Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 08 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Schrattenthal_Schloss_Skulptur_im_Schlosspark.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Skulptur im Schlosspark von Schloss Schrattenthal (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 03:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question Is it sharp enough for QI? Please discuss -- Spurzem 11:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, obvious motion blurr. --Palauenc05 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Palauenc05 --Smial 07:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   -Seven Pandas 01:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Immendorf_Kellergasse_Nähe_Jägerhaus_17.jpg_

[edit]

  • Nomination Verfallenes Objekt in der Kellergasse „Nähe Jägerhaus“ in Immendorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nothing sharp. --Tsungam 10:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Das, was von dem verfallenen Objekt hinter dem Gestrüpp noch zu sehen ist (die Ziegel im Hintergrund), sind doch scharf!!! (Und das war gar nicht so leicht hinzukriegen!). --Manfred Kuzel 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Das einzig ansatzweise scharfe sind die Brennnesseln. --Tsungam 06:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tsungam. --Basotxerri 17:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tsungam. Focus is on the nettles and some other plant parts, the brick wall is not sharp. And, yes, focussing such objects with modern cameras is difficult. Old fashioned SLR with "real" focussing screens sometimes have advantages ;-) --Smial 18:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vom verfallenen Objekt ist fast nichts zu erkennen. Wie schon an anderer Stelle gesagt: Manchmal lassen es die äußeren Umstände nicht zu, ein Qualitätsbild zu machen. Das ist schade, aber es ist so. -- Spurzem 19:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Gerade daß vom verfallenen Objekt ist fast nichts zu erkennen ist, soll damit dokumentiert werden, Spurzem! Manche Kellergassen bestehen leider nur mehr aus solchen verfallenen Objekten. Es muß auch kein QI daraus werden, nur die Begründung lasse ich nicht unwidersprochen.--Manfred Kuzel 07:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Cruise_Center_Altona,_WPAhoi,_Hamburg_(P1080428).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dockland, Hamburg --MB-one 07:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Need tilt/perspective correction. Otherwise good. --ArildV 07:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, need correction before promotion. --ArildV 08:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @ArildV: can you please specify the necessary corrections? --MB-one 09:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @MB-one: the "vertical" lines are not vertical.--Chianti 12:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Corrections have not been done. --Bgag 02:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed they have not.--Peulle 12:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

File:19-07-27-Wismar-Innenstadt-DJI_0058-Panorama-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Innenstadt Wismar. By User:Daniela Kloth --Ralf Roletschek 20:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Nefronus 21:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)<br /
  •  Oppose I disagree. Overprocessed and perspective correction needed. --Tournasol7 04:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Overprocessed and perspective correction needed. Seven Pandas 13:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Please don't decline yet! I extracted the drone model "DJI FC2103" from the file's EXIF data and compared this image with other images from the wikimedia Category:Taken with DJI FC2103. All images show a large amount of distortion typical for a 24 mm (relative to a full frame sensor) lens, tend to be a trifle too dark, even for my liking, and are significantly sharpened, almost over-sharpened. This image is IMHO thus not "over-processed" but simply a typical example of this drone cameras' inner algorithms that strive to compensate the downsides of a tiny sensor.
    On the other hand I find this view of the town quite impressive, the obvious distortion perfectly adapted to the very typical semi-circular plan of medieval towns, and giving a wonderful top-down view of the stalls on the market square. @User:Daniela Kloth I advise brightening up the scene by 0.3-0.7 apertures. Sorry, I cannot provide any advice as how to reduce the sharpening artefacts already present within a JPG file, which are clearly visible on the roof edges, but not really disturbing, as I work in RAW format only. Maybe images talken by drones with their weight-related limitations in sensor size should, at least for the near future, not be subject to the same stringent rules that apply for Quality Images taken with larger, and thus superior sensors. -- Franz van Duns 16:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Regarding the equipment and the circumstances, I would not demand a perspective correction. It is an aerial view with a wide angel lens, and its clearly visible, that the purpose of the image is an overview of the city. Though I would prefer less color saturation, I wont't decline the nomination because of this. Greetings --Dirtsc 15:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   -Seven Pandas 01:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

File:The_Baar_-_View_from_Fürstenberg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Fürstenberg of the Baar; Baden-Württemberg, Germany --Llez 05:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice scene. But there are too many obvious stitching errors in the fields. I marked some. Not a QI yet. --Milseburg 20:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info I will rework it as soon as possible --Llez 00:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Completely new stitch, using another program, without errors --Llez 06:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Stitch looks good. --GRDN711 21:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The stitching is much better now. But sharpness was a bit better in the former version. Overall it reaches the QI-bar in my eyes.--Milseburg (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Sharpness improved --Llez 06:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO good now. --Aristeas 10:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Like -- Franz van Duns 17:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   -Seven Pandas 01:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)