Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 30 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_29.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 05:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Patterns in the sky and the barrel distortion should be removed.Sorry. --Ermell 07:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done
    Edited with other software and new version uploaded. --Manfred Kuzel 08:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Steindy 21:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_42.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sky. --Tsungam 06:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Edited with other software and uploaded new version. --Manfred Kuzel 12:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 07:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Steindy 08:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Steindy 21:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_54.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 16:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 17:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Vertical banding in the sky visible.--Peulle 06:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Indeed. Somewhat slanted down to the right. -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Edited with other software and uploaded new version. --Manfred Kuzel 11:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - You fixed the problem. It would really be a good idea for you to ping all voters when you make a corrective edit. -- Ikan Kekek 06:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 19:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_81.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry! Sensor pattern in the sky. --Steindy 08:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    •  CommentThe camera was from 24.9. until 18.10.2019 at the Nikon-Service. Diagnosis (costs 64.62 €): Camera and sensor in perfect condition. I do not understand why only some, and not all, who rate my photos, find flaws. --Manfred Kuzel 05:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Banding in the sky. Anticipating author's objection and sending to CR.--Peulle 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Edited with other software and uploaded new version. --Manfred Kuzel 10:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Okay now, good quality. --Steindy 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_79.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sensor pattern in the sky --Armenak Margarian 04:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Armenak Margarian 07:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment The camera was from 24.9. until 18.10.2019 at the Nikon-Service. Diagnosis (costs 64.62 €): Camera and sensor in perfect condition. I do not understand why only some, and not all, who rate my photos, find flaws. --Manfred Kuzel 05:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Picture taken before Nikon-Service diagnosis 24 March 2019, please put new taked images. --Armenak Margarian 14:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Once again: The diagnosis has shown that there was no sensor problem that could be resolved !!! If this was noted in October, then it can not have resolved itself since March by itself. --Manfred Kuzel 05:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a confusion here, resulting from language difference. I (and others) thought there was a sensor problem, Manfred Kuzel sent the camera in for repair, the experts found no sensor problem (this is where the confusion is), but we thought Manfred meant that the sensor problem existed and had been corrected, whereas he actually meant that there was no sensor problem detected. All right? All good? :) The actual problem persists, though, so if it's not the sensor, the bands in the sky must be the result of something else.--Peulle 08:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Banding in the sky. Anticipating author's objection and sending to CR.--Peulle 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: New version uploaded. --Manfred Kuzel 10:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yep. --Peulle 11:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_60.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 05:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same problem as the others; stripes in the sky. I don't know if it's sensor related or posterization or what, but it's there.--Peulle 07:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The size of the sky is small and irrelevant so, where is the problem?--Moroder 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle. Too distracting and not the mark of a quality image. -- Ikan Kekek 04:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose QI should not have obvious and avoidable technical issues. As mentioned before: If it's not the camera sensor, then it's a problem in the workflow. --Smial 15:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Ps: Maybe someone who also uses a Nikon camera and has the appropriate software can have a RAW sent to them to get to the bottom of the matter. It's really a pity about the many encyclopedically useful photos.
    •  Oppose per above--Ermell 08:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Edited with other software and uploaded new version. --Manfred Kuzel 09:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    The pattern is gone, but your new images are rather dark. --Tsungam 10:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. New versuon uploaded. --Manfred Kuzel 15:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support now. -- Ikan Kekek 04:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan --Smial 14:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Okay now, good quality. --Steindy 19:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 14:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_55.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 05:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No. Yet another one of the images ruined by the faulty sensor.--Peulle 06:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Once again: The sesor of my camera is O.K. This has resulted in a recent review in the Nikon service. ---Manfred Kuzel 06:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I cannot believe this. You have had lots of images declined after Consensual Review, yet you refuse to admit something is wrong. Even if the sensor is not the problem, can you not see that there is a problem? Can you not see the stripes in the sky, and that this is abnormal? You keep getting these images declined at CR, is that enough of an indication?--Peulle 08:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If it is not the sensor, then there happens something very weird in the image processing chain, that should be addressed immediately. Meanwhile it is very tiresome to see all those CR entries of images all by the same photographer and to discuss the same problem on an every day base. -- Smial 10:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Vertical right lines on the right side, including in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek 04:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Surely reviewers are bored with your images but I don't see any important technical flaws --Moroder 22:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above.--Ermell 08:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Edited with other software and uploaded new version. --Manfred Kuzel 09:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Well then we obviously have the cause. It may have been due to the unsuitable software, because now the error is no longer visible. --Steindy 23:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support. Manfred, when you fix a file, it would be to your advantage to ping everyone who voted before. -- Ikan Kekek 04:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Old_Town,_Zadar_(P1080772).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Riva in the Old Town of Zadar --MB-one 08:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image and especially the building is too bright as I think. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking at the trees and the people, I don't think this one is overexposed.--Peulle 08:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. The image processing made sure that it didn't clip hard anywhere ("255,255,255"), but details on the sunny side of the house and on the stairs have been lost in large parts. Also slight perspective correction and/or ccw rotation would be an enhancement. --Smial 11:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree Smial. Seven Pandas 12:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose probably not really blown ou whites, but some minor adjustments would make it much better (following Smial and Spurzem here). So it's really worth to put the hands on the sliders again. I've just loaded it into my raw filter and even brightened up the black a little bit in the shrubbery on the left side. Ok, a minor ccw could be applied, but thats why I would'nt decline it. -- DerFussi 22:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Porsche_971_Panamera_ZF_Gearbox_IAA_2019_JM_0639.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Porsche 971 Panamera gearbox --Johannes Maximilian 15:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Beautiful and good quality -- Spurzem 17:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Unfortunately for a subject shot too little depth of field, so the photo is not sharp enough in most parts. --Steindy 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough to be printed to A3 size, good composition, rather good lighting, more than enough DOF. --Smial 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Detailed cut away with not enough detail in the image.--Tobias ToMar Maier 16:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 Comment I understand Steindy's concerns, and I have already thought about that, too. Look at the cooling element in the lower left corner, for instance. I have a version of this photo, taken with the aperture closed a bit more, but unfortunately, I think it's much more noisy and not sharp enough. I will have a look at it on monday. Please be patient, thank you. --Johannes Maximilian 09:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I have now uploaded a version of the same image taken with a smaller aperture, see for yourselves, please. @Spurzem, Steindy, Smial, Tobias ToMar Maier, and Palauenc05: . Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian 13:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support A bit unsharp on the right, but all in all good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 10:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it is a little better, but still does not convince me. Sorry! --Steindy 21:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Johannes Maximilian: your ping did not work for me. I just stumbled over it here. Image is better.--Tobias ToMar Maier 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Palauenc05. --MB-one 10:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 19:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)