Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 14 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Objekt 16 in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf an der Bundesstraße.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 05:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Banding stripes on the sky. --A.Savin 14:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. Parallel horizontal bands are bad. -- Ikan Kekek 15:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others.--Peulle 15:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 18:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Sandro Halank 18:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Objekt 18 in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf an der Bundesstraße.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 05:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please fix the dust/insect spot at the very right. Also, there are banding stripes on the sky, even though not as strong as on many other of your "Objekt" photos. --A.Savin 14:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. If you eliminate the dust spots (one large and one tiny one), I would probably be neutral even if the bands aren't removed; if you also remove the bands, I would vote to support. -- Ikan Kekek 15:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others.--Peulle 15:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Sandro Halank 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Objekt 7 in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf an der Bundesstraße.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse in Gedersdorf/Niederösterreich. --Kellergassen 14:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 15:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as Objekt1 - banding stripes on the sky. Also needs some perspective and sharpening --A.Savin 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 15:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others.--Peulle 15:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 17:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Objekt 5 in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf an der Bundesstraße.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse in Gedersdorf/Niederösterreich. --Kellergassen 14:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as Objekt1 - banding stripes on the sky - additionally, a cropping mark at the bottom. --A.Savin 21:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I don't know what the cropping mark would be, but I sure see the banding. -- Ikan Kekek 15:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stripes in the sky.--Peulle 15:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Objekt 1 in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf an der Bundesstraße.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse in Gedersdorf/Niederösterreich. --Manfred Kuzel 14:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Banding stripes on the sky. Maybe reprocessable --A.Savin 20:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. --Ikan Kekek 15:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others.--Peulle 15:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 17:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Ευαγγελισμός Ηρακλείου 7982.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: View of Evagelismos, Crete. --C messier 11:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Sorry, lacks detail --A.Savin 12:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment The subject is just distant. I wish for more opinions. --C messier 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support - it is a bit lacking in detail, but it seems OK for 120mm. I'm curious to hear other opinions.--Peulle 13:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per C. messier's point. I think it's tolerable for a town to be a bit unsharp if it's in the further middleground of a photo with a long depth of field. -- Ikan Kekek 02:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment By the way, 120 mm on MFT are 240 mm FF. --Basotxerri 18:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
     Question - Please explain what that means. -- Ikan Kekek 13:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Hi Ikan Kekek, C. messiers uses a Micro Four Thirds camera (with factor 2 crop sensor). Peulle comments the 120mm focal length which indicates a telephoto. Normally when we indicate a focal length, we refer to Full Frame focal length, so seeing 120mm would be a moderate telephoto. But the equivalent focal length of Micro Four Thirds is twice (equivalent regarding Full Frame), that means the 120mm of EXIF data are 240mm compared with a Full Frame. This means it's in reality twice the distance that one could think of, twice the haze, twice the atmospherical perturbations and in consequence it must be even unsharper (than shot with 120mm). I fear this explanation is quite bad, please tell me if you could follow it. --Basotxerri 16:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I get the gist of it. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek 12:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin. Air too hazy to get acceptable sharpness, contrast and colours. I would also judge with "weak pro", if the composition is outstanding, or a special moment has been captured, but it is not so. --Smial 13:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Sandro Halank 18:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)