubes inside the Schweppes advertisement, which are 350 metres away. I ask for discussion. --Kadellar 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It _is_ unsharp. Seems to be a great depiction of the limitations of cheaper lenses. --Nichtvermittelbar 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Unsharpness results from air turbulence by heat. I don't believe, a better lens would be able to avoid this. -- Smial 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is not a bad lens and I don't find this photo very unsharp as in blurred or unfocused. Hovever, there is significant heat haze causing wave-patterns. --Esquilo 10:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you two for your comments. Nichtvermittelbar, I accept donations to buy this or this, for example, and then I'll retry this shot. You wouldn't dare say that if you saw a different thing on the exif data... --Kadellar 21:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
        • By the way... if this is caused (I don't know exactly where, I think I haven't seen this before) by heat turbulence in the air and this day it was very cold, in which kind of weather should I take this picture again to avoid that effect? If it can't be improved in any way, the image is a good as it can be (until I have my new L tele lenses, of course...). --Kadellar 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    That a photo is "as good as it can be" does not necessarily means it is a QI. Heat turbulence is caused by warm air rising, but hot weather is not a prerequisite. Worst heat turbulence I've seen was in wintertime and at -10 °C. --Esquilo 09:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe in spring, without any heating or air conditioning? That street is full of shops (no empty walls at all) and usually crowded, it will be difficult. --Kadellar 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Westbury railway station MMB 43 43181.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 43181 at Westbury. Mattbuck 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline To me, lacking sharpness and a rather harsh contrast. --A.Savin 10:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have sharpened it and tried a new colour balance due to not having worked out the settings on a new camera yet. It was a very sunny day which explains the contrast I think. Mattbuck 14:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Set "Highlight Correction" to "on" (your manual p. 189) and also set "Expanded Sensitivity" in custom menu to "on" (your manual p. 81). Set ISO to 200. This will give somewhat better results in such lighting situations. You can also try "Shadow correction" (your manual p. 190), but in my experience this is less usefull. Using RAW gives you much more options to enhance your images. -- Smial 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Will you please stop with the RAW evangelising. I'm not interested, it's just getting annoying. Mattbuck 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Now if you're not willing to accept a friendly advise I wonder if QIC is really sth. for you, --A.Savin 20:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Except the RAW notice, all the other functions are directly working on JPG in the k-x. Additionally this camera can correct CA and distortion with known DA lenses, but this works quite slow. On the other hand: Maybe the hints can help other photographers. -- Smial 11:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Polish War Memorial MMB 03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Polish War Memorial, RAF Northolt. Mattbuck 12:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Very dark and odd composition. --Selbymay 09:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    I'm unsure what's odd about the composition - I was at the base of the pillar (column, whatever) looking up. As for being dark, it was in shadow, but I can probably lighten it a bit. Mattbuck 12:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Why "too dark"? Looks natural to me. -- Smial 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Mattbuck. The angle is way too steep, the bottom part is missing and all of the subject is in shadow. --Esquilo 09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark and blue cast. Wrong light.--Jebulon 23:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fringilla coelebs (common chaffinch) (by Merops) --Matthew Proctor 03:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI author must be commons user. --JDP90 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Merops is a commons user... -- --Matthew Proctor 14 December 2012
    Look at the author in the file description. It redirects to a web page. If the author and the uploader is same then it is ok. -- JDP90 08:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Merops is Andreas Trepte. That is evidet from his user-page. --Esquilo 10:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Фонтан в нижнем парке.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain detail in Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. By Виктория Балаян. - A.Savin 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If you state, that this was shot in Peterhof, then the category (Kislovodsk) is WRONG. Please check it. It also would be very good to apply a geotag. --Ximeg 23:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it's my fault, of course it's in Kislovodsk. --A.Savin 07:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I reckon the locationis sorted out now - good image (would IMO be still better, it the shadow on the bottom would be cropped, looks like the head), good quality --DKrieger 20:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For me it's QI if you fix the bottom shadow --Moroder 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:ERA R4D u. Cooper T45 (2011-08-13 Sp).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination ERA R4D and Cooper T 45/51 at Oldtimer Grand Prix of AvD on Nürburgring in 2011 -- Lothar Spurzem 22:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me. --Kadellar 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree - too noisy when viewed in full resolution. --NorbertNagel 20:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ack NorbertNagel + unsharp + purple CA at the borderline. --A.Savin 09:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Unsharp? OK! I see you obviously did never take a photo of a racing car in motion. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Maria_Hilf_Kirche_in_Seis.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Our Lady Help church in Seis Kastelruth --Moroder 09:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Tilt distortion over-corrected. --Danrok 11:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review, I uploaded a corrected version --Moroder 12:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Bubo_virginianus_DM.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Great Horned Owl, Domaine Maizerets, Quebec City, Canada --Cephas 16:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Nice. --Selbymay 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Schone van verre moa verre van schone. or blurry feathers at 100%. Biopics 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good shot! It would be nice if the owl would stand out more from the background. Perhaps by adjusting the brightness the background somewhat. --Esquilo 11:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ik ben het met B.p. And I see some chromatic noise (look at the beak).--Jebulon 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:London MMB 68 Polish War Memorial.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Polish War Memorial, London. Mattbuck 13:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Good quality. --Ajepbah 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    Additional  Comment: The vertical is a little bit tilted. Is it possible to apply a slight rotation? --Ajepbah 22:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    I think the issue is I was not quite central. I'll try a distortion tomorrow. Mattbuck 02:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Mattbuck, imo it looks blueish, because it lies in the shadow, maybe a warmer WB can improve the image. --Kadellar 21:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    The blue is realistic for the lighting at the time. Tried different colour balances, it just makes it look green, which is worse. An attempt to make it less green then made it more blue. I don't think a deblueinated image would look right. Mattbuck 20:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, thanks for trying to get an improved version. I'll stay neutral. --Kadellar 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Colours are realistic. DOF is somewhat small, but not really a problem. -- Smial 10:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as for #File:Polish War Memorial MMB 03.jpg above. A bit better crop though. A flash would have been good. --Esquilo 10:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 09:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Zoutelande-Promenade-Sonnenuntergang.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset at the promenade of Zoutelande --Tuxyso 19:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose  Neutral There are different problems, see notes Poco a poco 22:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ DoneI've fixed your issues. Please re-review. --Tuxyso 06:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It is better, but the house is still distorted and the people (incl. the lady with that distracting jersey), too. Poco a poco 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I think the lady is not distracting much (we are at QI not at FP). I've corrected again the distortion. Do you think a different crop is better? --Tuxyso 08:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Ok, I'd leave it at neutral, it is much better indeed Poco a poco 21:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
            • What do you think about the alternative crop? --Tuxyso 07:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The "stretched" people at the right bother me a bit, but otherwise OK for QI. --A.Savin 19:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I assume this is a HDR. There is some merging-missmatch, mainly at the waves to the left and the people to the right. But the most annoying problem that the people and the wastebasket to the right are stretched horizontaly. If that can be fixed, I will support. Beautiful photo anyway.

--Esquilo 09:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is an HDR. Could take take a look on this crop: . What do you think? Is it better? --Tuxyso 10:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, it got rid of most of the problem, but now you don't see the promenade. Anyway, it's a beautifull picture. --Esquilo 11:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the promenade is an important part of the photo, I withdraw the crop. --Tuxyso 12:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. I like crop more --Ximeg 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Orgel-Klosterkirche-Saarn.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Organ of church of abbey Saarn --Tuxyso 20:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice quality but the perspective correction distorted a lot the pillar on the right (visible on its capital). --Selbymay 22:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I cannot really see your point. You're right perspective correction was applied, but I think sharpness is still at a high level. Can you mark the mentioned areas. No chance to photograph the organ another way. The organ is high on the wall, I stepped back as far as I could. Do you think a version without correction is better? --Tuxyso 07:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course not, note added. QI anyhow, sharpness and composition are very good, but the distorsion of the capital could easily be reduced IMO. --Selbymay 09:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I would gladly correct, but I don't know how to do it. I use Lightroom 4. Have you got a hint? If you like, you can correct. --Tuxyso 10:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, I tried but it wasn't as easy as I thought. It implies to reshape the whole pillar. So it'll be good like this. :-) (but I hope you understood the minor flaw I pointed.) --Selbymay 09:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd like another opinion about the loss of details on the left (see notes). --JLPC 11:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 Info Sorry, but with this photo I disagree with you. What details do you expect on a white wall? It is sunlight I cannot switch it off :) --Tuxyso 13:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 Info Thanks for your suppressing "completely" but this word wasn't a problem for me. Just one point : I didn't write " Oppose" at any time and I didn't ask anyone to write it for me. I only asked for someone else's advice.--JLPC 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I did it, it is my fault, but as the pic is in CR, for that I think that a "support" vote needs an "oppose", if not, the picture is promoted, and not discussed. Sorry for misunderstanding. But at the end it was useful: the picture is far much better now !One point: "Completely" was written before my intervention.--Jebulon 15:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done "Completely" was a bit harsh thus I corrected it. I've uploaded (hopefully) improved version. The previous "loss of details" on the left wall is a reflection from a balustrade. If you think this one is better, please re-review and support :) It is now an HDR with -4 (Pseudo), -2, 0, +2, +4 (Pseudo) --Tuxyso 22:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Support Less magenta in the white tones, lest contrast. The lower part of the picture could have been darker (the main subject is the organ) but it's easily fixable. Apart from this slight restriction I completely agree with your work. QI. --JLPC 09:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good QI now, with a very good job on the overexposed areas at left. Yes, the lower part could have been darker, and moreover I find it a bit busy in comparison with the rest of the picture. If I have to re-use this image, I'd crop it as suggested by note (only an idea)...--Jebulon 15:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review. I see your point on the lower part, I will work on it later - I think it is fixable via gradient filters in LR. Probably if it is darker it is not as busy as currently. According to the license you can re-use it, but I prefer my crop. With your suggestion the photo loses deepness (missing foreground and missing background (the area around and behind the first and second door)) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, maybe you are right. Anyway, a new QI !--Jebulon 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I've corrected the brightness of the lower parts. I think it is better this way. Thanks for the advice. --Tuxyso 08:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Not good now but... very good imo ! --JLPC 11:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank you very much for your elaborate reviews. Due to your advices the photo could be visibly improved. --Tuxyso 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Tuxyso 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Euston station MMB 30 390026 43062 390010 221116.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trains at London Euston. Mattbuck 13:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 13:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of CA. --A.Savin 13:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    But negligible. -- Lothar Spurzem 14:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, CA is not negligible. It is noticable in the whole left 1/4 of the picture. --Esquilo 07:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA.--Jebulon 11:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ CA has been fixed - unsure why this image was so aberrant, that lens was pretty good usually. Mattbuck 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Better, but there are still CA. To me, it's hardly worthy desaturating everything manually. Consider shooting RAW and correcting CA's by converter. --A.Savin 13:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Better, but there are still CA. To me, it's hardly worthy desaturating everything manually. Consider shooting RAW and correcting CA's by converter. --Jebulon 15:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      Which of you actually said that? And that camera was not capable of shooting RAW, and, frankly, I'm not interesting in fitting 10 photos to a 32GB card. Mattbuck 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Of course the *istDs can shoot raw, and if you had used this, you would have found out, that the *istDs can deliver MUCH better quality with a good lens. The JPG engine in that camera is not the finest one. -- Smial 21:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    It was? Meh, whatever, it was several years ago. But really, I look at it this way: currently there is space on my 32GB card for whatever's there plus ~2700 JPEGs at highest quality. That compares to ~600-1000 at RAW quality. I'll stick to JPEGs thanks. Just decline if you don't like it. Mattbuck 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --King of Hearts 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Rajavartiolaitoksen_OH-HVJ_-helikopteri_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Agusta Bell 412 -helicopter of Finnish Border Guard. --Kallerna 09:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good for me -- Lothar Spurzem 10:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - almost half the image is overexposed. Mattbuck 17:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)*
  •  Support Good shot. If the clouds were not overexposed, it would be disruptive. Taken like this, the chopper stands out, which is what matters. -- Nicolas Perrault III 21:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- As above, maybe it can be corrected. Alvesgaspar 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Bright sky, but not totaly washed out. Exposure have to be set high to make the helicopter (main subject) stand out as more than a dark silouette. --Esquilo 07:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt out sky. -- Smial 23:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt out sky.--Jebulon 11:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    Is this a photo of a helicopter or is it a photo of a patch of sky? --Esquilo 14:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    This is a photo of an helicopter on a burnt sky.--Jebulon 15:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo of a helicopter --Ximeg 17:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support main object is ok. --Ralf Roletschek 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • A picture is a whole, not only made by the "main object"...--Jebulon 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, sorry. --Kadellar 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Villebois_site.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination North-west view of the castle, village and church, Villebois-Lavalette, Charente, France. --JLPC 19:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very well done --Rjcastillo 19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    It's a good composition I also like it. But I think there is something wrong with your processing. Details disappear, pixel merge with their neighbours, especially at the yellow rape field and with the houses and trees in the background. Fixable? --Tuxyso 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    No better file to upload. --JLPC 13:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Possibly a problem of too strong noise reduction. -- Smial 10:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done ? -- New try with Selbymay's help (he did a lot !). Is it QI now ? Anyway, thanks to him and to the three reviewers. --JLPC 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now. And really a nice composition. -- Smial 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Cayambe 13:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 17:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think with your version of 7 December there war something very strange with the processing. Good improvement. Details could be better, but I think nonetheless QI now. --Tuxyso 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Tuxyso. Voilà un "support" inutile, mais qui est donné de bon coeur !--Jebulon 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 01:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Chess_in_Lindenhof_park_2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Big chess in Lindenhof park, Zürich. --Ximeg 09:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Several issues here, see notes. I fear that the halos are not correctible Poco a poco 11:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, these halos are the result of a diffusing filter (have you seen the notes under photo?), which gives this glowing effect and softens the image. --Ximeg 13:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I didn't read that. Is that desirable for a QI image? I don't think so, since you're introducing effects that are not real. Maybe you'd like to move this nomination to CR Poco a poco 10:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 08:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Zürich-St._Peterhofstatt.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Peterhofstatt in Zürich. Drinking fountain is seen on the foreground. --Ximeg 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. The houses are falling apart, mybe you can fix it? --Moroder 18:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done - fixed --Ximeg 09:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 08:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Hedgehog_light_in_Zürich.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hedgehog light in the old city center of Zürich. --Ximeg 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. Distracting window on the right --Moroder 18:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done - cropped --Ximeg 10:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 08:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Pierre_Cohen_-_Marriage_equality_demonstration_-_2012-12-16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pierre Cohen, mayor of Toulouse, during a demonstration for gay marriage and equality rights. --PierreSelim 08:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose It's noisy and a bit blurred, sorry --A.Savin 10:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • but this are 182 mm - please let us discuss! for me its  Support QI --Ralf Roletschek 12:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The image needs to be sharpened, but apart from that it's a QI to me. Well used DOF, quite well cropped and good background unsharpness. The "noise" is just the kind of analog-like background unsharpness which I like very much from full format DSLRs. --Nichtvermittelbar 10:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very slightly noisy due to ISO400, but still sufficient for QI, I think. The overall Q as pointed out by other users is excellent. --NorbertNagel 12:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good one. This is no studio shot, where you have any possible control. It's a moving subject, not a church that cannot run away while composing. Very nice colours and bokeh. -- Smial 00:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Savin, the light is not that bad, portrayal could be better. --Tuxyso 09:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted Tuxyso 09:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Imperial Council Door in the Topkapı Palace, Istanbul, Turkey.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Imperial Council Door in the Topkapı Palace, Istanbul, Turkey. --Moonik 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Horizontals not horizontal. --Mattbuck 14:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    Improved file uploaded --Moonik 17:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    Betterm but right hand side leans in. Mattbuck 18:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    I tried but I have not success to fix it. --Moonik 09:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
     Info Thanks to JLPC a new attempt to fix the tilt. --Moonik 13:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 08:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Bressuire_-_Chateau_Bressuire_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle of Bressuire - Deux-Sèvres, France --Selbymay 08:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment There's some chromatic aberration which needs correcting --Rjcastillo 12:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the hint, ✓ Done I tried to correct, tell me if it's ok. --Selbymay 09:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - there's some blurring at the rooftops which is annoying. Mattbuck 14:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 08:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Treasury Gate, Dolmabahçe Palace, Istanbul, Turkey 002.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Treasury Gate of the Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul, Turkey. --Moonik 10:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • The picture is really nice but the crop at the bottom unfortunate Poco a poco 16:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. Mattbuck 14:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 08:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Palma_de_Mallorca_Cathedral_portal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the Cathedral in Palma de Mallorca --Heuschrecke 18:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to disagree. I see some flaws like overall unsharpness in spite of (too strong) sharpening attempts, pincushion distortion (see note), and I'm afraid the denoising is a bit to harsh IMO. Little (acceptable) CA too. I ask for a third opinion in CR, please. Sorry again, because it looks good (especially the light) in thumbnail and preview.-- Jebulon 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
     Info Used gentler sharpening; corrected pincushion; overall sharpness couldn't be done better I'm afraid (image size is quite big, though) - Heuschrecke 23:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe not perfect but quite beautiful and good enough for QI. --Selbymay 20:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Spherical and chromatic aberration in upper parts. Barely acceptable. --Esquilo 10:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, we are slowly going to be more and more lenient... too lenient...--Jebulon 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really nice, but per Jebulon --DKrieger 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 08:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-12-11_22-16-29-comp-elec-42f.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Electronics components --ComputerHotline 09:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Good Quality --Rjcastillo 17:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    There are some odd artifacts in the background, see note. Also: What is the subject? Only technique described. --Smial 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 Support Good image --Ximeg 10:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Hippolyte.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Église Saint-Hippolyte, Québec, Canada --Cephas 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Note: picture previously declined for QI, but correction done since then. --Cephas 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective is OK, but lots of noise. --A.Savin 11:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version derived from first upload: reworked CA, noise, perspective. --Smial 12:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Still a bit too soft for me to support, but well-done NR, so no longer oppose. --A.Savin 09:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Some sharpening would still be possible, but I am very conservative in this point. Oversharpening can make an image totally useless, but for s.o. who wants to use an image outside wikipedia it is very easy to sharpen as needed. -- Smial 11:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 08:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Chroicocephalus ridibundus taking off in Zürich.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Larus is finally taking off after I was chasing it. Note a small ring on the leg of a bird. --Ximeg 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Nice photo and good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    Not a Larus. Needs specific ID anyway after generic correction. Biopics 10:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
     Info I correct the species Chroicocephalus ridibundus. It is a adult (+1cy) winter plumage. --Makele-90 12:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 08:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-12-08_11-34-55-neige.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Snow on a bud --ComputerHotline 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review *QI for me. --Kadellar 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Would've been nice if the whole bud was in focus. Biopics 10:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a macro shot, DoF is usually smaller, I think it's enough here. --Kadellar 18:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-12-08_11-27-57-neige.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Snow on a bud --ComputerHotline 10:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Review *QI for me. --Kadellar 21:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Would've been nice if the whole bud was in focus. Biopics 10:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a macro shot, DoF is usually smaller, I think it's enough here. --Kadellar 18:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Le_pont_Alexandre_III_-_PA00088798_-_040.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 08:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Car exhaust repair - greek style - Santorini - Greece.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Temporary car exhaust repair in Greece. --NorbertNagel
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI and useful for wikibooks (how to repear your car :) --Poco a poco 22:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The exhaust is not repaired but only temporary fastened. In my opinion it is a funny photo. Whether it is a good picture should be discussed. -- Lothar Spurzem 20:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Is the comment above an "oppose" vote ? If not, the picture should be promoted, and not put in CR--Jebulon 16:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Nothing exceptional with this image. Category: quite funny, but nothing special. To make it somewhat stand out I would have tried to photograph the back of the car with the exhaust at open aperture and without the car to the right so that the unimportant background of the image disappears in the lense's bokeh. --Nichtvermittelbar 08:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support "Nothing exceptional" is a criterion at FPC, not QIC. The technical quality of this image is good enough. --King of Hearts 04:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 08:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:20121209_PSG-Juvisy_-_free_kick_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination PSG-Juvisy, women's association football --~Pyb 23:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose It's a good shot, but bad ISO noise. Mattbuck 18:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it deserve a discussion, ISO 1600 is classic for sports shot around 7.30pm --PierreSelim 07:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support This is sports. 1/500s f2.8, ISO1600. Well, it was not bright sunshine, so you need ISO1600. Noise is very well controlled. And if it was a bit darker, then ISO3200 or more would also be accepable. -- Smial 00:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Noise does not look like High-ISO noise. Looks more like caused by overprocessing. --Esquilo 09:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 09:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

File:11-11 Vogelsang 08.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture by Willy Meller at the former national-socialists Ordensburg Vogelsang, Germany. -- Achim Raschka 07:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Disturbing shadows --Moroder 08:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Please be more precisely, what is "insufficient"? Not everyone has a D800 :) For me the crop is not optimal. Shadows should be (partly) fixable via software. --Tuxyso 09:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)  Comment
      • Precisely: branch shadows are confusing on a sculpture (cannot imagine that it can be fixed) and composition has nothing to do with a D800 ;-) --Moroder 09:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Moroder. The shadows on the sculpture are disturbing. Photo was taken at the wrong time of the day. --NorbertNagel 11:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Contrast of main subject is lost in the shadows. A fill-flash could have helped, but the best would have been to take this photo 30 minutes earlier. --Esquilo 09:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Confusing shadows on the main subject. I agree to Esquilo. --THWZ 22:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

File:11-11 Vogelsang 12.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture by Willy Meller at the former national-socialists Ordensburg Vogelsang, Germany. -- Achim Raschka 07:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality.Disturbing shadows, CA --Moroder 08:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Strong CAs, I agree, but I think fixable via software. Shadows are OK for me. Besides CAs I see no "insufficient quality", sharpness is OK. --Tuxyso 09:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Moroder. The shadows on the sculpture are disturbing. Photo was taken at the wrong time of the day. --NorbertNagel 11:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above.--Jebulon 20:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not better than above. Try another daytime for exposure. --THWZ 22:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

File:2011-03-06-fotoworkshop-nuernberg-by-RalfR-08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sigma Lenses --Ralf Roletschek 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit noisy for a studio shot. Makele-90 23:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Zu viel geräusch... Ich glaube, es war zu dunkel aufgenommen (wie dieses Bild das ist gleiches Bild) und dann auf dem Rechner viel heller gemacht --Ximeg 19:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Makele. Biopics 07:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ralf, entweder Ximeg liegt mit seiner Vermutung richtig, oder Du musst Deine Kamera zum Service bringen! So ein heftiges Rauschen ist bei den angegebenen Belichtungswerten und 200 ASA nicht plausibel. Gruß und schönes Fest --THWZ 15:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Vítkov.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination National Memorial on the Vítkov Hill in Prague (by Ondřej Kořínek) --Jklamo 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose interesting, but, picture too dark imo --Rjcastillo 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    Needs tilt and perspective correction. Mattbuck 14:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Not done Mattbuck 19:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Took 2 Minutes. Great view. --Smial 11:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Definitely taken at the wrong time of the day, IMO. The sky is "burnt" at right, and (very) pixellated at left, with color banding. There is no detail of the statue visible because of darkness of shadows. The inscription on the bronze pediment cannot be read due to overexposition. And there is a(n annotated) dust spot. Is it really a winner of the WLM 2012 ?--Jebulon 18:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Jebulon. This picture should have been taken not at 08:10 a.m., since at 06:00 p.m. Sorry. --THWZ 22:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark --Taxiarchos228 20:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)~
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 06:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Revueflex_AC2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Revueflex AC2 SLR --Uberprutser 16:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality and good idea. --Berthold Werner 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
     Comment and  Request There's a strange halo at the hot shoe. The image also needs to be well categorized. --Kadellar 18:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    That must be focus stacking errors. I've uploaded a better picture. --Uberprutser 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, it’s a nice idea and composition, but quality is not sufficient for me in that stage, since there are several blurry parts where the stacking job was not done carefully. I added annotations respectively. Get those fixed and it’s QI. --Kreuzschnabel 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Kreuzschnabel. Too many blurry parts in the picture. --THWZ 15:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Using focus-stacking is absolutly the right way to go for photos like this, but the stacking is not very well done. There are are blurry areas and halos. I also find the background a bit distracting. It is somewhat difficult to see where the camera ands and the background begins. --Esquilo 10:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 09:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Altja,_Parque_Nacional_Lahemaa,_Estonia,_2012-08-12,_DD_03.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Altja, Lahemaa National Park, Estonia --Poco a poco 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Smial 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    I've noticed that quite a lot of your pictures look more like paintings. Why so? Makele-90 15:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    Because I applied to mucho noise reduction decreasing detail level. ✓ New version uploaded with better results Poco a poco 17:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Especially the foreground looks oversharpened to me. I agree with Makele, that some pictures of Poco have this "special" look. What software do you use and how much sharpening do you apply? In LR 4.2 values up to 50-60 (+ masking to avoid oversharpening and increasing noise of the sky) are reasonable under good lightning conditions. --Tuxyso 14:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded with adjustment of denoising and sharpness. I think that actually the sharpness was ok but the denoising too little. I use the same software but not same application (Adobe Bridge / Camera Raw). I usually apply 60-70 sharpness + denoising and therefore no mask.
  •  Support Sharp, good lightning, good colours. --Esquilo 10:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I know that rules (of third) can/must be broken, but...Horizon in the middle is a no-go, isn't it ?--Jebulon 17:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, now the picture fulfills all photograph's must. To be honest I am rather keen on symmetry, not always compliant with the 2/3. Poco a poco 21:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
      • A secret: I agree with you (that's why I did not oppose, it was just "preventive" ) --Jebulon 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 09:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Kalbhairav pinnacle Scj Edit.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kalbhairav pinnacle taken from the left flank edge of Konkan Kada of Harishchandragad,India.--Cj.samson 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    There is some CA Poco a poco 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    There has been some improvements here, let's look for a third opinion Poco a poco 01:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Pretty good picture, despite a noise reduction way too strong for me. --Selbymay 13:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A little bit oversharpend in some regions, but anyway QI for me. --THWZ 22:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not categorized. -- JDP90 17:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done added category --Cj.samson 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 09:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Fountain gardens alcazar Seville Andalusia Spain.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A fountain in the Gardens of the Alcazar of Seville, Spain.--Jebulon 16:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Oppose Sorry. But the colours are not good and some parts oft the picture in my opinion are overexposed. -- Lothar Spurzem 21:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I almost never do this, but I have some things to say in this occasion, then discuss in CR.--Jebulon 11:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technical points:
        Colours are not good. I don't know how it is possible to say that, without to be close to the photographer when he took the picture, an evening in a courtyard. I can only say this: colours are good, I just adjusted curves and contrast.
        Some parts of the picture in my opinion are overexposed. The problem is, that "overexposition" is not an opinion, it is a fact. There "is" an overexposition, or there "is not" an overexposition. One can see this with the histogram (I use Lightroom4) if there is or not an overexposition. In this case, there is not. I guess the reviewer is unable to show us where it is overexposed.
      • Other points than technical: But everybody here can understand that these opinions are motivated by personal rationales I do not understand, and for the rest, please have a look here for further explanations. Thank you and sorry to all other "good faith" reviewers.--Jebulon (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ok, let us go into details. I do not know how you use histogram in lightroom. There ist clipping in all channels at the roof upper right corner, also in the leaves top right. The histogram, separated to R,G and B shows gaps which typically result from strong s-curving and contrast manipulation. Also there is somewhat too much noise in shadowy parts, considering the low ISO setting. Colour saturation is somewhat too high, so the reflections from the yellow or orange painted wall (or whatever the light source is) on the right side and the blueish colour in the shadows illuminated by the blue sky look unnatural. Also the image lacks some sharpness, I cannot decide if this derives from excessive noise suppression or from shortcomings of the lens used. Despite this the photo is a very nice view, but I beg not to manipulate every image so much. -- Smial 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon 18:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]