Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 25 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Motorboat,_Saaler_Bodden,_Ribnitz-Damgarten_(P1060503).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Motorboat at Saaler Bodden --MB-one 09:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Оverexposed, lost parts on white. Also CA (look at the man's hand) --George Chernilevsky 10:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are very few white pixels in the reflections, no overexposure really. I'll check for the CA though --MB-one 11:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Doesn't look overexposed to my eyes. --AnttiVKM 15:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not overexposed imo, just some hotspots, but green CA and motion blur imho, sorry. --GerifalteDelSabana 15:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

File:LuAZ-967,_Pfingsttreffen_Puetnitz_2018,_Ribnitz-Damgarten_(1X7A2822).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination LuAZ-867 at Pfingsttreffen Pütnitz 2018 --MB-one 21:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The front is not quite sharp, sorry. --Peulle 22:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I remain at oppose in this case; it appears like camera shake/motion blur to me, not just unsharpness due to high resolution.--Peulle 07:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support More as 20 MPix, please discuss! in my Eyes good for QI --Ralf Roletschek 01:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ralf. -- Ikan Kekek 01:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Billy69150 11:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks sharp at 200% of monitor --Trougnouf 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Distrito_de_Ketchikan_Gateway,_Alaska,_Estados_Unidos,_2017-08-16,_DD_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 03:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Lacks detail in the water. --MB-one 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded --Poco a poco 07:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sending this to CR for further discussion. For me, the noise is too high. Why ISO 1000 at this time of day?--Peulle 18:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    Have you ever gone for aerial photography with bad weather? --Poco a poco 08:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No. As far as I recall, there's nothing in the guidelines about the conditions, so that becomes a part of reviewers' individual judgement as to whether they want to take the conditions into account when judging the results. Let's see what others think. --Peulle 16:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This has really too much noise. I do not understand, why 1/800s was necessary for this shot. The Lens has IS, so 1/125s or even longer exposure time should have been possible, and f/5.6 and also lower ISO. Nice composition and natural colours, though. --Smial 18:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Looks good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 17:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)