Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2011

Consensual review

edit

File:SMR-60-921.svg

edit

  • Nomination Heraldry of an old NATO base. --ComputerHotline 05:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 05:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry no. The supposed white (or heraldic silver) parts (planes, background of arrows) are transparent here. It needs a white layer under the composition--Jebulon 12:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Corrected indeed. Technically good, but the heraldic is wrong. I remain neutral here.--Jebulon 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Error is corrected. --ComputerHotline 16:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry no...--Jebulon 08:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
        • It appears corrected to me... is there still an issue? Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
          • It seems the Commons server currently has some problems with new uploaded versions. --Quartl (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support In full resolution is corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 20:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Saffron Blaze 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose NO, no no. A simple svg like this one should be near perfect to get the QI seal. The shield is not symmetric: the two 'points' at the bottom do not align. Qiqritiq 07:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to correct it. I'm a beginner in InkScape use. --ComputerHotline 15:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeAfter reading comments above. I didn't notice this issue.--Jebulon 07:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A white spot in an area of black. Not symmetrical.--Adelbrecht 11:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I am not competent enough in heraldry --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

File:Berlin_Potsdamer_Platz_BW_1.jpg

edit

The camera was set to utc, time was 16:35 (early evening ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, it does show the early evening lightning.--PereslavlFoto 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dustspots removed --Berthold Werner 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → More votes? H005 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fauteuil Jacob cabinet méridienne Versailles.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A neoclassical Louis XVI armchair by famous cabinet-maker Georges Jacob, belonged to Queen Marie-Antoinette, Château de Versailles.--Jebulon 22:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Raghith 06:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Should be titled. --Tomer T 09:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Titled ?--Jebulon 09:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, it is distorted. --Tomer T 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Ok you meant tilted! I understand. I'll upload a new version.--Jebulon 20:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jebulon 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't even notice the typo. It is much better now.  Support Tomer T 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Please notice that the version shown in thumbnail is wrong and has been corrected.--Jebulon 07:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) corrected now.--Jebulon 19:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support QI now Saffron Blaze 09:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:OldClockTower Sevlievo.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The Old Clock Tower, Sevlievo. --MrPanyGoff 05:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Raghith 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)The main subject itself is fine, but the shadow is disturbing, and the pink cloth too. It needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 10:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    Partly agree considering the pink cloth. Would it be OK if I change its colour to more neutral one or you want it erased? As for the shadow, I don't think it's a big deal. It doesn't affect the main subject nor the surrounding ones. I can reduce its area by cropping a bit in the bottom.--MrPanyGoff 11:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Please notice that I did'nt really oppose. I juste wished for other opinions, because I didn't want that this picture were "simply" promotted. The issues are minor, but had to be mentioned IMO. I know you'll do your best for improvements.--Jebulon 07:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The photo is upgraded with the above mentioned corrections.--MrPanyGoff 05:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 Support Obvious QI now to me. Thank you.--Jebulon 07:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 Support QI for me. Saffron Blaze 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Punica granatum (pomegranate) flower - relative size.jpeg

edit

  • Nomination Punica granatum (pomegranate) flower, depicting relative size - India.--Sankarshansen 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose As a thumbnail this looks great but at full res the detail just isn't there even if the isolation is excellent. --Saffron Blaze 20:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Increased the sharpness Sankarshansen 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition with the hand. The white balance is better on the newer 14:43, 27 May 2011 version. --Colin 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support As Colin. --Elektroschreiber 19:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The excellent composition and improved sharpness are enough for me to give this a nod yes despite the introduction of noise. Saffron Blaze 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Sickla_strand_april_2011b.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Sickla strand. Built 1947-48. Arcitects: Tore och Erik ahlsén. --Ankara 19:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline The composition does not showcase the architecture at all. --Saffron Blaze 08:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC) It is a detail image showing colors on the facades and balconies, it is one of the area (which is considered historically and architecturally valuable) qualities. The facade looks exactly like it was built 60 years ago. The image complements the others in the category, the statement that "composition not does showcase the architecture at all" is therefore false.--Ankara 08:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment I don't know if a standard for architecure photos exist. For me, if you are trying to demonstrate an architectural style most, if not all, of the structure should be in view. If others think what you have offered meets the aim of providing EV than I will be happy to accept that concensus. -- Saffron Blaze 09:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Saffron Blaze. --Tomer T 14:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO: in QIC the educational value is not the main argument for a promotion. In this case, I think that the composition is ruined by the very disturbing parked cars in foreground. Furthermore, this pictures suffers of a (correctible) vertical distorsion.--Jebulon 08:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you really think that the distortion is a problem here? Usually I do not make any perspective correction when I use my Nikon 50mm f/1.8, a lens known to basically be free from distortion. However, I must admit that the car at the far right is disturbing. Thanks for your reviews.--Ankara 08:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I think he means tilt. Best demonstrated by the change in the width of the gap on the left side, but it is visible in the window frames as well. Saffron Blaze 10:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry no, I don't mean "tilt", but perspective distorsion: Put a grid over the picture, you will see that edge of the wall is leaning to the right at left, and the windows at right are leaning to the left. What have to be vertical is not vertical --Jebulon 07:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Ah yes, I see what you mean. I should have inspected both sides of the image. Saffron Blaze 17:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the building should be the main subject of the photograph, then it has to be shown completely. --High Contrast 21:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Geoff_Barrow_at_The_Troubadour.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Geoff Barrow from Portishead at The Troubadour --WikiLaurent 12:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Below 2MB --Saffron Blaze 12:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd like to get some more opinions as the image quality is still good. WikiLaurent 02:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, our 2 megapixel requirement for QIs isn't a matter of opinion. But even leaving that aside, I think the quality isn't really there. A tight crop on top, harsh lighting, and an odd facial expression jump out at me. The sharpness isn't bad though. --Avenue 12:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Below size requirements, declining right away. --Quartl (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ride it.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Cannabis. --Tomer T 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I haven't a clue what this is from the file name nor the description. --Saffron Blaze 18:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I've changed to a more informative description, although it is succinct. --Tomer T 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment Thanks. I am not certain about the detail in this one though. Saffron Blaze 19:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As it is a living organism, the correct scientific identification is needed.--Jebulon 19:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Podgora-4115.jpg

edit

File:Ausstellungseröffnung Landtag Erfurt DSC 3074 b.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Exhibition opening in the Landtag of Thuringia with paintings of Udo Eisenacher (left). Available light photo under not really easy circumstances: the opening took place in the darkest corner of the widely glazed staircase. --Alupus 11:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the composition isn't good: it isn't clear what is the photo's subject. --Tomer T 09:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, i don't understand, what there should be unclear: the picture shows the painter (left) and the lady, thats spokes the honorary toasts. They stood a few meters away from each other; another composition, thats shows them similiar sized and both sharp seems to me nearly unpossible. --Alupus 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Firsly, it would be helpful if the description would be added to the file's page in English, so that it would be clear who is the lady and who is the man. Secondly, I've opened it for discussion. --Tomer T 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Done, name of lady and english description added. --Alupus 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Quba 385.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Clear skies and mountainous landscape of Quba in Azerbaijan. -- Azeri 15:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support There is a kind of softness in this picture, and this is very enjoyable for the eye... --Fandecaisses 19:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - we can't promote this as it's below size requirements. Also overexposed. Mattbuck 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too small - can be declined right away. --Quartl 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Gm-lampost-6629.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Lampost in Pereslavl museum. New version, sharpness and exposition improved.--PereslavlFoto 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I don't like the focus, and it's too bright. --Mattbuck 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You could not like or dislike the focus, it's an artistic method, it's all about taste. What about brightness, I may underexpose it. Could you please tell me the numbers — gamma, left and right borders of bar chart? Or maybe you'll explain where is a bright point so I could base on it making the image darker and durtier? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Katharina König DSC 3451.jpg

edit

Comment: I made an new version, somewhat warmer and lucid, and a little bit cropped on the top. How do you all that new version critize? --Alupus 11:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new version seems much better to me. Amazing what a difference the colour change makes. Pores don't jump out as much, and her eyes seem more lively - certainly a more sympathetic portrayal. The composition is also improved. The main remaining flaw I see is that the focal plane is a bit in front of the eyes - not too bad though. --Avenue 12:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the new version being a more sympathetic portrayal. To me it seems to cross the threshold into QI. Saffron Blaze 13:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to your comments. The focus plane could in deed something more near to her eyes, or F 4,8 - 5,6 in lieu of F 3,3. I hereby draw back the candidature of the old version. --Alupus 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 10:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heizhaus_am_Goetheanum.jpg

edit

  • Nomination boiler house at Goetheanum --Taxiarchos228 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient definition. --M0tty 08:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    please explain what you are meaning, there is indeed an adequate description/ definition --Taxiarchos228 09:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)  Comment The definition of the image is of 1,82mpx. So, she is lower than what is required to reach the status of QI. --M0tty 09:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    ok, you wanted to say resolution, not definition, I will upload a new version with bigger resolution >2 MP --Taxiarchos228 09:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

now with higher resolution --Taxiarchos228 14:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Sorry, but I donot like the composition the tree on the right is distracting. The object is just put in the middle. --Elektroschreiber 07:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
such as you did here: File:Caterpillar325DLN CanalEnlargement GermanyDortmundEmsCanal HDR.JPG. there is no need use in every picture the golden ratio, not even in every FP --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The centered composition of the house is made very unbalanced by the tree on one side and only the light pole on the other. Cropping the left side at about the same position as the pole (to make the picture tell a story about the similar shapes of the building and the tree) might be an improvement. I also think a lower elevation might be an improvement — looking down on the building makes it look shorter while a lot of the interest in its shape comes from how tall it is — but that might be difficult because of the trees getting in the way. —David Eppstein 20:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
you probably mix up QI criteria with a beauty contest. I would never say this is a FP. --Taxiarchos228 06:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
One of the QI criteria is whether the photo is acceptably well composed. I don't think this one is. —David Eppstein 15:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem not knowing the conditions at this place. An acceptable composition is when an object is showed clearly within the bounds of possibility. And this was done here. --Taxiarchos228 13:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat weak support, as it lacks some sharpeness, and has tight crop at the bottom. But shows the object as complete as possible, has over all acceptable quality, and so is QI for me. -- Smial 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Agapanthia-villosoviridescens.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Agapanthia villosoviridescens --Holleday 17:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Raghith 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry I need a discussion about the DoF and the tight crop/framing below. --Jebulon 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Is it perfect? No. It could have larger dof. Is it good enough to be QI? In my opinion, yes. The focus is on the eyes of the thing, bokeh is good, well named. Letartean 18:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dof and improvable composition--Lmbuga 21:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. Yes DOF limits detail over the entirety of the subject but unless you can focus stack with bugs I'd say this is about as good as anyone is going to get. Saffron Blaze 15:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Petroglyphs of Qobustan.jpg

edit
  • Nomination Petroglyphs in Gobustan dating back to 10,000 BC indicating a thriving culture. by RetlawSnellac. -- Azeri 15:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC))
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 17:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes but is the photographer/author/uploader a contributor of "Commons" ? This image cannot be promoted if not sure. --Jebulon 23:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Im not the uploader of this picture, RetlawSnellac is. I merely uploaded the full size from his flickr account. Azeri (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • But the source saying that as "Own work". -- Raghith 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont know what you mean, the original uploader was RetlawSnellac, who is Walter on Flickr. Azeri 15:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
As in Summary of this picture "Source: Own work" is given. Normally flickr uploaded pictures will make as retlaw snellac(as from flickr user's profile).I think that flickr user is wikipedian, so no problem for the nomination. -- Raghith 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 12:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Manor Farm Ruislip Farm House.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Manor Farm House, Ruislip. --Harrison49 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose A slight tilt and/or perspective distortion visible at the left edge of the building. --Andrei Stroe 10:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Where do you mean? The style of the building means there are some parts which are not straight, such as the white chimney and the wall against the wooden panels. Harrison49 12:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 17:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:GermanyMuensterWestphaliaHeiligGeistChurchEntrance.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Church of the holy spirit in Münster (Westphalia). A building of New Objectivity. --Elektroschreiber 08:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • This needs some perspective correction. Saffron Blaze 14:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Took another photo without perspective distortion. --Elektroschreiber 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment This first pic is actually a better composition and lacks your shadow. Both pics appear distorted to me. I see it mainly in the fact the top of the tower appears wider than the base. Saffron Blaze 20:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment Thank you for the help so far. I took the first file and corrected the perspective with GIMP. --Elektroschreiber 21:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a well composed pic and sharp. It has value. Distortion is much improved. That's QI. Saffron Blaze 23:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR 21:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 17:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Fernmeldeturm_Blauen_Plattformen.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Main Pod of telecommunication tower Blauen with stages for antennas --Taxiarchos228 08:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too tight, several areas of overexposure. --Mattbuck 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • this I can improve but I don't think it is significant for this image --Taxiarchos228 06:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight and as Mattbuck--Lmbuga 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
what is to tight? please explain. You can see everythink clearly of the main pod and the platforms. --Taxiarchos228 13:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Lmbuga, plus insufficient description (no geocode and no information where this tower is). -- H005 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
why is the description insufficient? It is written exactly what you are seeing. Geotag is added now. --Taxiarchos228 13:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote, the description gives no clue where this tower is. It just says it has the name "Blauen". Thanks for the geocode, with this it's not an issue anymore. But I still do not favor the crop, sorry. The top is cut off, whereas below there's much dead space. I have no problem with the exposure though (as Mattbuck wrote). -- H005 17:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I find the crop not as bad as other users stated above: in my view this image shows the significant and more interesting parts of such towers. Besides, it is of above average technical quality. --High Contrast 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 06:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Dornach_-_Goetheanum4.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Dornach, Switzland: Goetheanum from northwest --Taxiarchos228 21:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good. --Ankara 08:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, there is a (fixable) problem on the roof, please see annotation --Jebulon 16:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • now fixed and better contrast --Taxiarchos228 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support Ja, ganz besser. Nun QI.--Jebulon 16:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 16:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Macarons Marcolini 01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Marcolini's Macarons. --M0tty 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Straighten the tray and crop tighter --Saffron Blaze 17:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support It definitely does not need to be cropped tighter, I'd say it might even be too tight. And I like the effect created by the perspective and low DOF. --King of Hearts 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I too like the DOF. As to tighter crop, I meant the back nul space could be cropped, but the picture is skewed on perspective with the front fairly straight and the back quite slopped.Saffron Blaze 20:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support As King of Hearts. --Elektroschreiber 07:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted ccw. I'll support it if that is fixed. -- H005 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Saffron Blaze. And I don't like the DOF--Lmbuga 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Tour Eiffel pont Alexandre III.jpg

edit

File:Dornach_-_Goetheanum2.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Dornach, Switzerland: Goetheanum from northwest before sunset (high resolution 67 MP, 20 MB) --Taxiarchos228 09:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Oversaturated, strong sharpening halos --H005 12:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
intensive light of sunset means not that this picture is oversaturated --Taxiarchos228 13:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As H005, and (with lightroom 3.0) clearly subexposed--Lmbuga 20:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Question Is it normal the halo of luminosity of the left tree?, sorry, I don't know, but I want know--Lmbuga 20:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The huge sharpening halos are a problem, but I also find the tree shadows on the walls distracting. —David Eppstein 01:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 07:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Capitol Building Full View.jpg

edit

  • Nomination US Capitol (Photographer: Noclip) --Taxiarchos228 10:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Certainly deserved its FP status. Should easily be QI and VI. --Saffron Blaze 10:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion correction needed --Carschten 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    I guess you need rather new glasses than this picture a distortion correction --Taxiarchos228 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    That's a rather unhelpful comment, especially considering that Carschten is correct in his observation. --Slaunger 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    I am not convinced but even if he/ you should be right a distortion less than 2% in such a huge resolution is no reason to oppose this picture. This is not the first time Carschten stands out with curious appreciations. --Taxiarchos228 13:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Different reviewers have different emphasis on things they look for, and some have higher bars than others. What might seem like a ridiculous detail for one reviewer may not be seen as such by other reviewers. That's a good reason for having CR as part of the QI process. What triggers me is that you respond by getting personal, ridiculing the reviewer for needing glasses. That is completely unnecessary and incivil. If you do not see the perspective distortion yourself, you could ask if the reviewer would mind indicating where and how the distortion manifests itself. It is also OK to disagree with an assessment, just do not get personal. --Slaunger 13:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Nonsense I call nonsense. EOD --Taxiarchos228 13:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
* Support --Taxiarchos228 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC) [1]
  •  Support --H005 13:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral There is geometric distortion of the leftmost section of the building. The horizontals are alright. But the verticals gets worse and worse as you go to the left, especially behind the trees. This is easily verified with by dragging a vertical line in, e.g., GIMP over the columns in leftmost building. I do not think it will be noticed by 98% of all viewers, but since it is fixable I would like to mention it. So it is not a simple overall tilt or perspective correction which is needed, but perhaps a revisit of the control points in the leftmost parts of the photo used in the stitching process and some inclusion of vertical guidelines in the stitcher. --Slaunger 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disortion (even horizontals, "everything leaning towards the middle") visible even in preview.--Ankara 15:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support "happy judging, and remember… rules can be broken." is written on COM:I. I find this image so impressive that I don't mind the barrel distortion. --Elektroschreiber (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Impressive image, but the quality can be improved. Distortion, and messy upper left edge. --Avenue 01:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality problems are not significant IMO. --King of Hearts 02:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:LK6509-Garching-Süd-Luftbild.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Aerial photograph of Garching, Bavaria. (photographed by User:M-Luftbild) --High Contrast 18:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Very useful and good composition but the technical quality is not enough for QI, imo. It is perfect for VI --MrPanyGoff 19:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the quality is sufficient. --King of Hearts 19:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Technical quality is indeed a bit strange, I believe a result of postprocessing, but the composition is indeed good. Not sure whether it's acceptable for QI.

* Neutral Vignetting, the horizon is curved, but very good composition--Lmbuga 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  •  Comment Perhaps I have not done well. New version without vignetting, less noise, less unsharp... If you don't like the new version, you can delete it. Thanks and sorry--Lmbuga 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the new version. For me this is a QI. --Elektroschreiber 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

File:Taufer_Kilian_in_Herzogenaurach.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Taufer Kilian in Herzogenaurach --User:Vitold Muratov 08:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Please add geotag and a more thorough description. Andrei Stroe 10:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The Place of Taufe in 686 AD.Bayern.Mittelfranken.Erlangen-Höchstadt.--User:Vitold Muratov 13:35, 03 Juni 2011 (UTC)
      • There is a blown highlight in the window. can't tell the source of the light though. Saffron Blaze 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Seal Orant before an altar-MBA Lyon-IMG 0085.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Seal: orant before an altar. Neo-babylonian empire, 600-400 BCE. Chalcedony. Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon. -- Rama 12:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Below minimum size requirement but i think the resolution is good enough for this kind of small object. --WikiLaurent 12:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree -- 250K is well below requirements --Saffron Blaze 12:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Changed to Decline. Sorry I haven't been on QIC for some time and forgot that the images must be good enough for printing too.WikiLaurent 13:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment Well, it was just pointed out to me that Mb and megapixels are not the same thing. I knew that, but in general I was only looking at file size to judge if the resolution was there. This has lots of pixels. That said, still not convinced the required quality is there. Saffron Blaze 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support to offset the above oppose. The resolution is above 2 mpx. --Quartl (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 2 megapixels, but 2 in all the image, when there are, in the image, two images--Lmbuga 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Okhapkin-6335.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The Mayor of Pereslavl Andrey Okhapkin at the monument on the Trubezh riverbank during Victory Day.--PereslavlFoto 14:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportSome lighting problems, but I think it's good enough for a QI. --Tomer T 09:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: distracting background. --Elekhh 06:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment A common background (other municipal officers) blurred by aperture f/5. Technically correct.--PereslavlFoto 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment I think the portrait aspect of the individual is well done but I think you are under estimating the negative impact of the other individual in the photo. Saffron Blaze 23:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment I tried to reduce his neighbour as far as possible, that's why the photo is squared :-).--PereslavlFoto 13:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Elekhh, and I do not like the viewing angle. -- H005 21:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • How else can I show the side view of this face?--PereslavlFoto 09:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No clue. But a quality portrait IMHO usually shouldn't show the "side view". -- H005 21:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Potraits on coins often show :-))).--PereslavlFoto 23:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Lower_Slaughter_Mill_Calm_Cotswolds.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Mill and Cotswold Cottage, Lower Slaughter. -- Saffron Blaze 19:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good picture with fine reflections on the water and interesting image formation. --Alupus 20:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Nice image but quality looks poor. Nothings really sharp, colors look like a gif file. I think there must be a better version if it was shot with a D700! Pro2 21:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Was a bit cartoonish. Pretty cartoon but a cartoon nonetheless. Uploaded one without d-lighting applied. Saffron Blaze 00:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support either, but I very much prefer the version with D-Lighting. --King of Hearts 07:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would support the new version (without d-lighting), which has much better contrast in the detail. --Avenue 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment There's something odd about this image (both versions). It is only 4M from a 12M pro camera and doesn't look that sharp. Is the lack of colour detail due to being under-exposed and then stretched back? Was too high a JPG compression used? There are jaggies round sharp straight lines like some kind of interference or the result of rotating. The "Version with no D-lighting" is not as good a crop as the earlier one but I agree the D-lighting one was unnatural. --Colin (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Both versions are crops from a larger landscape image, hence only 4MB. As for jaggies I am not sure as to what you are referring... the roofline is jagged because they use large tiles.Saffron Blaze 17:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • So are you able to widen the latest version to have a similar crop to the previous? The "jaggies" aren't the roofline steps. It's a pixel-level texture on sharp edges. Look at the edges of the iris at the bottom, the ripples near the ducks, the window frames in the house, the lower step of the house. The pixels alternate from light to dark stipple. Looking closely at the birds on the roof and the aerials, I can see a halo so I wonder if this effect is due to over sharpening. It is a pretty scene so I hope it can be improved. [Whoever stuck that "No cyclists" sign there should be shot]. --Colin 18:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I said something, expletive laden, similar about that sign. It not only spoils the illusion but later in the day it reflects the sun mercilessly. That aside I will go back to the orginal and try to duplicate the original crop as it is better and try to minimise any post processing to see if there is something I am overdoing. Saffron Blaze 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, it is cropped more like the original. Sharpness is about the same. It seems fine at 100%. For what folks are seeing when pixel peeping I have no educated explanation. Saffron Blaze 21:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Crop: I like that the 21:13, 29 May 2011 version gets the whole of the left building but prefer that that the 17:51, 28 May 2011 version gets all the right hedge. Seems to complete the picture better if they aren't cut off, but that's just a personal preference. I agree that extreme pixel peeping comments shouldn't affect a QI vote -- I'm just commenting that there is an odd effect going on. But I see you've reverted to the original turquoise-sky D-Lighting version which I'm not sure about. --Colin 08:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
              • No worries, I think the original file lacks critical focus on the structures, as opposed to the foreground. Even in NEF (RAW) I can see a lack of definition and those halos you are commenting on. I suspect the latter has to do with the harsh lighting from the early morning sun. To be frank I was never overjoyed with the original as the DR is too wide for one exposure. I needed to arrive 30 minutes earlier before the sun crested the horizon to get the lighting I wanted yet still have the calm air. By mid morning not only does the wind usually pick up but so do the tourists. Saffron Blaze 13:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose destroyed image because of heavily exaggerated retouching --Carschten 15:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Stong LOL... D-lighting is hardly considered "heavily exaggerated retouching". It's a simple feature of Nikon cameras that brings light to shadows. I've quite enjoyed your two reviews though. Saffron Blaze 08:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Nice that you enjoy my reviews. But I looked e.g. at the tree next to the house and see a difference between the versions [2] and [3]? You ruined a lot of details, and that couldn't come only from D-lighting. But I have to say it's nice to see so much respect about my reviews. However,  Support now because of the revert. --Carschten 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-St._Peter_-_Winter1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Lörrach: Catholic Church Saint Peter --Taxiarchos228 12:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Hard to decide... But the dark parts are really noisy.--Jebulon 08:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    better now? --Taxiarchos228 07:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Please see annotation.--Jebulon 07:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • and IMO acceptable noise, for me no need for further action --Taxiarchos228 07:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find the noise distracting. For me this is a QI. --Elektroschreiber 21:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support kuhle hütte --Böhringer 21:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

File:Saltängen,_Nacka.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Buildings in Saltängen, Nacka. Built 1940-50s. --Ankara 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose There is only a leafless tree and part of a building showcased. If the goal is to provide comprehensive information on that building wouldn't a more inclusive photo be better? --Saffron Blaze 08:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • the picture shows part of the area. The choice to place the houses in this ways and save as much of the trees and nature is a hallmark of Swedish post-war architecture. The image is used on Wikipedia, just as an example of urban design from the postwar period in the article on the Nacka Municipality. It was also one of the few places in the area where it was possible to shoot more than one building in the same image. The variation of different types of houses, and various colors are also part of the architecture in an area. And it distinguishes the area from larger-scale housing estates in the 1960s and 1970s. As the second image, the image should satisfy the technical criteria in terms of image quality. And as I see it, you have misunderstood the purpose of both images. Best regards--Ankara 08:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Quality is more than just being a sharp photo. However, you obviously put much thought into the picture selection itself. Again, I am happy to accept consensus review. --Saffron Blaze 09:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For the technical quality of the picture and the reasons mentioned by Ankara. --Cayambe 21:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The grey and the yellow/orange building behind the tree are tilted clockwise. --Elektroschreiber (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Zootoca_vivipara_02_(MK).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Zootoca vivipara -- Raghith 11:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I personally am inclined to  Support, however, I think this requires a discussion as the blurry foreground may be too imposing. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice capture, but seeing a human clearly in its eye is not what I would consider appropriate for the subject matter.Saffron Blaze 18:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    It is me eye in eye with the monster! ;-) But serious, the most disturbing things for me as the author are the burned out white parts in the foreground. If they won't be there I had allready nominated it for myself cause personally I really like this pic. Greetings Leviathan1983 13:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is a live background and foreground, i like it; its beautiful. -- Raghith 18:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with the author that the picture does not qualify as QI. It is blurry, hazy and the overexposed foreground is disturbing. --Quartl 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I acknowledge the difficult conditions, but there are several issues, in summary to many to promote it, sorry. -- H005 21:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nicomekl River through the trees.JPG

edit

  • Nomination A view of the sun and the Nicomekl River through the trees. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Raghith 05:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    Creates a great mood but the flare at the bottom spoils it. Not convinced the harsh contrast offfers anything of EV other than a tangled growth. --Saffron Blaze 08:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In a situation like this, or many pictures with the sun in them, there really is no way to avoid the glare. Could anyone fix this with an image editor? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version with what I hope are some improvements towards the comments I made. If you are fine with it I can put some more effort into it, as it still needs some work; if not just revert. Saffron Blaze 21:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you, your edits are a great improvement. There is no way I will revert them! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the "things" in background (blue squares) are disturbing to me.--Jebulon 16:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Those blue squares are the gates on the Nicomekl River Marina. You can see them with Google Earth on coordinates 49° 3′ 23.26″ N 122° 52′ 8.68″ W. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Taxiarchos228 08:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There's not much to see on the image that's worth looking at, and it completely lacks the beauty needed to watch it for aesthetic reasons. Actually, I'd simply delete it from my hard drive even if it was my shot. Btw, I do not think Saffron's edit is an improvement, on the contrary. -- H005 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeUnlike H005, I don't think this is at all ugly. I kind of like the sunlight through trees effect. But the fact that the nominal subject (the river) is barely noticable, the big flare on the ground (or the big dark spot trying to hide the flare), the lack of an obvious illustrative purpose in the photo, the haphazard blue things on the opposite bank, and the way the image breaks up into compression noise in the bottom left are all too big problems for QI. —David Eppstein 01:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Egringen_-_Evangelische_Kirche18.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Egringen: Protestant Church (interior) --Taxiarchos228 08:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose A bit too dark thus missing detail. Angle is awkward too. --Saffron Blaze 10:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    everythink in the nave is detailed and clearly, I like this angle because it is not common --Taxiarchos228 10:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment If we compare this one to the one just below I think it makes manifest my concern. Saffron Blaze 15:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment After looking at this again at home on a good monitor it appears fine. It meets QI but would still recommend a bit of lightening. I am removing my opposition as the angle issue is more a matter of taste than technical. Saffron Blaze 20:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. -- H005 21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Egringen_-_Evangelische_Kirche6.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Egringen: Protestant Church (interior) --Taxiarchos228 06:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion I like it, but seems to tilted clockwise. --Mattbuck 04:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Agree, but easily fixed. It is too nice of an interior capture to be let go. Saffron Blaze 09:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem rotating it, but this picture is not tilted if you look exactly. The pillars are exactly vertical. --Taxiarchos228 13:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  •  Support I can't see any tilt. -- H005 21:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It's the windows on the left. They are vertical, but they visually blend into one and so two parallel vertical lines blend into one which seems slanted to the center. An unfortunate coincidence. NVO 12:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Trilobitenpflaster, Paläontologisches Museum München.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Trilobite Homotelus bromidensis. --High Contrast 19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Creepy but nicely done. --Saffron Blaze 20:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong color temperature, in reality the rock is gray.Can be corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 20:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • this exponat was photographed in darkness and the only light was this yellow one. And no, this rock is not grey either. Here you have an impression of a stone comparable to that one that was photogrpahed by me. --High Contrast 20:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Negative: I know exactly what deposit, the limestone is gray.--Archaeodontosaurus 18:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes exactly: it is limestone. And no, limestone has not to be grey - yellow variants exist as well. --High Contrast 18:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice. Good photo quality. --A.Ceta 11:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Poor DOF and the left zone is too dark to me--Lmbuga 21:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 14:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Graz_-_Franziskanerkirche.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Graz: Franciscan Church --Taxiarchos228 12:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Noisy shadows.--PereslavlFoto 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Aelia-acuminata-spitzling.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Aelia acuminata --Holleday 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 05:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree it doesn't look all sharp to me. --Thunderflash 10:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
can you develop your opinion?--Archaeodontosaurus 20:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 20:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Азербайджан флаг.jpg

edit

  • Nomination National flag of Azerbaijan. -- Azeri 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The file needs an English description. Saffron Blaze 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Support now it has, QI --Taxiarchos228 08:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The flag itself is good, but it should be better if the pole were straight, and with a crop for useless space at left. Please have a discussion about befor promotion. French caption added.--Jebulon 08:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I cropped the left space and straightened the flag. Azeri (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Taxiarchos228--Saffron Blaze 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The image has been adjusted but the preview thumbnail doesnt show it, please visit the direct page of the image to view it, see here. Azeri 19:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • As a test I did a 1:1 crop and straightened the pole. I thought it looked quite good that way. While your version is improved I did note while editing that the resolution is below what is usually set as a baseline for QI. Saffron Blaze 20:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Well its technically its still good enough for QI. However if your version is better, please upload it so this image can get the QI. Azeri 20:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
          •  Support You are correct, it is good enough. However, I did upload the alternate 1:1 version. If you don't like it just revert as the current one is good too. Saffron Blaze 10:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
            •  Comment Please note the thumb view is not correct. Cache issue. Saffron Blaze 10:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportQI now--Jebulon 23:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I find it quite good but do you have this file in a higher resolution? It is below 2 megapixels which is the lower limit. --High Contrast 22:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That's my fault with the cropping. The original file was above the 2 megapixel requirement, but the cropped version is below. Sorry about that. Perhaps as you indicated the original file can be re-cropped and yet maintain the minimum requirement. Saffron Blaze 22:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I personally would prefer the original version - not only because the 2 MPixel requirement. --High Contrast 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The current version is way below 2 mpx. --Quartl (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1,469 megapixels. It's necesary 2,000 megapixels--Lmbuga 23:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too small for promotion. Nice colors, but not QI by rules :( -- George Chernilevsky 06:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too small --Archaeodontosaurus 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 21:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kuibusev_sq-1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Samara, Kuibishev square -- Raghith 06:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Big stitchin error in foreground, multiple small stitching errors in background. I've added notes which you can delete after checking them. --D4m1en 09:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC))
    Fixed--Altoing 10:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
     Support now.D4m1en 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kruchinin-2011-1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Igor Alexandrovich Kruchinin. --PereslavlFoto 09:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • New version. If you don't like it, you can delete the new version. Thanks and sorry--Lmbuga 19:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for the luminosity hint, will fix at my side!--PereslavlFoto 20:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry. I feel that you don't like my version. Sorry.--Lmbuga 21:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I will reupload the photo today, I made it better looking at your advice. Reuploaded. Less brignt now, some retouch added.--PereslavlFoto 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Your retouch is better than mine--Lmbuga 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 06:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Caterpillar325DLN CanalEnlargement GermanyDortmundEmsCanal HDR.JPG

edit

  • Nomination: Two Caterpillar325 D at the Enlargement of the Dortmund-Ems canal. --Elektroschreiber 08:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 07:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the fence is disturbing, besides: to fit the demand of this photographer he should not just put the object the middle --Taxiarchos228 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I like the composition of the two caterpillars and disagree about the comment on "object in the middle". Both cabs are on "rule of thirds" intersections if one cares about these things (Commons isn't just about artistic composition). The machines might be more impressive if the photographer had crouched or held the camera near the ground and filled the space vertically. I agree the fence rather spoils the picture. Next time, bring some wire cutters :-) --Colin 17:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? George Chernilevsky 06:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Bad_Kissingen.Arkaden.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Bad Kissingen.Arkaden --Vitold Muratov 23:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tomer T 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not sure of this: sky looks pink on my monitor which means the white balance might not be right, the crop of the tower on the upper left is very tight, than there is some CA, the barrel distortion on the bottom and the whole thing is pretty grainy. --Elekhh 07:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Elekhh there seems to be a slight pink tinge to the sky -- Good twins 22:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color temperature problem, several area overexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 08:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 10:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Istein_-_St._Michael2.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Istein: Saint Michaels Church --Taxiarchos228 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • It's a little blurry, but I tend to support. I think a discussion is required here. --Tomer T 09:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment It needs a scale correction IMO: the swiss (argauer ?) green VW at left is a bit flat...--Jebulon 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry but the vertical lines of the church are exactly straight here, I don't care about not dinky attachments like the green VW. --Taxiarchos228 13:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 12:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the vertical lines are exactly vertical. But alle the cars and the walking frame in the lower area of the picture look compressed. The ball lamps at the side door look compressed. The middle area of the picture above the doors with the the steeple, the clock look naturally. The cross, the ball and the roof of the steeple in the upper area look drawn out. The ball looks more like an egg. On your image File:Istein_-_St._Michael9.jpg the propotions look much more naturally. --Elektroschreiber 05:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • you can't compare the picture File:Istein_-_St._Michael9.jpg with this one which was made directly in front of it. --Taxiarchos228 08:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, I can compare the pictures. As far as I know the shortening because of the perspective. The roof of the steeple, the ball under the cross and the cross should become smaller and more compressed because they are more away then the cars and the walking frame. But on this picture it is just the other way. The roof becomes longer and longer and the cars on the ground become compressed and even more compressed. That looks really unrealistic. --Elektroschreiber 11:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • But I can't give a way to change the perspective in a correct way. So I withdraw my oppose.--Elektroschreiber 12:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Graz_-_Opernhaus1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Graz: opera house --Taxiarchos228 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tomer T 21:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of the light (bad contre-jour, then underexposed for parts), and disturbing fragment of a coach at left--Jebulon 16:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon --Johannes Robalotoff 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 10:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Duomo Brunelleschi Florence terrace Uffizi.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The dome of the Florence cathedral, from the Uffizi terrace.--Jebulon 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment It is an interesting photo, with an unusual composition. I kind of like the symmetry in the obscuring foreground holes, but I am unsure if it is formally a QI. What is the subject and the idea with the photo? I feel I am missing a point. --Slaunger 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    No you don't. It is only an unusual composition--Jebulon 16:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Non sense answer, I misunderstood, sorry--Jebulon 08:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have thought about it and although I think the photo both has technical quality and artistic value, I think it has limited informational/educational value, so, sorry, I decline it. Feel free to bring it to CR, if you would like second opinion on that. --Slaunger 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your very careful review. But please notice that the lack of educational or informational is not a relevant argument for decline in QIC. Logicaly, your comment should have been conclued by a "support" vote...--Jebulon 08:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • You are formally correct; let me put it differently. In the guideline it is stated concerning focus "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image." Since only the background is in focus I conclude the bg is the main subject. Next, regarding composition it says "Foreground ... objects should not be distracting." The foreground is the out-of-focus stone wall with holes. The blurred out foreground blocks visibility of the main subject by over 50% to the object in focus. Thus, I conclude: Not QI. But I think it not clearcut, as this is a quite rigid/mechanic interpretation of the guideline, and all rules can be broken. Thus, I would like to hear other opinions in a CR. --Slaunger 21:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I understand.----Jebulon 14:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 10:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Wiktor Brodzki - Pierwsze podszepty miłości.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Wiktor Brodzki, First Whispers of Love --Pudelek 20:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me, but the background is a bit noisy and the image can be more sharp--Lmbuga 20:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I put it in CR, because I need other opinions regarding noise and sharpness.--Jebulon 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me the noise is almost nonexistent, but that is because NR has destroyed all the fine details. --King of Hearts 10:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose + unfortunate bottom crop.--Jebulon 14:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Avestafestivalen04.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Panning shot of a "Freak out"-attraction at a mobile funfair in Avesta, Sweden.--V-wolf 18:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose I don't like it, but I'm not sure: To me, or poor quality or out of scope--Lmbuga 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice idea but the sort of image you probably have to take lots of in order for one to come out good. I assume you were trying to get one car and its passengers to be sharp. But they aren't terribly sharp, the girl has no expression on her face, and the other passenger is hidden. Try setting your camera's drive mode to continuous advance and hold down the shutter to fire off loads of shots. Then you might get lucky. --Colin (talk)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kleinkems_-_Evangelische_Kirche3.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Kleinkems: Protestant Church --Taxiarchos228 07:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unfortunate composition/viewpoint: Disturbing wall in foreground. Much of the church is hidden. --Johannes Robalotoff 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • sorry but the wall belongs to this church, the wall does not hide much of the bell tower, indeed this image gives a good idea of the habitat --Taxiarchos228 20:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good to me, but is tilted the tower? To me it's tilted (the vertical lines of the left side must be straight) or the image needs perspective correction (I don't know). Perhaps QI, but I'm not sure--Lmbuga 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rybnaa-076-1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Pereslavl, Pravaya Naberezhnaya street, no 76. --PereslavlFoto 09:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too bright. --Mattbuck 22:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It is a bright winter day, and the photo makes the brick house visible enough.--PereslavlFoto 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mattbuck. Also, to me, the plants are disturbing; chromatic aberrations (not very important, but I can indicate with a note the CAs (it is not allowed to me to do that)); needs perspective correction to me. Sorry--Lmbuga 19:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I see now. And where is CA?--PereslavlFoto 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The chromatic aberration is very little. For me, to improve the chromatic aberrations is easy (if you wish it, I can do it). I have incorporated two notes in the image. Thanks--Lmbuga 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
        • When you want, you can delete the notes--Lmbuga 17:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
          • New version here. Perhaps not better. Sorry and thanks--Lmbuga 19:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
            • It's not better or worse, it's some other place and building. Well, I see the way to happiness now, so next winter I'll get a perfect shooting :-).--PereslavlFoto 20:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Ok, thanks--Lmbuga 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Concorde Assemblée Nationale.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The french National Assembly and the Concorde bridge, as seen from Tuileries embankment in Paris--Jebulon 16:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are big overexposed places (bridge, columns) --Daniel Baránek 07:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I do not see such big places. Only isolated pixels and some border lines with one pixel width are slightly overexposed. They do not disturb visually in my opinion. --Johannes Robalotoff 10:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Technically, You are probably right, but the thing is, that I can't see the structure of stones of the columns and the bridge. --Daniel Baránek 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Large parts of the bridge are uniformly off-white. It appears to be an attempted highlight recovery from 255 white data. -- King of Hearts 01:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I withdraw my vote, as King of Hearts is probably right concerning highlight recovery. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Buchenbach Gasthaus zum Ochsen.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Guesthouse Zum Ochsen --Harke 17:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. - A.Savin 17:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so good, there are overexposed places (left down corner), chromatic aberration. --Daniel Baránek 06:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Oppose I don't see the CA, at least there have been pictures with far more CA here. But the whole sky is indeed overexposed. It is not white yet, but it has lost color saturation. White balance is also too much towards blue/green for me. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Église de Lapeyre (Hautes-Pyrénées, France).JPG

edit

  • Nomination Lapeyre Church, Hautes-Pyrénées, France -- Florent Pécassou 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Harrison49 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad cropped (the cross on the top of the tower) --Daniel Baránek 07:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose + Disturbing distortion.--Jebulon 08:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Galet-silex-1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Crystals inside a shingle (focus stacking). --ComputerHotline 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good work --Llez 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many artifacts of reconstruction see note. The mineral species must be identified --Archaeodontosaurus 07:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs id. --Quartl 06:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Stephanorrhina-guttata.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Stephanorrhina guttata, Family: Scarabaeidae -- Raghith 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I´m not really happy about my first studiophotos. Please can you tell me your opinion?Holleday 18:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo -- George Chernilevsky 19:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me--Lmbuga 19:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 05:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Eudicella-gralli.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Flamboyant Flower Beetle or Striped Love Beetle, --Raghith 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I´m not really happy about my first studiophotos. Please can you tell me your opinion?Holleday 18:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo -- George Chernilevsky George Chernilevsky 19:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)~
  •  Support kind of like it. Thunderflash 11:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me--Lmbuga 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 05:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Sara Nuru 01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Sara Nuru. --Tomer T 12:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 16:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality (focus). Wetenschatje 22:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a good and valuable portrait with a good expression and composition, but it is too soft and noisy for QI IMO. --Slaunger 20:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Slight focus error but good overall. I don't have any issues with the noise. --King of Hearts 06:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Slaunger. It would probably be an interesting valued image candidate though. --Eusebius 13:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Stairs at Du Loup.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A stairs in a belgium castle. Delay 19:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Thunderflash 10:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed areas, too much background noise --Archaeodontosaurus 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I love it! null 17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC) -- unsigned -- George Chernilevsky 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

*  Oppose The file is nominated for deletion because of copyvio. --Elektroschreiber 20:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC) --Elektroschreiber 09:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC) The file should not have been nominated for deletion since is was released under CC 2.0. The 'all rights reserved" is for Flikr not the image. Saffron Blaze 02:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  •  Comment The file is still nominated because of copyvio. But this should not be discussed here. It is uploaded as the own work of user Delat. There is not much to find aboud this user. And I don't know if it the same as the flickr-User Huib Laurens. On flickr is is licensed with CC-BY-2.0 on commons with cc-by-sa-3.0 and the name Huib Laurens is not named here at commons. --Elektroschreiber 09:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus and, to me, too tight crop at left and at right. Perhaps the image needs a correction of perspective distortion--Lmbuga 20:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Iris pseudacorus flowers Russia.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Iris pseudacorus) in natural habitat. --Le.Loup.Gris 07:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline *  Support Good quality. Harrison49 02:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate composition (I would crop the bottom and little bit also the upper side). --Daniel Baránek 10:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Daniel --Mbdortmund 00:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:École de Pouzac (65).JPG

edit

  • Nomination Pouzac school, Hautes-Pyrénées, France --Florent Pécassou 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline *  Support Good quality. Harrison49 02:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition could be little bit better (more crop on the bottom, less on the top) --Daniel Baránek 09:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective not corrected --Mbdortmund 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Église Saint-Barthélémy d'Andrest (Hautes-Pyrénées, France).JPG

edit

  • Nomination Andrest church,Hautes-Pyrénées, France --Florent Pécassou 20:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline * Support Good quality. Harrison49 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted, the right bottom corner is little bit disturbing. --Daniel Baránek 09:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective not corrected --Mbdortmund 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Malsburg-Kaltenbach_-_Evangelische_Kirche13.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Kaltenbach: Protestant Church (organ) --Taxiarchos228 18:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Upper side and botton side without details --Lmbuga 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    not significant IMO --Taxiarchos228 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition poor with a careless crop. Image not sharp. --Colin 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Pygoplites_diacanthus_01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A Royal Angelfish. Pygoplites diacanthus --Llez 06:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support CA in background, but difficult not to be in an Aquarium. QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint. Some CA-corrections done --Llez 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy and not sharp (cf. File:Angelfish Nick Hobgood.jpg). W.S. 06:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness OK for image size. --Ianare 22:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

File:Cypraeidae_-_Lyncina_schilderorum_-_Hawaii-5.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Lyncina schilderorum - Hawaii --Raghith 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nicely done. --King of Hearts 10:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose High pixelation, of background, Low quality image for studio work --Archaeodontosaurus 07:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noised -- George Chernilevsky 09:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:SNCB_Loc_2303_R01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Belgian Class 23 loc (detail) -- MJJR 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Harrison49 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't like the composition. --Daniel Baránek 07:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: Unfortunate narrow horizontal crop. Not only the right is cropped in order to show the front of the locomotive, but also its buffer on the left is cropped. Choosing a landscape aspect ratio would have been better, as the overhead lines are less important for the subject than the pantograph, which is now also cropped. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Well I like it. Mattbuck 11:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Johannes Robalotoff --Archaeodontosaurus 14:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cesky Krumlov Tower from Nám. Svornosti.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Tower in Český Krumlov --DeeMusil 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Harrison49 19:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong CA --Tlusťa 09:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Where do you see the strong CA? I could not discover any mentionable CA. I would see different problems: The exposure is borderline with many overexposed pixels. The uncorrected perspective distortion of the foreground makes me feel that the tower is slanted, although it is not. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the foreground is disturbing. --Daniel Baránek 22:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor quality --Carschten 12:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Borgward Isabella Coupé front 20110611.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Borgward Isabella Coupé. -- Randy43 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good at all. -- M 93 11:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Daniel Baránek 09:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Cayambe 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:DK 81 - Ober Lazisk.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Road 81 in Łaziska Górne, Upper Silesia --Pudelek 21:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noisy--Kudak 12:13 (UTC)
  • I don't see... --Pudelek 19:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't see the noise. However, the bilboard on the right is too bright (overexposed) and disturbing. --Daniel Baránek 09:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support If billboard are present in reality on Polish roads, why is it disturbing in the picture? And although very bright, it's well readable and IMO acceptable. --Ikar.us 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Strongly boring, but technicaly good. QI IMO.--Jebulon 08:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 08:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Malsburg-Kaltenbach_-_Evangelische_Kirche10.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Kaltenbach: Protestant Church --Taxiarchos228 16:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose The picture is gray, it should be more colourful. --Daniel Baránek 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, but this picture is not gray --Taxiarchos228 12:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 01:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Harley Davidson Showroom Door.jpeg

edit

  • Nomination Harley Davidson Logo on Glass Door, Hyderabad, AP, India --Sankarshansen 07:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline nice composition but focus not on main subject --Ianare 23:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Uploaded re-cropped version --Sankarshansen 04:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, meant to say focus point in terms of the lens ... IMHO composition was better before the crop. --Ianare 00:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks for the review .. Reverted to original, can I request CR ? --Sankarshansen 13:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 01:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-06-15 22-59-37-eclipse.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Lunar eclipse of 2011 June 15 --ComputerHotline 06:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support wow! --Pudelek 08:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WOW is for FP, this is QI and the quality is poor (noise, irregular timings). W.S. 14:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per W.S. --Archaeodontosaurus 20:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Temple of Chukou 07- Tortoise.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Dragon head tortoise, Taiwan --Bgag 11:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Noisy on the main subject. Otherwise OK. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have imported a new version. --Bgag 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment One can see that more noise reduction has been applied. But I am unsure with respect to QI. I would like to hear the opinion of another reviewer. --Johannes Robalotoff 11:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose compression artifacts --Carschten 12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Polyommatus coelestinus.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A male of Pontic Blue (Polyommatus coelestinus) feeding on Erysimum sp. flowers. --Le.Loup.Gris 07:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline *  SupportGood --Ximonic 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking details (cf. e.g. Böhringer butterflies. W.S. 15:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many blurred areas --Archaeodontosaurus 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Valence-sur-Baïse Church, Gers, France.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Valence-sur-Baïse Church, Gers, France -- Florent Pécassou 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Need perspective correction --Archaeodontosaurus 19:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comment.
    • New version uploaded Florent Pécassou 20:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Still perspective disortion (or problems on commons?).--Ankara 21:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • (J'ai eu un problème avec l'actualisation de la page.) Best ? Florent Pécassou 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Uploaded new version --Wammes Waggel 14:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
          •  Support good now imo--Ankara 08:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pixelization of the sky is recognisable even in thumbnail. --Daniel Baránek 10:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel Baránek. Purple CA is also prominent at the far left side on the building. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:View to Lyngenfjorden from east coast, 2011 06.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Lyngenfjorden from the east coast --Hoangquan hientrang 04:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 06:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overtouched? Unnaturally gray. --Daniel Baránek 10:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel Baránek. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support das ist gut --Böhringer 20:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Made fake-looking by too much hdr. —David Eppstein 06:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad quality and light (-> very grey and poor details), also disturbing foreground --Carschten 12:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. And please notice that this picture is going to pass as FP, with some "oh!" and "ah!" and "wow" !--Jebulon 14:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 15:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Taxiarchos228 16:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality --Archaeodontosaurus 20:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition and foreground for me ok, but unaturally colours (too "hdr"). --Alupus 19:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Koruna palace Prague crown.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Crown of the Koruna Palace, Prague, Czech Republic. --Myrabella 22:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good caption --Archaeodontosaurus 12:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice composition, but the cloud is unnaturaly red. Try to fix it? --Daniel Baránek 10:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Support Yes, the cloud at upper left corner has an unusual purple tint. But I consider this a very minor flaw, and as the rest of the image is excellent, it is clearly QI for me. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
      • ✓ Done Thanks for your comments. I've tried to fix the purple tint of the cloud. --Myrabella 12:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support After the fixing of the purple clouds, good for me now. --Daniel Baránek 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Hirschkaefer Koesen 1.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Lucanus Cervus in nature. --Genealogist 10:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good, useful pic --Limmat-2007 12:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Too overexposed areas, too blurred area --Archaeodontosaurus 13:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
     Support Support Nice pic demonstrating the brightness of this bug.--Kresspahl 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Stadtmauer-Oberwesel-JR-E-833-2011-05-30.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Medieval defensive wall of Oberwesel. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline * Support Good quality. Harrison49 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hmm, very nice countryside, however, the wall blends with the background (especially on the left) --Daniel Baránek 09:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Die Stadtmauer hebt sich zu wenig vom Stadthintergrund ab, die Schatten im Vordergrund stören. M. E. liegts am Sonnenstand während der Aufnahme. --Alupus 19:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Malsburg-Kaltenbach_-_Evangelische_Kirche9.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Kaltenbach: Protestant Church --Taxiarchos228 18:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Good, but -sorry- clearly overexposed and underexposed to me (with lightroom 3.0)--Lmbuga 20:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • sorry, but it is not --Taxiarchos228 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Crearly overexposed (see clouds) and a bit underexposed (windows)--Lmbuga 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
        • clouds are white, this has nothing to do with overexposure, both clouds and windows you can see structure, if it would be over/underexposured you couln't see this so clearly. --Taxiarchos228 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
          • You can say what you can see, but you can not say what others can see, unless you was god--Lmbuga 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
            • what I say are obvious and provable facts --Taxiarchos228 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
              • (español) La imagen es buena, sus defectos facilmente mejorables si la actitud del autor fuese considerada con cualquier crítica, pero no admite crítica, cosa habitual. Dado el caso y su actitud, no sé qué más puedo hacer para llegar a algún tipo de concordia. No me parece correcto corregir la imagen, pero podría hacerlo--Lmbuga 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
      •  Oppose I think you are both right in a way (at least in the English text, I don't understand Spanish.) Many technically overexposed spots are unavoidable and nothing is lost there. That the windows are dark and some places under the trees are very dark is also normal. Yet I see two places that disturb me: One of the clouds on the right is overexposed on a larger area, so that its structure is lost in plain white. In the region at the hedge in front of the church darkness is disturbing as structure cannot be seen any more. Apart from that, there is visible noise on the church wall at the left. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
      •  Oppose The exposure issues reflect the difficulty of taking such a picture in bright daytime sunlight. If the RAW file is available, then Lightroom may be able to recover some of the extremes and bring out a little detail in the hedge. But I suspect there isn't any significant detail lost in the clouds, which can get so bright they hurt your eyes never mind remain within the limits of a JPG. Lightroom may also be able to eliminate the chroma noise spotted on the church wall. Overall, the exposure is fine and the areas affected minor enough not to trouble me for QI. However, I'm disappointed with the composition. There's too much of the field on the left and half a red house on the right. Crop the photo to just left of the church and on the right to remove the red house and car (keeping the nearby tree) to give a portrait image that IMO is much stronger. --Colin 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This picture is neither overexposured nor underexposured. I wonder how this one File:Malsburg-Kaltenbach - Evangelische Kirche7.jpg could get QI if the arguments should be valid that I question. --Taxiarchos228 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support not perfect, but it should be possible to make a normal picture in such a lighting situation. Composition is good. --Mbdortmund 23:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This is what clouds look like. Technically, the bright white area isn't level 255, and it's not all the same level. No overexposure. --Ikar.us 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ladugårdsbron_11.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Passage between Nybrokajen and Blasieholmstorg in Stockholm. Built inside a old city block in the 1980s. --Ankara 16:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good idea, but noisy, and the tiled floor looks not straight.--Jebulon 16:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I can downsample the image to 2mp and the grain would be invisible. I can also do noise reduction and turn it into a soft Canon look-a-like image. But this is not a digital photo, and the fine grain is a characteristic of the film which has been used by leading photographers for decades. I may get a bad reputation for questioning peoples reviews, so I will not do it here and I respect your opinion. --Ankara 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Then it is not noisy, but very grainy. Is it a scan of an analogic image ? OK, maybe I'm technically incompetent for review this kind of picture, I only spoke with my feeling. As I dislike the grain effect you choosed deliberately to show, I remove my oppose, and this is now only a comment. Let's other have a wiser judgement. --Jebulon 13:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --King of Hearts 01:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is in se nothing wrong with grain in old argentic photographs. Here however the grain interferes with the level of detail in the picture, rendering it at time hard to resolve. W.S. 16:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Oppose It isn't an old photograph. And besides grain, it has many dust spots. Leading photographers of past decades would have avoided that. And for an artistic picture, why is the composition so off-centre? --Ikar.us 20:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Blaenau Ffestiniog railway station MMB 07 150264.jpg

edit

  • Nomination: 150264 at Blaenau Ffestiniog. Mattbuck 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. Harrison49 18:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark. --Daniel Baránek 07:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    It wasn't a very bright day, and it's already been lightened once. Mattbuck 11:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 10:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Amethyste-2.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Amethysts (focus stacking). --ComputerHotline 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Well done --Llez 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many artifacts of reconstruction --Archaeodontosaurus 07:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CombineZM don't works good enough. Your stack session wasn't uniformly exposed. --Alchemist-hp 20:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ailringen Rißbach.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A small river in Ailringen --Harke 17:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Harrison49 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so good. There are overexposed places (grass around the stream, railing), wheard colours. --Daniel Baránek 06:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me a good composition, but I have to agree to Baránek: highlights are overexposed and it looks like bit "overprocessed" in saturation and sharpness. Maybe a upload with less processed version can help? --J. Lunau 10:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The only processing was to slightly lighten the shadows. --Harke 07:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • So I am wrong, sorry. To me the colors are not natural, but maybe it comes from sunshine. But I still think, it is little bit overexposed and I can't see any real black in the photo. --J. Lunau 22:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 07:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Carduelis_tristis_female_2011.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A female Carduelis tristis --Letartean 17:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeToo noisy very difficult to see the subject of the image as it blends into the background -- Good twins 17:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've made several changes to the image -- Pro2 13:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I like the image, perhaps QI (I'm not sure), but it would probably be an interesting valued image candidate though.--Lmbuga 19:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level and colour correction wasn't made properly. White is not white, but pink. --Daniel Baránek 10:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

8 days limit reached

  •  Comment The image was corrected again after the last person that voted, perhaps this could change opinions. Letartean 04:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.S. 11:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-06-15 23-13-00-eclipse.jpg

edit

  • Nomination: Lunar eclipse of 2011 June 15 --ComputerHotline 06:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support very good --Pudelek 08:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low quality (noise). W.S. 14:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for reducing of motion blur, the noise is acceptable imo --Carschten 12:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noise, low quality --Tlusťa 08:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info Reduced noise -- Pro2 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

8 days limit reached

  •  Support to me QI, especially after good denoising by Pro2 --J. Lunau 09:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --W.S. 11:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kobus ellipsyprimus defassa (male portrait).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Kobus ellipsyprimus defassa. W.S. 09:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Raghith 10:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Isn't the crop a bit tight above ? Please let's discuss. --Jebulon 23:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do not have problems with the crop above. I find it rather tight below, so I am unsure. Otherwise a good picture, although sharpness decreases a bit on the antlers. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it´s a good picture of a wildlife animal (I think it was difficult to make with all the problems in the real nature)--Holleday 17:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

8 days limit reached

  •  Support Tomer T 17:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor cropping --Carschten 17:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, but as Robalotoff--Lmbuga 12:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --W.S. 11:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Trehjuling Horndals bruk 01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Broken tricycle at former ironworks site in Horndal, Sweden.--V-wolf 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline I was to support, but the white of the small wheel looks overexposed to me. Thoughts about ? Otherwise good --Jebulon 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose As Jebulon and red chromatic aberrations (handlebar superior)--Lmbuga 13:55, 24 June 201 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 22:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Neuenweg_-_Evangelische_Kirche1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Neuenweg: Protestant Church from South --Taxiarchos228 11:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline *  Oppose church looks distorted, sky is blown out --Carschten 12:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    *  Comment perspective correction was done, the sky was white at time of taking this picture --Taxiarchos228 12:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose - the sky can be white, but it wouldn't look overexposed, the clock is unsharp. Felix Koenig 18:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Autricourt église.jpg

edit

  • Nomination France, church of Autricourt (Côte-d'Or) --Siren-Com 09:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose nice picture but strong artefacts at 100 % view --Taxiarchos228 09:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What sort of artefact ? Siren-Com 09:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC) --Siren-Com 09:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • artefacts of Lossy compression --Taxiarchos228 11:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC) -
  • - I don't understand, I can't use a RAW file, the jpeg is at 95% and i have made small transformation (only little shappened and contrast) If I download the original file without change, what you think of ? - Siren-Com 14:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see serious artefacts on the clock (which should be the most sensitive part).
  •  Support --Ikar.us 15:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective could be corrected --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 22:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Anthophora on Podonosma 1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Female Anthophora foraging on Podonosma --Gidip 19:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Exposure: too dark. Easy to fix. -- Rama 06:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think it is too dark. What do others think? Gidip 19:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it could be brightened so that the parts of the bumblebee which used to be ”white” would be more white looking. YET not so white that the shades were broken. --Ximonic 14:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Fixed, I hope. --Gidip 18:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support Better now for me. --Ximonic 03:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dark and harsh flash light. W.S. 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Backgrond very noisy and as W.S.--Lmbuga 23:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too Dark --Archaeodontosaurus 10:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --W.S. 08:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Schwangau_-_St._Coloman1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination St. Coloman Church --Taxiarchos228 22:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 23:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate center composition. Try to crop the bottom side? --Daniel Baránek 09:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • no, I like this composition, IMO no reason against QI anyhow --Taxiarchos228 11:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 20:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Wlady!! Good quality, and I like the paraglider :-) --Carschten 20:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • oh Mist, den einen habe ich vergessen wegzuretuchieren :-) --Taxiarchos228 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Too much grass, but QI with the paraglider --Jebulon 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI -- Pro2 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - very good quality and composition. -- Felix Koenig 18:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 22:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nie-6610.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Niennah, Russian and Ellerian writer, poet, composer and singer.--PereslavlFoto 14:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Red eyes. --Ikar.us 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Fixed --Tlusťa 09:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC) & support. --Tlusťa 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now. --Ikar.us 12:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 08:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Hohenschwangau_-_Schloss_Neuschwanstein5.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Castle Neuschwanstein, view from upper courtyard level: Bower (left), Palas front, and Knights' House (right) --Taxiarchos228 22:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Tilted. --Daniel Baránek 09:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    please make clear what here is tilted. The facade are straight in line --Taxiarchos228 10:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I made a note to the picture. The tops of the towers are not direct above center of the bottom part of the towers... as it should be probably. --Daniel Baránek 10:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    the location of the camera was left of the center so the spires of the towers has to be like this, this are simple perspective reasons, nothing wrong here --Taxiarchos228 11:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are different opinions about vertical camera tilt. But this image is simply rotated. --Ikar.us 19:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support There is no remarkable tilt in this picture to see. Like Wlady said, the spires have to be so by perspective reason. Um es genau zu sagen: Die Helme der Erker können so oder so dieser leicht schrägen Ansicht über den Ansatzpunkten der Erker liegen, da die Helme nicht über einen vollkommenen gleichseitigen Grundriss verfügen. Dies ergibt sich zwingend daraus, dass die die einzelnen Dachbahnen der Helme bildenden Dreiecke nicht alle genau gleich groß sind. Es scheint so zu sein, als habe der Architekt den Ansatzpunkt der Erker unten am Baukubus vor den durch die Dachhelme markierten (gedachten) Erkermittelpunkt gesetzt. Da alle anderen senkrechten Linien des Bildes ausgerichtet sind, kann es sich nicht um eine fehlerhafte perspektivische Transformation handeln. --Alupus 22:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Die anderen senkrechten Linien sind eben nicht senkrecht. Parallel, aber nicht senkrecht. Das Bild ist perspektivisch richtig, aber komplett verdreht. --Ikar.us 22:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Wo soll da was schief sein? Selbst mit einem Raster in Photoshop versehen und auf 200 % gebeamt, sehe ich von ganz kleinen und irrelevanten Abweichungen hier und da keine "schiefen" Senkrechten. Und ob diese aus der Bildbearbeitung stammen oder evtl. sogar tatsächlich am Bau vorhanden sind (ja, das gibt es, auch an Protzpalästen...), könnte nur eine genaueste Bauaufnahme mit - pardon für die Kamera - besseren Messinstrumenten als eine D 90 klären. Dafür ist C:QIC aber nicht da. In meinen Augen ist das Bild auskorrigiert. Ich fände es eher besser, ein paar wenige Prozent Abweichung Richtung der fallenden Linie zuzulassen. Zu den Gründen vgl. z. B. die Kurvatur am griechischen Tempelbau. Das gilt übertragen auch für Bilder. --Alupus 19:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Stürzende Linien heißt das. Die Kanten links sind um 1.2° geneigt, die rechts verlaufen senkrecht. Wenn alles um 0.6° nach links gedreht wird, gibt es eine schöne Perspektive. Ein halbes Grad ist sehr viel und fällt dem bloßen Auge stark auf. Wenn die Gebäude gekippt wären, dann nicht so gleichmäßig. --Ikar.us 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Danke für deinen Hinweis, dass es stürzende Linien heißt (falsa demonstratio non nocet?!). Im übrigen bleibe ich meiner Ansicht. Auf meinem Bildschirm befindet sich auch bei 300 % Ansicht die überwiegende Zahl auch der Senkrechten auf der linken Bildhälfte im Lot, sprich parallel zum künstlich erzeugten Raster von Photoshop. Auffällig ist allerdings z. b., daß die Gebäudeecke des linken Flügels nicht im Lot ist, der unmittelbar rechts folgende Pilaster an diesem Flügel aber wohl. Derartige Abweichungen können imho nicht durch eine perspektivische Transformation bei der Bildbearbeitung entstehen, sondern sind evtl. Realität? Übrigens: Das Bild sowie aus der Kamera mit den stürzenden Linien ist eine perspektivisch richtige Darstellung. Schlußfolgerung für mich: weiterhin keine Abweichungen zu erkennen, die den QI-Stempel verhindern würden. --Alupus 08:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


Die Diskussion ist interessant und wichtig. Meiner Meinung nach ist bei der Korrektur der stürzenden Linien etwas schief gegangen. Das Zentralgebäude wirkt gestaucht und weist eine Konvergenz der waagerechten Linien auf, die wie eine Verzerrung wirkt. Die Treppe rechts scheint zu kippen, sieht aus, wie in sich verdreht. Nun ist das ein subjektiver Eindruck, denn jede 2-D-Darstellung von 3-D-Objekten arbeitet irgendwie mit Verzerrungen, vor allem bei Objekten wie hier, die eine große räumliche Tiefe umfassen und mit Weitwinkel aufgenommen wurden. Dennoch kann man das Problem etwas besser lösen, indem man die waagerechten Linien des Hauptgebäudes etwas geradezieht und dabei darauf achtet, dass die etwa gleichhohen, auffälligen Teile des Gebäudes zueinander passen, einen Grobvergleich der beiden Verfahren habe ich beigefügt. So richtig gut ist es mir nicht gelungen, aber ich glaube, man sieht, was ich meine. Ich bitte um Kommentare. mfg --Mbdortmund 13:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Eight days limit passed on 28/6

  •  Support Hello everybody ! Sorry for english language, aber wenn ich Deutsch verstehe, it's easier for me to write in (poor) english. Yes it is an interesting and useful debate. I agree with Alupus, there fore I support. For me, this picture is not tilted, nor badly corrected. Maybe be could you notice that I have (almost) the same problem with this unassessed picture. It is not tilted, nor wrongly corrected, but it looks like. The reason in that as photographer I was not really "in front of", or really parallel to, my subject. One can see this when looking to the left (facing) side of the tower. Not only the facing side is visible. Therefore, as it is a looong vertical building, the top looks tilted. I can "correct" horizontal, it should be comfortable for the eyes, but unrealistic. I hope I was clear enough...--Jebulon 09:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.S. 10:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Malwa kwiat.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Natural Alcea flowers in Poland--Kudak 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Background is rather overexposed, but foreground very good. Not sure what to do with this. Mattbuck 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    *  Comment I would suggest a slight recrop, if possible: more vertical, less wide. Jonathunder 20:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs species identity and Alcea can't be 'natural' in Poland anyway;-). W.S. 08:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Gm-trapeznaa-6771.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Pereslavl museum, refectory. After the «Night in Museum» 2011.PereslavlFoto 14:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Person on the right is cut. --Ikar.us 23:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Does that person matter? She was just passing downstairs.--PereslavlFoto 11:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • She's not important and might/should be missing, of course. But it she's present and cut, she's disturbing IMO. --Ikar.us 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Ikar.us 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-06-16 00-08-23-landscape.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A landscape under the fullmoon. --ComputerHotline 06:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support ok imo --Carschten 14:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy. W.S. 17:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy. Looks underexposed. Also this picture is useless: just a land, trees and sky. I can take 100 such empty pictures in a minute. --Kae 08:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Not so empty, not so useless IMO. Nice night picture under fullmoon. And it is physicaly impossible to take 100 such pictures in a minute because of the duration of the exposure !--Jebulon 10:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good, but the stars have a ghost each. --Ikar.us 21:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikar.us 21:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)