Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 2012

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Simuna_katkuallikas.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Simuna spring, the beginning of Pedja river --Iifar 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Sorry, I don't understand the subject of the image. Is it the spring?, Why?--Lmbuga 21:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC).
  •  Info Please look at Spring (hydrology). --Iifar
    • Sorry, to me "spring" was only a season of the year.
  •  Support QI to me: Difficult context for taking the photo (ISO 400, 1/60 sec, f/2,8)--Lmbuga 15:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs to be discussed. Almost no sharp area in this image. Without a context/surrounding, I see no image value. --NorbertNagel 19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Kadellar 21:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness. --High Contrast 14:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support there is one important part in the picture (the water coming out of the ground), and that part is sharp. Valuable image IMO, as it shows a well in a good way. --DKrieger 21:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The flat lighting and tight crop make it hard to tell what this is an image of. --Carnildo 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The place, where water is coming out of the ground is imo sharp enough and that was valuable to me. --Iifar 06:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As already stated by Lmbuga and Carnildo the subject of the image is hardly visible. So I oppose it because of the unfortunate composition. Some comments to the sharpness: Everything, what can be focussed on is unsharp. For the water itself it cannot be judged, because there are hardly any edges, where you can see it... --LC-de 13:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Röttelnweiler2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Röttelnweiler --Taxiarchos228 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Nice! --NorbertNagel 21:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC).
     Oppose I'm sorry, but the sky looks partly overexposed to me. --Iifar 05:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe the overexsposed sky is ammissible but there is chromatic aberration and the composition doesn't convinces me. Sorry. --T137 07:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Detail Spanish Riding School wintermanege Vienna.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inside of the Spanish Riding School winter manege, baroque details. Vienna, Austria.--Jebulon 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI to me. --Tomer T 14:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor sharpness and very noisy, seems wiggly --Taxiarchos228 14:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - not QI, although a usable image. Blur around the chandelier. --Claritas 22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - not QI.--Reinhardhauke 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    •  Question Warum, bitte ?--Jebulon 10:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, but this is a QI to me, because of sharpness (have a look at the text of the plaque and the chandelier itself), the distortion correction, and the careful choice of composition. --Cayambe 10:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral As Cayambe, but I don't like too much the composition: If the subject of the composition is the first lamp (or the lamps), the image is for me too tight. I don't know the subject of the image--Lmbuga 01:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Aethaloessa_calidalis_by_Kadavoor.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aethaloessa calidalis -- Jkadavoor 07:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blurred antenna--Gauravjuvekar 16:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    Gauravjuvekar is right, but it's not sufficient reason for me--Lmbuga 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not an issue. Other antenna is good visible. -- Smial 13:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As Smial--Lmbuga 15:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As others. --Cayambe 10:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good job of "in vivo" conditions --Archaeodontosaurus 07:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lampinkoski_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lampinkoski rapid and highway 8 in Finland. --kallerna 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Visible lens flare. --Iifar 19:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Lens flare is not always a reason for decline if it supports image atmosphere. -- Smial 13:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible lens flare.--Reinhardhauke 16:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --NorbertNagel 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lens flare (not artistic and IMHO so not acceptable) and overexposure. Sorry. --T137 11:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As T137--Lmbuga 01:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Johanniskirche_in_Brackenheim_VI.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Information board in Brackenheim --Brackenheim 11:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support. --Cayambe 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

* OpposeNeeds a perspective correction before promotion.--Jebulon 10:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC) * Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 01:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support "perspective correction" now corected. --Alchemist-hp 12:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks, Alchemist ! --Jebulon 16:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks, Alchemist--Lmbuga 18:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Telostylinus_lineolatus_male_2_by_kadavoor.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Telostylinus lineolatus, male -- Jkadavoor 06:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much overexposure on the bottom left (distracting)--Gauravjuvekar 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Other opinions? The fly was perched on the cutted part of a rubber tree; taken in very low lights. The fresh skin/bark of the tree may very reflective. --Jkadavoor 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. As Jkadavoor. The plase where subject stands don't help the correct esposure end so this photo can't be QI. --T137 10:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --T137 10:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:ČD_Class_714,_Praha_Masarykovo_nádraží.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination ČD Class 714 at Praha Masarykovo nádraží in 2012. --High Contrast 20:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed background --Poco a poco 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "background"? The train station is not overexposed. But the image has no blue sky, that's true. --High Contrast 14:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportI disagree: the overexposed backround is like a free-form select of the foreground. The foreground shows the good exposed subject. --Elektroschreiber 22:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the sky is highly overexposed. --Iifar 12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposure, also in the station. Sorry. --T137 07:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The main subject on the image is the locomotive itself. Under the given ligh conditions it is rather impossible to avoid overexposed areas in background parts. --High Contrast 12:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You are right, but in this case the background is important thing. There are condition light with it's impossible to have QI. IMHO. --T137 09:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain why the background is so import with this image? I can repeat: the main subject is the locomotive with the train station platforms. --High Contrast 10:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The background is not so important but it is not irrelevant. And for me an QI with a background that is not only the sky, not to be overexposed. if you feel wrong even undo my vote :-). Sorry for bad english. --T137 11:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I know what you mean. Regards, High Contrast 14:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 16:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:ND de Paris 03-2010.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination West facade of ND of Paris, end of afternoon light --Siren-Com 16:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose CA and prospective --Moroder 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB 29 Sir Colin Campbell Building.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sir Colin Campbell Building on Jubilee Campus. Mattbuck 14:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion too dark --Taxiarchos228 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    I have uploaded a brighter version. Mattbuck 22:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
     Support QI now --Taxiarchos228 16:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Clearfin lionfish (Pterois radiata).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Clearfin lionfish (Pterois radiata). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good --Cayambe 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good on first sight, but in higher resolution mostly blurry and out of focus. --Llez 17:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    I could only get the head and body in focus, as the fins protruded several inches out. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As option... (the file is updated) --Aleks G 22:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support After correction --Llez 18:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Holleday 18:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 14:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:MRAH 20112011 Vierge 14eme s Ivoire.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gothic ivory Madonna and Child, MRAH.--Vassil 04:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good. --ArildV 09:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed parts (arm, knee of the Virgin, shoulder of the Child), and rather noisy for dark parts. Let's discuss, please. Sorry.--Jebulon 17:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As option (the file is updated). --Aleks G 00:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot Aleks G. --Vassil 07:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportNow. Thanks a lot Aleks G. --Jebulon 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ---Jebulon 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Tympan_-_Porte_Miégeville_-_Basilique_Saint-Sernin.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tympanum of Miègeville's gate in Basilique Saint-Sernin in Toulouse --PierreSelim 23:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Very good.--Jebulon 23:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sharpness is very good, but I think it's a bit dark, and the crop at the bottom is too tight, sorry. --Kadellar 15:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done but really not sure about the crop, what is below is just crappy. --PierreSelim 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me now. I prefer this crop, even with the gap of the door. We can see that the relief is very close to the edge, it doesn't look like a "mistake" in the picture. Thanks for reworking. --Kadellar 10:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blue, IMO. Yann 10:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I've updated it. --PierreSelim 20:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Still good to me.--Jebulon 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Villa_Fehr3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Villa Fehr --Taxiarchos228 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportNice! --NorbertNagel 20:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The building is too much obsured by the tree. --Berthold Werner 17:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • So what? I wanted to show the building and the embedding landscape. --Taxiarchos228 18:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Building doesn't matter without trees on this photo. --Florstein 12:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI does not mean "Buildings without trees, traffic signs, people." This house is well shown in its natural biotope :-) -- Smial 13:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me with Trees. --Ralf Roletschek 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Katedrální kostel Proměnění, Chabarovsk.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Transfiguration Cathedral in Khabarovsk, Russia; by Ondřej Žváček. - A.Savin 10:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Great colors and composition. --Yann 11:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Yann is right, but the image is too noisy --Carschten 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    I have denoised it --Taxiarchos228 20:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Denoising too strong.--Jebulon 15:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent colors and well-centered. --ElenaSchifirnet 02:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Continuing Taxiarchos228 correction, I tried to soften noise a little. The photo is pleasant to me (the file is updated). --Aleks G 18:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now. --Iifar 14:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-04-25_Кряква_в_Гатчинском_парке_(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Anas platyrhynchos, female. Gatchina park, Russia --Art-top 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a very strange composition --LC-de 09:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose As LC-de. And strong CAs at the bottom of the duck--Lmbuga 20:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good photo. Seeming composition issue does not embarrass me. --Florstein 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga 07:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colors are wrong. Mallard duck are not that white (it seems almost overexposed). --PierreSelim 09:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment "Colours wrong"? How do you explain all the different colours in Category:Anas platyrhynchos heads (female)? I believe, "colors wrong" should be rejected as argument in the future. -- Smial 13:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm still convinced the back of the head is overexposed. I'm strike my opposition. --PierreSelim 22:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Quebec_-_Jerome_d'Aviau_(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination French comics artist Jérôme d'Aviau in Québec, april 2012 --Selbymay 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --JDP90 18:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree: The second version with d'Aviau looking at the camera is much better. --Elektroschreiber 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    There's no need to choose here. The other is better, but this one is ok too. --Kadellar 22:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for your comments, I still do prefer this one (and the artist himself too) but I'll nominate the other one as well. Selbymay 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support the quality of this image is ok and meets the QI-criteria. --High Contrast 12:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Creek_Nackareservatet.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Small creek in Nackareservatet, close to the historic mansion Lilla Sickla. Nackareservatet is a nature reserve along the border between Stockholm and Nacka Municipality in Sweden. --ArildV 15:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Low DOF, water too bright and weather too dull. --Mattbuck 16:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Good DOF (the maine part is sharp), water not too bright and nothing wrong with the weather (since when is dull weather a reason to decline?).--ArildV 16:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Pont Saint-Michel Napoléon.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monogramm N on Saint-Michel bridge (Paris).--Siren-Com 14:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Crop a bit tight above, but good.--Jebulon 16:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
     OpposeCrop is too tight and I am not so sure about quality, let's discuss, sorry. --Kadellar 21:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    I have loaded a little different file, I d'ont make better. - Siren-Com 10:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Still good enough to me.--Jebulon 16:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the new version, but I am not sure anyway. Let's wait for more opinions. --Kadellar 12:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, I'd prefer a centered crop but it's ok. --PierreSelim 20:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 16:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Gniezno,_Polonia,_2012-04-05,_DD_28.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pomian coat of arms (episcopal) in Gniezno Cathedral, Gniezno, Poland --Poco a poco 21:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good--Jebulon 23:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not so convinced of the crop (horrible frame) and the shadow is not so nice --Moroder 13:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version, still aplies the designation "horrible frame"? Poco a poco 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The frame has gone, but probably you'll have to wait for a clouded day to retake the picture;it is worth it, sorry ;-) --Moroder 21:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. --Iifar 14:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 14:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Dormition_SPB_VO.jpg[edit]

File:Wat_Tham_Sua_6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Unfinished pagoda of Tiger Cave Temple near Krabi town, Krabi, Thailand. --kallerna 06:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support --Cayambe 14:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

*  Oppose Green cast IMO.--Jebulon 16:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I've made an edit : WB and tilt fixed. May someone review, please ?. --Vassil 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR 09:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good now -- Smial 22:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support No more reason to oppose. Good now.--Jebulon 01:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 01:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Gresgen_-_Ortsschild.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gresgen: City limit sign --Taxiarchos228 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good..--ArildV 20:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

*Perspective distortion, please see annotations.--Jebulon 21:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)--Jebulon 12:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)  Info distortion is now corrected. Annotations deleted, because no longer necessary. The annotations are important for more image infos, not for image imperfections. --Alchemist-hp 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC). Disagree with you interpretation of Commons:Image annotations.--Jebulon 16:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Grand_Coulee_Dam_Panorama_Smaller.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 120° panorama of the Grand Coulee Dam as seen on a September evening. --CLI 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline * Support Some minor stitching issues are there, but otherwise very well done. - A.Savin 14:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed clouds, also vertical banding in the sky presumably from stitching. -- KlausFoehl 16:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice composition and colours but unfortunelately too many stiching errors. --kallerna 14:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:House of the Lake, Delos 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination House of the Lake in Delos, Greece --Bgag 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good--Jebulon 20:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think there's distortion, and the capital and the floor aren't sharp (artifacts imo). --Kadellar 21:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The capital at the top of the column isn't very sharp, but the picture may be a QI IMO. --Vassil 20:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Slight barrel distortion, but QI though. -- Smial 22:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kadellar – JPG artifacts (low detail level), not straight. --Carschten 12:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:12-04-20-johanniskirche-ebw-by-RalfR-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church Johanniskirche in Eberswalde --Ralf Roletschek 12:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Overall pretty, some overexp. spots, QI for me --Moroder 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Lack of fine detail and perspective distortion. --Iifar 17:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of details, especially in the grass, sorry. --Vassil 20:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too strong noise reduction suppressed details. -- Smial 22:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Mosaic from the Insula of the Jewellery 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mosaic from Delos, Greece --Bgag 22:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good -- George Chernilevsky 06:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would ask for a discussion about sharpness--Jebulon 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral As nobody has questions about sharpness, I probably may be wrong, so I remain neutral and don't oppose.--Jebulon 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Siège du château d'amour.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ivory miror valve Siège du château d'amour (Louvre museum). --Siren-Com 22:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me --PierreSelim 08:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice object, but a bit blurry and noisy at full size. It needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 18:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support VLF noise reduced -- Smial 14:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Nürnberg_-_Schöner_Brunnen1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nueremberg: Schöner Brunnen (Beautiful Fountain) --Taxiarchos228 07:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

* Oppose The perspective distortion of the buildings in background should be corrected before promotion.--Jebulon 15:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)--Jebulon 18:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support good for me so as it is --Ralf Roletschek 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC) (only pro for the original version, kontra for the distortions.

* Support Correction of distortions (the file is updated) --Aleks G 22:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC) --Aleks G 00:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  •  Comment Logically, I've removed my opposition. Logically, Ralf Roletschek must remove his support, and have to oppose now.--Jebulon 18:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose The tips of the towers are missing ;-) --Moroder 21:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  •  Comment Reverted to original version. The rework applied strong horizontal distortions to the object, is heavily oversaturated and somewhat oversharpened. If you are doing such rework, please upload with new file name. Files should only be overwritten if changes are minor, or by author request. @Morodor: File name and description mentions the spring, not the Church in background -- Smial 22:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for original version -- Smial 22:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose if the original version is back, my opposition too.@Smial about Moroder's comment: the name of the file does not mention the church indeed, but the church with cropped towers is in the picture. I personaly tend to assess pictures, file names and descriptions are less important than pictures flaws (like composition errors) if any (not obvious here, IMO).--Jebulon 01:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, bad crop, the uncomplete towers in the background are pretty disturbing Poco a poco 09:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I prefer also the origin version here. Not in any case a mathematical straightness is desirable. --Taxiarchos228 11:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, distortion is a mistake, and many photos don't receive QI for this reason, I do not think that the given photo an exception. --Aleks G 00:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • to clear each distortion makes others kind of mistakes, you'll never get a geometric 100 % correct picture on 2D. and to correct object far away is nonsens, sorry --Taxiarchos228 20:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As others--Lmbuga 22:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lord_Howe_Island_lagoon_panorama.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lord Howe Island lagoon --99of9 07:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too hazy for QI. --NorbertNagel 18:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support What do you mean? I think it's good. Let's discuss. --Kadellar 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I mean the whole scene is quite hazy and the dominating colour is grey/blue. Suboptimal time for the photo. --NorbertNagel 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 16:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Gresgen6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gresgen --Taxiarchos228 20:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice photo. --Florstein 07:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    {{o}} Dust spots (see notes). Halo on the sky--Lmbuga 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    sorry but I see no halo and the dustspot is hardly to see --Taxiarchos228 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right Taxiarchos228, there aren't halo, but two dust spots, not strong dust spots, but dust spots (see notes - you can delete the notes went you want)--Lmbuga 20:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
dustspots removed now --Taxiarchos228 20:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Renault Mascott Parisian police.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Not damaged "Renault Mascott" vans of the french national parisian police.--Jebulon 16:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment lamp and house are not straight, number plate is not retouched so good and there is some CA visible --Taxiarchos228 16:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep away from my pictures !!!--Jebulon 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Taxiarchos228 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep away from my pictures !!! Your vote is a non sense and ridiculous, because corrections were made !--Jebulon 18:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • please spare with your personal attacks! CA and retouching sill is the same --Taxiarchos228 18:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep away from my pictures!!! No personal attack: I said your vote was ridiculous, it is still ridiculous and obviously personal, no matter here of what I think about you !--Jebulon 19:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment My God... There are noisy areas (see annotations), if you could correct them it's a QI for me. Minor CA are okay IMHO. --Carschten 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, thank you. This is now an historical picture! Never a simple image has been so deeply reviewed in a so short time. It is a big farce, thanks for this great moment !! But please notice that I do not push my own picture in CR, and I'll accept a decline vote, not the case of all contributors, today...--Jebulon 21:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I uploaded a new version by myself. Good quality. Visible or retouched license plate doesn't matter IMHO. --Carschten 12:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 Comment I can see absolutely no reason to disguise the number plates, we know exactly who owns the vehicles, there are no privacy issues. If there are specific French laws that make it illegal to show the number plates then please cite them. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not because you can see absolutely no reason to disguise the numbers plates, that there are not. I don't speak about privacy issues, but about security reasons.--Jebulon 22:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Name a single security reason ? --Tony Wills (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry dear Tony Wills, is it a police investigation? an interrogation? A trial maybe ? Anyway, you don't have to know where those cars are usually parked. If you know the number plates, step by step you may know that, and maybe come, one of the next nights, with a bomb to destroy them or/and other most important things in this place !!! Brrrrr, I'm afraid and would not be for part responsible of this !--Jebulon 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
@ Tony Wills: in France, registrations are linked to a vehicle, not the owner like in some other countries. Therefore, publishing numbers of police vehicles could be problematic if these vehicles are later sold, or if they are ever repainted and used for plain-cloth duty. And in any case, it makes perfect sense to censor out registrations plates out of principle for virtually any road vehicle.
As Bruce Schneier says, security is a state of mind, and it would obviously be too late to mask the numbers once we become aware of a potential problem. What good could concievably come from giving out these numbres anyway?
@ Jebulon I've had similar cases before, and my bset guess as for now is to put an black square (possibly skewed to fit the licence plate) to make it plain that the numbers have been deliberately censored out. This might feel less unreal that a blank registration plate. Another possibility is to blur or pixelise the plates beyond reading, but I am too much aware of Shannon's theorem to prefem this to the black square. Rama 23:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Green CA at the lampost, at the building's top can be improved. DOF is not too deep, but still suitable, yet it would be better to have all the cars in DOF. Otherwise good, yet sharpness may be improved with high pass filter.--PereslavlFoto 14:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Cascade du Nideck 02 05 2012 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A detail of the Cascade of Nideck, Vosges, France. --Vassil 20:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Probably too detailed - do you have an overview picture? --Moroder 20:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)I took a full view, but it is not very good because the sky was cloudy and white ; so I specified that this one shows only a part of the cascade, but perhaps the vegetation and the basaltic 'stairs' are interesting. Anyhow the QI review is more about the technical issues. --Vassil 22:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose I believe the general view image would help even if not QI. (It is an encyclopaedia we work for) but you are right, QI regards tech. issues mainly but in this case the image looks a bit blurry and the water, which is the main focus, is overexposed right in the middle of the pic. Sorry :-) --Moroder 14:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Le_Grand_Palais_-_La_France_en_relief_-_Berg-Op-Zoom_-_002.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bergen op Zoom en 1751. --Thesupermat 07:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice --Jebulon 16:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The transept is ok, but the tower is rather blurry, sorry. We need more opinions. Please add English descriptions in these pictures. Thanks. --Kadellar 16:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, the tower is not so blurry and very good composition. --Selbymay 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Some crop at the lower border would be preferable. But the main subject - the church - is sharp enough. Good picture of a very interesting subject; great informative and historical value. (Note: filename is too long IMHO). -- MJJR 09:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose great DOF, but strong noise and blurry. --Carschten 12:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but as Carschten--Lmbuga 22:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could be sharper. --PereslavlFoto 14:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Laion_Trostburg_Pruca_alpini_049.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wayside shrine in Lajen --Moroder 11:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Too dark?--ArildV 11:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)  SupportJoli décor et bien cadré. --Orikrin1998 11:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    Also a bit dark for me--Lmbuga 18:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Uploaded a lighter version --Moroder 07:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you. Good now.--ArildV 07:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support agree, very good improvement. --Jebulon 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Pavo_cristatus_-_Jardin_botanique_-_Toulouse_-_2012-05-07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Head of a Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) flaring his feathers in botanic garden of Toulouse. --PierreSelim 08:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion IdQJLPC 09:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Blue cast, IMO. May we have a discution ?--Jebulon 14:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Fixed the white balance, thanks for noticing it Jebulon. --PierreSelim 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Correction of balance white (the file is updated). --Aleks G 22:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me now. --Cayambe 11:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Zoofenster.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Zoofenster in Berlin, Germany -- Der Wolf im Wald 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --kallerna 07:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)  Comment I don't like the dynamic range increased -version. --kallerna 09:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, have to  Oppose because of overexposed sky. - A.Savin 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. Mattbuck 12:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distortrd --Ralf Roletschek 16:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

now a new version online with better sky -- Der Wolf im Wald 12:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - New version really isn't any better. Mattbuck 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info, Now, I've uploaded a further modification, you may check it out. - A.Savin 15:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 18:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • All you've done now, as best I can see, is to recolour the white to a mid-grey. That doesn't make the technical quality better. Mattbuck 15:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Aldgate tube station MMB 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Gherkin, viewed from Aldgate tube station. Mattbuck 14:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose interesting detail, but too dark on left side --Taxiarchos228 15:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok, its dark. But for me interesting, lets discuss! For me QI --Ralf Roletschek 19:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above.--Jebulon 15:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment, as nominator - it's meant to be dark, it was taken from a tube station, even the subsurface ones like this are very dark. You can't get the sky and the station at correct exposure, they're simply too far different. Mattbuck 13:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Gresgen11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gresgen: grassland with tree --Taxiarchos228 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Weak oppose: nice composition and out-of-focus background, but the upper part of the tree is out of focus.--ArildV 20:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    sorry, but for showing the landscape this should be quite irrelevant --Taxiarchos228 16:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC).
  •  Weak oppose I agree with ArildV, landscape is not in focus and the tree is not completely in focus (tree species?). Iifar
  •  Support, I think it is good picture. Partially blurred tree doesn't disturbs me. --Florstein 11:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice colors and composition. Yann 18:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Manque de détails, cadré trop large, mise au point pas très correcte / not enough details, (poorly framed ?) and tree is out the focus. --Orikrin1998 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Ail_ornemental-St-Amant_2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ornamental garlic (Allium atropurpureum) in a garden. Charente, France. --JLPC 20:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 06:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose until complete identification, as usual.--Jebulon 09:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Complete identification done. JLPC 11:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Opposition removed. I support now. Good QI in my opinion. --Jebulon 17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Edificio_principal,_Jardín_Botánico,_Múnich,_Alemania_2012-04-21,_DD_11.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Main building, Botanic Garden, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 10:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice colors, but too sharpened IMO and a bit of CAs--Lmbuga 05:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Nice image. I'm not sure if it's too sharpened (perhaps too much contrast). Others can think--Lmbuga 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sure about sharpening, but sure about strong CA, see for instance the white-clothed people left and right, and the edge of the building at right. (Opposition removable if improved, of course)--Jebulon 15:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version with less CAs. I think that it needs approval from Poco a poco.--Lmbuga 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hierwith me, Poco a poco, approves the new version...all jokes aside, I thank you for the help. To be honest I prepared a new version out of the RAW file with CA correction but yours -based on the JPG- is as good as mine (unfortunately I couldn't upload it due to my temporary poor Internet connecztion) Poco a poco 23:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yann 18:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Really excellent quality, well framed and no image in the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orikrin1998 (talk • contribs)
  •  Oppose oversaturated/too magenta sky; blurry/artifacts on both outer thirds, low general detail level. Definitely huge quality issues (no excellent quality). Camera/lens problems? --Carschten 14:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
     Comment I reworked the RAW and updated a new version Poco a poco 21:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    I hope that were just RAW developing incidents.  Support now, very good. --Carschten 10:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me now. --Iifar 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Opp. removed. QI for me too.--Jebulon 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Igrexa_de_Silleda._Galiza.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Siador, Silleda, Galicia, Spain --Lmbuga 16:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky, sorry. - A.Savin 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version. I don't like the new version. For me, the first version is not overexposed, but the sky is not blue, sorry
    The luminosity of the day is not this, I take the image today and today there was light, it was an acceptable day--Lmbuga 22:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question With lightroom 4 the sky were not overexposed. Which is your program?--Lmbuga 22:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC).
  •  Comment Histogram shows imo pretty clearly overexposed images. --Iifar 05:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the histograms vary depending on the program (IMO). The histogram of a image with lightroom_3 is different than the histogram with lightroom_4. Why was wondering. --Miguel Bugallo 17:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A bright gray sky is not always overexposed. --Archaeodontosaurus 06:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Archaeo .--Jebulon 19:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The tower looks on the first image version pretty clear, but in the last version like in the fog. Why? Also there is minor CA on the cross. --Iifar 09:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. Better? More contrast and clarity, less noise--Lmbuga 21:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Much better now. --Iifar 07:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above, looks better now. - A.Savin 11:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Much Dewchurch field MMB 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A field near Much Dewchurch. Mattbuck 14:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeThere's mist...Sorry... --Orikrin1998 18:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportPlease discuss about the mist. --JDP90 19:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me.--Jebulon 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:ZIL135_LM_hinten.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Ehemalige Startrampe vom Raketenkomplex LUNA-M auf LKW ZiL 135LM --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ansicht von hinten ist bei diesem Motiv die wichtigere, Der Himmel stört mich nicht, da Hauptmotiv ordentlich belichtet ist. --Ralf Roletschek 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC).
  •  Weak oppose Overexposed sky. --Iifar 16:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 02:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Pleudaniel - Trieux.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Trieux river in Pleudaniel, France, close to the Goz-Iliz chapel --LBE 13:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Chromatic noise. --Myrabella 08:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
     Support - I like it, in spite of the minor overexposure. Mattbuck 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise & underexposed right hand side. --kallerna 16:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per kallerna --Archaeodontosaurus 06:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Igrexa_de_Silleda._Galiza-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Siador, Silleda, Galicia, Spain --Lmbuga 16:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Same here, overexposed sky. - A.Savin 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info New version. Same here. I don't like the new version. For me, the first version is not overexposed, but the sky is not blue, sorry--Lmbuga 21:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question With lightroom 4 the sky were not overexposed. Which is your program?--Lmbuga 23:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A bright gray sky is not always overexposed. --Archaeodontosaurus 06:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Archaeo, not overexposed to my program : my eyes.--Jebulon 19:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose More contrast and clarity is needed here likewise. Actually both images are pretty much the same. --Iifar 07:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Iifar 13:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • New version. More clarity and contrast--Lmbuga 21:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The weather on the picture is not a picture post card weather, but this is not a QI criteria. The image is above average and so clearly QI. --Taxiarchos228 21:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 21:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Chapelle de Roumé (Cieutat, Hautes-Pyrénées, France).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Chapelle de Roumé (Cieutat, Hautes-Pyrénées, France) --Florent Pécassou 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC))
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice sky, but imo there is lack of fine detail. Sorry.--Iifar 09:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice, i agree. --Orikrin1998 18:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Iifar --Archaeodontosaurus 15:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Chambord Front.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Chambord Castle from Front, France.--Telemaque MySon 09:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me, nice! --Moroder 12:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems overprocessed to me. Controversial picture IMO. Needs at least a discussion.--Jebulon 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Google translate : Well framed, beautiful sky. QI. --Orikrin1998 16:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perhaps FP, but not QI for me. Overprocessed, as Jebulon--Lmbuga 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga and Jebulon, it looks like overprocessed blending of exposition (little halo). --PierreSelim 21:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga and Jebulon. Sorry. These thype of photo are ever problematic for QI valutation. --T137 22:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Tadoussac_-_Eglise_Sainte-Croix_(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sainte-Croix church, Tadoussac (Quebec) --Selbymay 21:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Yann 18:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but the image has lacking sharpness, a muddy impression, the shadow is disturbing and the cross on the right side is cut off, too many disabilitys for QI IMO --Taxiarchos228 15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I'd like to see more sharpness. --Iifar 09:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Maria_Zell_120501.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination pilgrimage church Maria Zell with Hohenzollern Castle --R-bitzer 01:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Very nice composition. I see one dust spot on the sky and notable purpule and green CA on the right part of the image. --Iifar 14:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Upload new version with some corrections --R-bitzer 18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
     Review needed --R-bitzer 13:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Shadowed part of the wall is really too dark...Improvable ?--Jebulon 20:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is OK for me, but the tree on the church tower is disturbing. Yann 18:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA is still there. --Iifar 11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is good. --Orikrin1998 09:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Zell-Atzenbach_-_Mariä_Himmelfahrt3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Zell im Wiesental:Ridge turret of Church of the Assumption in Atzenbach --Taxiarchos228 17:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I find the composition rather odd here, vast amounts of blue sky but little building. --Mattbuck 10:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
don´t understand why this composition is odd. the image shows the crossing and the ridge turret, to show this there are not many alternatives like here shown. --Taxiarchos228 14:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition for me--Lmbuga 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 30 47812 47842.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Class 47 locomotives approach Nailsea and Backwell in late evening. Mattbuck 18:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Underexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 09:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Underexposed would imply areas of pure black, and I don't think there are any. The light was a bit weird that day. Mattbuck 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed also for me (there is not white)--Lmbuga 20:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Phra_Nang_beach_45.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Long-tail boat in Phra Nang beach, Krabi, Thailand. --kallerna 07:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Florstein 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong color balance, IMO. Too greenish. The flag should be white, I guess.--Jebulon 14:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Much better now, isn't it? --Florstein 20:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I made small changes. --kallerna 07:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 20:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Batterie_d'honneur_de_l'artillerie_française_-_Investiture_présidentielle_du_15_mai_2012_-_031.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La batterie d'honneur de l'artillerie installée sur l'esplanade des Invalide après le tir de la salve de 21 coups de canon en l'honneur du nouveau président de la république française. --Thesupermat 07:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Excellent. -- Rama 08:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is overexposed, posterized (maybe overdone noise reduction), not sharp enought IMHO. --kallerna 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - for me the sky isn't interisting, the main object is good for QI --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed sky plus white spots on the image. --Iifar 09:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good. --Keymeulen 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 17:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy --Carschten 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy, as others--Lmbuga 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File:B1000_NVA-Bus.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination IFA B 1000 (NVA) --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC) ist mir zu weitwinklig. --Ralf Roletschek 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Mattbuck 19:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support In spite of some minor CA, the picture is not so bad and could be QI, IMO. Please discuss--Jebulon 09:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Commentsorry my english, what means "In spite of some minor CA"?--LutzBruno 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Minor CA, but fine detail--Lmbuga 20:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Tatra_T148NTt_Sattelzugmaschine_vorn.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Tatra T148NTt Sattelzugmaschine --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support seltenes Motiv sauber umgesetzt. Der Himmel stört mich nicht, da Hauptmotiv ordentlich belichtet ist. --Ralf Roletschek 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC).
  •  Weak oppose Good sharpness, but some CA plus partly overexposed sky. --Iifar 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose chromatic aberrations, noise (see notes) and plus partly overexposed sky--Lmbuga 20:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File:T100-MGP_mit_Planiereinrichtung_D493A.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: T100-MGP mit Planiereinrichtung D493A --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality., Der Himmel stört mich nicht, da Hauptmotiv ordentlich belichtet ist. --Ralf Roletschek 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC).
  •  Weak oppose Same here, good sharpness, but some CA and partly overexposed sky. --Iifar 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose As Iifar--Lmbuga 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Bombyliidae_2_by_kadavoor.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bombyliidae, Subgenus Geron -- Jkadavoor 09:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  QuestionWhat is that super-bright spot between the wings?--Gauravjuvekar 16:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - Clearly it's a firefly who has had its arse replaced with a halogen bulb. Mattbuck 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't reckon fireflies are this bright.--Gauravjuvekar 08:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a bombyliidae; not a firefly. I think the fluorescent white painting on the butt is to protect from overheating. :) Please see the other version in the description too. -- Jkadavoor 07:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlight, insufficiently id'ed. Biopics 14:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeInsufficiently id'ed--Lmbuga 20:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It will be very helpful if anyone can identify it to a lower level. Not any experts in any such sites (like diptera.info)can make it so far. -- Jkadavoor 07:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Margrethe_I_Borgvold_2012-05-21.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The tourist boat "Margrethe I" at Golfsalon, Nørresø, Viborg, Denmark. --Slaunger 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Comment Nice and not a bad picture but the technical achievement looks for me not so good: lacking sharpness of the boat --Taxiarchos228 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean the letters appear a bit soft at full resolution? Maybe you are right. I wonder why as I used a tripod. Maybe my aperture was too large? --Slaunger 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only the letters, I'm afraid, the whole boat lacks of sharpness, IMO too.--Jebulon 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see unsharpness here, just a halo around the ship's name (it could be removed with a 2px-clone stamp). Let's discuss. --Cayambe 08:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to try to improve it. Do not know how to fix it with a 2px-clone stamp though, but I could try later this evevning (I use GIMP). I also have another shot, which I want to inspect and compare with. --Slaunger 12:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Cayambe 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I did something simpleminded: I sharpened it a little. Better, or should I revert? --Slaunger 18:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's better but I don't understand why you choose aperture f/5.6, with f/9 would have a much more and better depth of focus. Making picture with manual modus instead of Aperture priority / Aperture value increases quality of sharpness too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are right about that the choise of aperture was non-optimal. I have just gotten a new camera (Canon 600D, previously I had a Sony alpha, but that sufferend a fatal crash one year ago), and this was only my second (in a hurry) shooting session, and I am in the process of familiarizing myself with its knobs and settings. I wanted to try ISO 100, and was concerned the exposure time would become too long (motion blur in leaves) if I went for a smaller aperture. Of course I should just have tried... Luckily the subject is near by my home, so I can easily go again and reshoot - in manual mode. --Slaunger 08:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 I agree with the comments about sharpness (due to too large aperture). I made a reshot at f/9 today, and have nominated that instead. This time with more light. Thanks for the review comments. They were very helpful. --Slaunger 21:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batterie_d'honneur_de_l'artillerie_française_-_Investiture_présidentielle_du_15_mai_2012_-_037.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Artillerymen on Invalides esplanade after the 21 cannon shots honouring the new french president. --Thesupermat 07:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me. -- JLPC 07:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, IMO the crop isn't ideal (either too tight at left hand side or then should be cropped to the soldiers(?)). English description would also be nice. --kallerna 12:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop. --Keymeulen 11:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

File:BMW_Welt,_Múnich,_Alemania_2012-04-28,_DD_03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination BMW Welt, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 07:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose poor image quality (very low details, looks like a too strong denoising) --Carschten 13:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Carschten, but that is one hell of a cool building. Mattbuck 13:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done New version uploaded Poco a poco 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Better, but there are still some quality issues (pixelation, see annotation) and CA. --Carschten 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • New try Poco a poco 20:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Let's discuss. --Carschten 20:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Can be so will look slightly better? (the file is updated) --Aleks G 00:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
              • It's better, but not good enough yet. Mattbuck 02:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment To be honest, I believe that it is good enough for QI. I cannot apprecieate those problems in a 100% view. It would be great if somebody else expresses his/her opinion Poco a poco 20:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • That's the reason why I put it in the CR. There are still the pixelated corners which are a stumbling block to the promotion, so still a  Weak oppose. --Carschten 15:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support To be honest, I fully agree with Poco a poco...--Jebulon 09:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It agrees with Jebulon and Poco a poco... --Aleks G 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (co)Author of file can't vote. Biopics 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per other supporters. --Cayambe (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 00:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI.--S. F. B. Morse 13:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Prunus spinosa flowers in Sweden.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Prunus spinosa (sloe) flowers. -- Green Yoshi 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mattbuck 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many blurred surface. May be a new frame. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 19:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Cardiff Queen Street railway station MMB 01 121032.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 121032 at Cardiff Queen Street. Mattbuck 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. JLPC 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark IMO. No details, I can't see the wheels, for instance.--Jebulon 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 Sorry. This picture is too dark.--S. F. B. Morse 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Villa_Papendorf4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Villa Papendorf --An-d 18:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good ! -- JLPC 20:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but CA, muddy impression, distortion are too many disabilities for QI --Taxiarchos228 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you fore your reviews! I try to fix CA and distortion. Best regards --An-d 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is good for QI.--Jebulon 10:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 15:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. Crisp and good light (and composition). --Slaunger 21:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for QI.--S. F. B. Morse 00:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Finistère Pointe du Raz 005.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pointe du Raz, the most western point of France. --Moonik 12:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good! -- MJJR 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The people is too dark. White halo on the edges (see the note on the gull). Lack of fine detail--Lmbuga 22:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question How to improve it? I have no longer the RAW file. --Moonik 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't know, but I don't like the image, perhaps I'm not right, others can think--Lmbuga 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice view, nice scene, but I totally agree with the quality issues mentioned by Lmbuga. --Carschten 15:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Foreground has a weird artificial looking structure/texture. Oversharpened perhaps? --Slaunger 21:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Christoph_Riedl.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Austrian TV-Presenter Christoph Riedl --AleXXw 07:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good I would suggest a small left crop .--ArildV 10:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition. I don't like the detail, perhaps lack of fine detail--Lmbuga 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition. The light source at the rim of the hair is distracting. --Slaunger 21:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per Slaunger and Lmbuga. Mattbuck 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Erik_Cummins.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Erik Cummins the goalie for Fc Utrecht --Abigor 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposePicture is not bad, but the cut is not so good. --Randy43 14:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And you are all but neutralAbigor 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No personal attack, please. Comment the review if you want, but not the reviewer.--Jebulon 09:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Randy43. And chromatic aberrations (see notes), seems tilted, dark top (perhaps a bit underexposed)--Lmbuga 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support (the file is updated) --Aleks G 18:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (co)Author of file can't vote. Biopics 14:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I am not an author! --Aleks G 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:122-mm-Haubitze_M-30.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination M-30 122 mm howitzer --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposure, and I don't think much of the composition. --Mattbuck 19:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable IMO.--Jebulon 09:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment chromatic aberrations on the edges of the left trees and on the edges of the truck. Perhaps acceptable, I'm not sure--Lmbuga 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO is the picture OK for QI.--S. F. B. Morse 15:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown sky, disturbing CA. Biopics 17:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not quite there due to CA and exposure. Main subject fine though. --Slaunger 23:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Richmond station MMB 02 D-Stock 378019.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 378019 at Richmond. Mattbuck 18:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Underexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 09:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    • There are areas of pure white iirc, so it is not underexposed. Mattbuck 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI don't know if it is underexposed or not, but it is simply too dark, IMO.--Jebulon 10:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment - new, lighter version uploaded. FYI there were isolated pixels of black, but no contiguous areas. Mattbuck 02:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support the left area is a bit blurry and the image a bit dark, but difficult light situation good resolved. QI to me. --Carschten 16:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support if it's dark there, it's dark. --Ralf Roletschek 19:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I fully agree: it's dark !!--Jebulon 17:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      It was in shadow and there's unshadowed areas of the picture, the shadowed areas are going to be a bit dark. Mattbuck 16:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • If you have a raw of it, the dynamic range can be better utilized with e.g. autobracketing in tufuse. Will increase noise a little though in the shadow regions. --Slaunger 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Technically speaking most DSLR have bracking functions and can be used in day light even without tripod. Use of align_image_stack (from Hugin) to correct the small moves and tufuse (or enfuse) to merge the different expositions should give could result on this kind of shot. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but dark to me also--Lmbuga 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Close to being acceptable, but I tend to agree with the opposers that it is too dark. Not an easy shot due to the partially sunlit scene, see also my suggestion above. --Slaunger 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)~

File:Pobiedziska III.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the Church of the Archangel Saint Michael, Pobiedziska. Scotch Mist 17:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose C.A. and too overexposed areas --Archaeodontosaurus 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The varying light (and lights) inside the church make it difficult to get a well balanced photo but think that overall a reasonable photo was achieved in the circumstances showing the various points of interest --Scotch Mist 05:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 05:26 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No, for a successful image in a church should be under-expose the image so that there was no zone "burned". Then work again with the post processing. The best technique is to take two or three images with different aperture and then merge. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the church shots are hard to get right concerning exposure - the dynamic range of the light is typically large. I agree with Archaeodontosaurus. Try with a tripod and three different exposures, then combine them with, e.g., tufuse. --Slaunger 14:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 07:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Canale di San Pietro di Castello.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Canale di San Pietro di Castello --Archaeodontosaurus 08:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noisy and CA, nice composition, sorry --Moroder 08:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe not perfect, but QI to me, deserves a second chance--Jebulon 09:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Good challenge; New version in a few hours ... --Archaeodontosaurus 09:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • New version --Archaeodontosaurus 12:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now, I guess that lightening up caused all that noise, n'est pas? --Moroder 16:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 Comment In fact initially the image is soft. I cut the sky as I softened. The rest of the image is then subjected to a high-pass mask to sharpen. But I often "heavy handed" and I want to do too much. This is why the eyes of my friends are useful. Merci!--Archaeodontosaurus 17:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Pretty good, I think. -- JLPC 14:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Brombach_-_Historischer_Briefkasten.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Brombach: Historic letterbox --Taxiarchos228 07:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good, but can you take the image without this unfortunate light (shadow)? The shadow is disturbing--Lmbuga 21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • it is not disturbing me, beside of this the letter box is under a roof so it will be every time under a shadow --Taxiarchos228 07:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing shadow. I find it hard to believe that the mail box will be in this half shadow half sun light all day, even if it is under a roof. --Slaunger 21:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't care if you belive me or not. The letter box is at this house File:Lörrach-Brombach - Alte Laube1.jpg under this wide overhanging roof. It is a fact. A disturbing shadow is in my opinion a shadow that corrupts the view of s.th. Here I don't see what part of the letter box is worse to see. --Taxiarchos228 11:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It is evident from the photo you refer to there will be times of day where the mail box will be either in complete shadow or in full sun. Either of those two options would be suitable concerning light. The distracting thing for me is the abrupt change in lightning condition over the surface of the mailbox.--Slaunger 14:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Paloma_bravía_(Columba_livia),_Rynek,_Gniezno,_Polonia,_2012-04-02,_DD_1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rock pigeon (Columba livia), Rynek, Gniezno, Polandonia --Poco a poco 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Good legs, but the head and the body haven't a good detail. Stange halo on the edges (see note, please)--Lmbuga 00:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I fixed the halo Poco a poco 20:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga 18:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeStrong light yielding unfortunate disturbing shadows. Biopics 10:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Hauingen_-_Feuerwehr2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hauingen: fire station --Taxiarchos228 07:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. -- JLPC 12:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted and perspective distortion: The right vertical lines of the building are not vertical. Noise on the areas in shadow. Unfortunate light--Lmbuga 21:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    which vertical lines? the building has no vertical lines. --Taxiarchos228 07:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not God! (see note)--Lmbuga 01:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate light conditions and quite noisy front glass. --Slaunger 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
the glas front is not quite noisy, you see the non-glazed structure of the glas. This is a difference. Please argue why the light conditions are bad. --Taxiarchos228 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, then it is non-glazed structure which looks very much like noise. But this is only a minor issue. The main problem for me is the facade, which is in shadow and too dark. --Slaunger 14:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Brombach_-_Gasthaus_Waldhorn5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Brombach: Restaurant Waldhorn --Taxiarchos228 07:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. Perspective distortion should be accepted here imo. --Cayambe 08:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted (see vertical lines of the central window). Perspective distortion. Improvable--Lmbuga 20:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    you seem to have problems with perpectives, this images was not taken from centre line --Taxiarchos228 07:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Non me digas--Lmbuga 18:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted to left (+ perspective distortion, not too bad here). Vertical lines are (and should be) straight even if you not look from the center. It's correctable. --Carschten 16:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lamborghini jaune Gallardo spyder.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A yellow Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder, Paris, France.--Jebulon 23:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Dont like the reflexes, sorry maybe they can be fixed (retouch?) --Moroder 07:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Sorry no, they will remain, I think it is good so, because it is normal for a very clean Lamborghini. Maybe somebody else will accept them and put the image in CR, who knows ;)?--Jebulon 09:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I can not find a big anomaly. The special paint of this car is just to reflect the light. We can discuss. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see what's wrong with the reflexions. -- JLPC 14:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing wrong with the reflections (difficult and unnecessary to remove), but the rear end is not exactly in focus and shows a little CA. Biopics 17:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Iifar 07:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Ismo_Vorstermans.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Ismo Vorstermans a dutch player for Fc Utrecht --Abigor 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  OpposeColour composition and sharpness could be better. --Randy43 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • And you are all but neutralAbigor 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Please avoid personal attacks. You may disagree with the review, but you should not make comments about the reviewer.--Jebulon 10:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support (the file is updated) --Aleks G 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (co)Author of file can't vote. Biopics 14:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I am not an author! --Aleks G 20:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment What matters in the QIC process is the review. I've often seen a reviewer correcting an image and giving an opinion in his review (I don't like the idea of voting... what matter is review as I said). Here, the first version by Abigor is not bad, but the change by Aleks really improve the picture IMO. I find it a bit disappointing if his opinion is silenced because he improved the file (it's a kind of review IMO). I'm reverting the file to Aleks G, and I'm supporting this version
  •  Support. --PierreSelim 11:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC) I don't want to get into a fight for a photo ... --PierreSelim 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Only the work; not any arguments in this discussion. :) -- Jkadavoor 06:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Removed all the striped messages, that is a talkpage discussion not a policy... Abigor 10:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 05:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]