Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 18 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Bâtiment_dans_la_vieille_ville_de_Split_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bâtiment dans la vieille ville de Split. --Sebring12Hrs 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 12:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree, low LoD and needs perspective correction. --Аныл Озташ 01:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know what LoD is, but this is a good photo to me with adequate sharpness and a normal, natural perspective that's perfectly OK. -- Ikan Kekek 05:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment LoD is level of detail, a term that has not been in use here for very long and is therefore perhaps better not abbreviated. DOF for "depth of field", on the other hand, is quite common, also in the literature.--Smial 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe the term should be added to Commons:Photography terms. I might take care of that, but the thing is, the definition of the non-abbreviated term is obvious. -- Ikan Kekek 23:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Speedcube_MoYu_2022_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stickerless MoYu RS3 M 2022 Maglev, view from red side. --多多123 09:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Red background is almost the same colour as the subject, making it difficult to see the shape and size of it. --Аныл Озташ 12:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
    Left and right sides are obvious, due to the darker nature. Top side is visible as it's lighter. The only side which may be hard to see is the bottom side. The alternative is Speedcube MoYu 2022 2 2.jpg. --多多123 18:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Аныл Озташ. There's also some blotchy posterization. The alternative is better from a standpoint of contrast. -- Ikan Kekek 05:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad background. Lighting unfavorable. This is not a good, informative photograph of an object. --Smial 11:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Plants_vs._Zombies_handheld_console.jpg

[edit]

File:Plants vs. Zombies handheld console.jpg

  • Nomination The Plants vs. Zombies handheld console was a toy produced by Burger King Corporation and Electronic Arts Inc. in 2015. --多多123 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too soft IMHO, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    • This is the sharpest it gets. I would need magnification to get even more pixels. --多多123 20:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but downsizing of images is prohibited for QI in Commons:Image guidelines, and this image was downsized concerning the history of uploads. I personally do not agree with this rule, as in terms of information loss downsizing is less destructive than cropping or denoising, but the rule exists, and we should follow it. The other problem is the orange background as it is nearly the same color as the subject and thus disturbing, making it harder to understand the subject form and size. --LexKurochkin 08:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question What about copyright? --XRay 16:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, this will obviously be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad background. Lighting unfavorable. This is not a good, informative photograph of an object. --Smial 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per reasons above, and the metadata states "f/0" as aperture and a focal length of 0 mm, which feels technically impossible to me --PantheraLeo1359531 13:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment This is allways the case if I use my old manual Minolta MC 3.5/100mm Macro or other Rokkor lenses adapted to my Sony NEX or to my Pentax DSLRs. There is usually no way to automatically transfer the settings and properties of the lens to the camera in this case. However, you can of course add this manually to the EXIF afterwards with the appropriate tools. --Smial 14:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Same with Canon; see e.g. Category:Taken with Canon EOS 800D and Samyang 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC. --Njardarlogar 14:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, just thought this is an interesting detail :) --PantheraLeo1359531 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Plants_vs._Zombies_handheld_console_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Plants vs. Zombies handheld console was a toy produced by Burger King Corporation and Electronic Arts Inc. in 2015. --多多123 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too soft. Sorry. --Ermell 19:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    • It's soft as this is the sharpest it gets on an angle, my lens can't do any better. I tried to focus at the right and on the middle, it falls off on the left, it's something to do with the lens. --多多123 20:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
      •  Info The DoF problem is quite usual for this type of photography, I would suggest to try focus stacking. --LexKurochkin 09:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
      • @Ermell:  Info New version uploaded. --多多123 16:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but downsizing of images is prohibited for QI in Commons:Image guidelines, and this image was downsized concerning the history of uploads. I personally do not agree with this rule, as in terms of information loss downsizing is less destructive than cropping or denoising, but the rule exists, and we should follow it. The other problem is the orange background as it is nearly the same color as the subject and thus disturbing, making it harder to understand the subject form and size. There is also DoF problem as the left side is out of focus. --LexKurochkin 08:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lex. -- Ikan Kekek 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad background. Lighting unfavorable. This is not a good, informative photograph of an object. --Smial 11:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Btw: It is nowhere forbidden to downscale images if there are good technical reasons for doing so. I have already listed these reasons repeatedly and will not discuss them here again.
  •  Info From Commons:Image guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file." - as I said, I don't like this rule, it does not work as many other post-processing methods, including very frequently used ones, are more information destructive. We cannot just publish raw-files "as it is", many great photos became great due to right post-processing. --LexKurochkin 13:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment "in order to appear of better quality." Exactly. And well-known. But I won't explain here again in detail why this formulation does not prohibit downscaling in justified cases. Check the archives. --Smial 07:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Thank you! I'll do, this topic is quite interesting to me. And if we can remove the restriction, it would be valuable for our photographic community IMO. --LexKurochkin 06:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)