Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 02 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Ring-Billed_Gull_at_Toronto_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ring-Billed Gull --Fabian Roudra Baroi 05:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 06:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Very sharp image. But I think the crop at the bottom is too tight. --Augustgeyler 13:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: Thanks for your review. In wildlife it's hard to get sharp images without grain, I tried my best.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 19:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment I respect your work. And I know how tricky wildlife photography can be. My critic was not about grain, but about framing. --Augustgeyler 22:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
        • I really appreciate your review, but there are only 33 quality images of this species except mine. So, IMO the frame shouldn't be major issue as long as the image is sharp and usable.--Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks ok to me. But speaking of sharpness: is the beak really in focus here? Not 100 % sure.--Der Angemeldete 14:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for your support, there could be light bokeh on the front part of the beak because of the position of the bird. Is it too disturbing or unacceptable? --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 Comment No, as mentioned by Smial it's a good composed high res image and such small things like the beak or the artifacts shouldn't affect a promotion here. Indeed there were blurry green lines around the edge of the wings which you also removed in the new version quite well. --undefined 12:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. I find the lack of depth of field on the beak acceptable. Colors and lighting seem appropriate to me. What bothers me in this and many other processed photos are the artifacts that often appear at interfaces between re-sharpened and noise-reduced areas, as here, partly in the plumage, partly at the edge of the wings, partly on the legs. The flaws are quite minor in the photo and forgivable considering the image resolution, just like the slight longitudinal CA. Nevertheless, use the image denoising functions with sensitivity and caution, so that the final result is harmonious and does not contain strange imbalances. --Smial 12:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
@Smial: Thanks for your review, I'll keep it in mind. I tried to improve it a bit, let me know if it's ok or should I revert.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 00:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 Comment My comment was meant as a general reference, not a massive criticism of this photo. Overall, it was okay and you didn't have to edit it again. However, I admit that I actually like the new version better ;-) -- Smial 11:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Catedral,_Perugia,_Italia,_2022-09-20,_DD_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral, Perugia, Italy --Poco a poco 19:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop, geometric distortions --Yeriho 21:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version Poco a poco 20:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me.--Ermell 19:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)