Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2006

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
    • Nomination MMC-Cards --Afrank99 14:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Cool, precise, sharp. Borderline to advertizing. -Diligent 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Diskette punch --Afrank99 15:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Ach! true we were using this stuff ;-) Perfect (nostalgic) picutre. -Diligent 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination SDIO Digital Camera --Afrank99 15:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Cool, precise, sharp. Borderline to advertizing. -Diligent 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Frigiliana in Spain --Diligent 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Beatiful composition, perfect exposure. But I would like to see a little of sky above. Alvesgaspar 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Jindrichuv Hradec Castle in south Bohemia --Diligent 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion I would say this one is on the border. Nice composition and colors, but could be sharper. Alvesgaspar 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Geese autumn migration flock --Thermos 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Too dark, birds are too little on this photo. Lestat 17:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Own photo --TheBo 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion a good catch, exotic bonus --Ikiwaner 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vierwaldstätter See.JPG
    • Nomination lake of lucerne --Simonizer 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline good composition but too much overexposure, too much sharpening effect on the roof --Ikiwaner 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Sunniggrätli hut in canton of uri/switzerland --Simonizer 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Excellent composition, beatiful picture. But I would prefer without the human presence... Alvesgaspar 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination The Granite wall of Finnish Parliament. --Thermos 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion In my opinion almost flawess. I would try to correct the slight perspective error. Also there is a white spot in the sky. Alvesgaspar 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Karlstein castle in Bohemia. --Diligent 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Good composition, but image is too noisy and a little dark. Alvesgaspar 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Relief of the map of the citadelle of Lille --Diligent 16:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Centered composition that cuts a maybe important part in the lower right corner. --Ikiwaner 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Kobe Dawn Panorama - Oden 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Quiet evening atmosphere, I simply like the color tone CyrilB 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Fisheye view of the Panthéon in Paris --Diligent 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Very good picture, clearly meeting QI standards. Before trying for FP, there are still some minor issues to address. Alvesgaspar 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Cane Corso - one of dog breeds with good background --Pleple2000 15:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Wrong file format and inappropriate filename (pixel dimensions), good background but the dog is underexposed and the sky partially cropped --Ikiwaner 14:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Hot air balloons --Pomakis 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Nice shot. Clearly meets the QI Standards. Nicely done. Arjun 14:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Plums --Pomakis 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Bad choice of aperture/shutter speed. A longer focal length should also be better. The result is "unfocused plums for sale" - Alvesgaspar 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC
    • Nomination White Clay Creek in Newark, Delaware - Oden 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Correct composition, nice picture. Alvesgaspar 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Perisoreus canadensis - Pharaoh Hound 16:32, 18 December 2006
    • Decline guideline: Qi must have reasonable colors. The gray jay is outstanding in its details but the background is too disturbingly artificial. --Diligent 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Abbey in Tyniec. --Lestat 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Technically more than OK but subject/matter hidden behind the trees. How unfortunate. --Diligent 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Cumulus clouds --Pomakis 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Technically correct but just average clouds from an airplane. --Ikiwaner 18:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Delhi campus --Kprateek88 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Good illustration for this universities article. --Ikiwaner 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Gerberas --Pomakis 15:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Carefully chosen nice flowers but strong overexposure (oversaturated) and DOF not high enough for the first flower. --Ikiwaner 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination The nature looks us --Luigi Chiesa 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Good idea, technically OK, colour-key-like --Ikiwaner 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Sparrow on a tree --Thermos 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Beatiful compositon and colouring. Pity that the colour of the background is so close to the bird's. Alvesgaspar 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination North Carolina train through level crossing, Elon, NC --MPD01605 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Innovative idea but imo not close enough. Maybe the author has a higher res image that he could crop to the car+"North Carolina" waggon --Ikiwaner 18:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination Kinkakuji (the Golden Pavillion) in Kyoto, Japan --Pomakis 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Good quality, for me it is QI. Lestat 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination reception rooms at Nijo Castle in Kyoto, Japan --Pomakis 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Interesting part of the building is in the shadow, leaning to the left in the middle, leaning to the right on the left --Ikiwaner 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination A giraffe --Pharaoh Hound 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion Very good shot, no apparent flaws. But I think the crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spider showing epigyne.jpg
    • Nomination Garden spider showing its epigyne---- Drini00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline This is an okay shot, the image is out of focus in most places. And in thumb I can hardly tell what it is. Consider trying again as it could be much better. Arjun 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensual Review[edit]

Egretta novaehollandiae 02 gnangarra.jpg
cropped
  • Also, bad crop, animal and background in the same color. I'm oppose. Lestat 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it is a unique shot. I also like the colour of the reflected sky in the water. But the main subject is in the shadow. Alvesgaspar 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • just to note in your discussions, that is the raw image from the camera there has been no processing Gnangarra 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Kodak Z7590 has no RAW. Lestat 10:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    English such an ambigious language raw is in unedited, not RAW the format Gnangarra 02:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know if my input will help but I think this picture has a high encyclopedic value - very illustrative and quite exceptional but kind of "not enough quality value", the bird is in the shadow and not visible enough in the background of the sun-lit sand river-side. If it were the opposite and cropped vertically, I'd nominate it to Featured pictures, but here, it hardly passes the quality exposure criteria : Underexposure. Lost details main subject in shadow areas). Diligent
    That was my point: I agree the quality of the picture is not enough to make it a featured picture, but what's in there is really worth the quality image promotion. CyrilB 12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a cropped version, also slight level adjustment Gnangarra 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 3 oppose >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[reply]

Original
  • Nomination Medieval sculpture of Maria Magdalena --Diligent 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotion
Edit

Good composition and subject but quite strong colour fringes in the corner. The frame is half cut - I'd prefer to see it entirely or being cropped. Noise is quite high. I'd vote for any edit that adresses this, see my example. --Ikiwaner 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your changes. much better. --Diligent 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed ~per request the little fringed corner in the edited version. --Ikiwaner 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 0 oppose >> promoted to QI (edited version) Alvesgaspar 10:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[reply]

Alexander-Newski-Kathedrale.JPG
Could you maybe tell what is bad about this perspective correction? The camera is tilted so much to the sky that you almost can't see the ground anymore. That'y why perspective shouldn't be fully corrected. Leave a little bit of perspective to make you feel small standing in front of the church. --Ikiwaner 10:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not with the cathedral, but with the yellow house at left. Please compare the two versions. Alvesgaspar 11:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see the difference, but a) your edit is not much straighter than my first and b) you'll see the yellow house just after a few seconds of viewing the church therefore a good view on the church is more important. Have a look if you really like a fully corrected perspective: File:Alexander-Newski-Kathedrale_full_pc.jpg --Ikiwaner 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this picture. Support the corrected perspective version of yours. Alvesgaspar 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the perspective correction of the full_pc version of this photo seems to have been successful, it has had (IMO) a negative side effect of compressing the photo a bit too much horizontally. --Pomakis 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. That's why I support the first edit. --Ikiwaner 07:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(time to decide) 1 support, 3 oppose >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 10:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Justinuskirche Höchst south-east view November 2006.jpg
  • I agree it is a good composition. But the image has not enough quality. Look at the tree and ruins in first plan: seem blurred and with artifacts. Alvesgaspar 14:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are perfectly true: This camera is not up to date regarding sharpness CA and noise. But I would have said that quality is just good enough for a QI as the photographical quality is good. --Ikiwaner 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you tried to downsample the picture (although I don't believe it will have much effect)? Alvesgaspar 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the additional noise reduction did some minimal improvement to this image. I already downsized it to answer Alvesgaspars question. I don't think noise is the problem here it's rather sharpness artifacts as Alvesgaspar said before (+colour truth and CA). The photographer is strongly limited by her camera. --Ikiwaner 19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are quire right. We cant't get useful information where just chaos exists, it is a fundamental law of the Universe. But let's see this picture from a positive side: it is a good composition and the trees have that wonderful look of impressionist painting (although not QI, I'm afraid) :-) Alvesgaspar 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO - the trees are not the subject of the image - I would compare it to low depth of field, or underexposure. Surprisingly, the church was kept intact by the demosaicing/sharpeninging/compression. --Wikimol 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(time to decide!) 2 support, 1 oppose >> promoted to QI Alvesgaspar 10:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_December_2006&oldid=526025907"