Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2013

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Swiss Sapphire (ship, 2008) 010.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination River cruise ship Swiss Sapphire in cologne --Rolf H. 09:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose CA and blur on left, generally dark. --Mattbuck 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded new version (fixed CA and noise, light is imho very ok), please discuss. --Iifar 20:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor lighting, too tight crop. Alvesgaspar 18:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Boar ey, wenn du jetzt die nicht ganz zu beseitigenden CA-Reste beanstandet hättest, oder die etwas schwache Randschärfe oder wenixtenz die kleinflächige Überbelichtung an der Brücke, das hätte ich ja noch verstanden und problemlos akzeptiert. Aber Beschnitt? Der Pott ist komplett drauf und hat vorn und hinten noch gut Luft. Und Beleuchtung? Schon mal ein weißes Objekt im Sonnenuntergang vor einem dunklen Hintergrund fotografiert? Meine Fresse, das ist nicht einmal der Versuch einer objektiven Beurteilung, hier geht anscheins ganz was anderes ab in letzter Zeit. -- Smial 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Schönes Bild, vor allem die Perspektive, wie das Schiff dort liegt. Technisch ist die Aufnahme aus meiner Sicht ebenfalls einwandfrei. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp, good contrast and composition. Yann 12:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Poor lighting? It's wonderful lighting! --King of Hearts 18:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree the background is a bit dark, but any brigther exposure would have overexposed the main subject. Maybe the darker areas could be made brigther by playing the levels, but over all good quality. --Esquilo 12:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted Poco a poco 10:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Viru_Bog,_Parque_Nacional_Lahemaa,_Estonia,_2012-08-12,_DD_07.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Viru bog, Lahemaa National Park, Estonia --Poco a poco 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Bad CA at top. --Mattbuck 19:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)✓ New version uploaded with new crop Poco a poco 19:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, still no. There is still CA left, and the way your camera does that weird shading makes the trees in the background look odd. Mattbuck 21:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed, the background should look odd anymore Poco a poco 23:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- For the interesting composition and despite the less-than-optimal lighting. Alvesgaspar 14:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Rjcastillo 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult lightning conditions (shadows) superbly handled. --Esquilo 12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Poco a poco 10:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Green door alcazar Seville Andalusia Spain.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A wooden green door, Gardens of the Alcazar of Seville, Spain.--Jebulon 16:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --Iifar 18:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Should it be yellow or green? I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 21:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)-- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
     SupportI seem to be too dumb to understand the objection. For me QI --Taxiarchos228 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks Taxiarchos228. Nothing more to say.--Jebulon 15:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Also somewhat too high colour saturation, but still sufficient quality. -- Smial 16:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Too imposing unfocused foreground. -- Alvesgaspar 11:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 20:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Garden vase alcazar Seville Andalusia Spain.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A marble garden vase on his pediment, Alcazar of Seville, Spain.--Jebulon 15:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 17:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Disturbing shadow and no good position of the object. -- Lothar Spurzem 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)-- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support why is a shadow behind the object disturbing? no problem with the position. QI --Taxiarchos228 21:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks Taxiarchos228. Nothing more to say.--Jebulon 15:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 20:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:The_Axe_Historique_in_Paris_-_view_from_Jardin_des_Tuileries.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Axe Historique in Paris - view from Jardin des Tuileries. --Ximeg 20:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, far too grainy --Poco a poco 08:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed. And please don't forget that this is scanned film photo, which naturally has grain --Ximeg 20:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I don't get the point of this image. Is it an artistic atempt or just an old color photo? Please explain. Alvesgaspar 11:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Terrible overprocessing artefacts. --Esquilo 12:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --King of Hearts 20:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:12-11-01-anif-by-RalfR-24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Anif, Salzburg, Austria --Ralf Roletschek 21:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Support Good quality. --Steinsplitter 21:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Overexposed in the right part. --A.Savin 08:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clipping. --Smial 16:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @A.Savin --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 16:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)]

File:C-veskovo-2010-bell-1106.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The bell in Veskovo village --PereslavlFoto 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment the picture ok, but, sky slightly overexposed imho --Rjcastillo 21:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for QI to me.--Jebulon 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok -- Smial 20:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me. --Ralf Roletschek 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Overexposed sky (originally blown?), distratcting background. -- Alvesgaspar 11:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info It was raining that day, so the sky had no details at all. --PereslavlFoto 09:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok--Steinsplitter 22:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 20:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Vistas_panorámicas_desde_Toompea,_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_18.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of Tallinn from Toompea, Estonia --Poco a poco 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion For me the roof in the foreground is too distracting, apart from that very good photo. --Tuxyso 21:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    Good for me. Mattbuck 19:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice. Can you add please the Coordinates? I also want to take this photo ;) --Ralf Roletschek 20:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    Sure, done, Poco a poco 22:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info It's nice, but could be deleted because of FOP issue (background buildings). --Iifar 06:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    Those buildings don't play a dominant role in the picture. The main subject is the Town Hall being in the center and with that lighting Poco a poco 13:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yann 13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Steinsplitter 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 20:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Estatua_de_Don_José_I,_Plaza_del_Comercio,_Lisboa,_Portugal,_2012-05-12,_DD_05.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of D. Joseph, Commerce Square, Lisbon, Portugal --Poco a poco 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Good, but as with the last one of this square, it's rather dull. Mattbuck 14:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 19:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    I still don't like it, tried my own version. Mattbuck 18:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your time, but now I guess that we need a third opinion Poco a poco 19:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice crane, but a bit prominent, IMO... Is a cloning out possible ?--Jebulon 17:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh ! A Christmas miracle ! No more crane ! Reversible miracle, of course. we need a fourth opinion, but I prefer this one...--Jebulon 17:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks great!, please, forward my thanks to the Chirstmas gimp gnomes :) Poco a poco 20:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- This is an iconic place in Lisbon and the photo doesn't make justice to its beauty. Two problems: the dull light, as Mattbuck said; and the weird geometric distortion giving the impression that everything is leaning to the left. -- Alvesgaspar 11:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --King of Hearts 20:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Neptunbrunnen_Nürnberg_Putto_3.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Neptunbrunnen Nürnberg, Putto auf Drachen by User:Ailura, nominated by --Herzi Pinki 23:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Coyau 14:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the same reason as in the previous nomination. --A.Savin 17:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality! Believe me or not, I really love the Bokeh and the lighting! --Nichtvermittelbar 14:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The dragons head (which is essential in this picture) and the right forearm of the putto should be sharp, too. A lesser aperture (e.g. f/5,6 or f/8) would have helped. The background is enough far away, so the (indeed really nice) Bokeh wouldn't suffer. If you're able to repeat the picture, you should also try to get a softer light, the shadows are a little bit hard. --THWZ (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose First, I thought that the dragon and the putto were very different parts of the picture, but the description says "Putto auf Drachen" (Putto riding a dragon), so I tend to agree with THWZ for the same reasons. Yes the shadows are a little bit hard, and the light too harsh: some parts of the face of the boy are "burnt" and overexposed (cheeks, and under the mouth).--Jebulon 18:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 00:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Focus is on main object, bokeh is perfect, great depth of field with F/2.8. The picture is exactly made as intended by the photographer. It's hard to take a picture in this way without photoshop or such things. This is a very good real photography, not a painted one. For me it's more than QI.
    For a comparison look at this picture of a cat, which is a recommended example for a QI DOF-image at the image guidelines. Only - and really only - the vibrissae ("whiskers") of the cat's face are sharp. --Stepro 00:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment -- It's hard to take a picture in this way without photoshop or such things. Is it really? I don't think so and believe the same happens with most photograpgers here! The fact is this picture is on the poor side, not only in wich focus is concerned but also in framing and lighting (as Jebulon has already said). As for "photoshop and such things", those are normal tools of almost every modern photographer. Nothing wrong in not knowing, QIC is the right place to learn! -- Alvesgaspar 19:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many blurry areas --Archaeodontosaurus 09:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dragonhead is out of focus. A smaller aperture or focus-stacking would have been better. --Esquilo 10:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The photo looks exactly as it should. Very nice one. --Nicola 12:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    Welcome to QIC. You may contact me if you need any help with the procedures here. --A.Savin 12:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose foreground is too dominant to be out of focus --Taxiarchos228 13:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I could live with the tight crop but the DoF is just to shallow for a subject that close to the camera, sorry Poco a poco 13:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support kein Schnitzel mit Ketchup --Günter Fremuth 17:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    Welcome to QIC. You may contact me if you need any help with the procedures here. --A.Savin 18:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 18:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    Welcome to QIC. You may contact A.Savin if you need any help with the procedures here.--Jebulon 20:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    merci beaucoup :-) --Ralf Roleček 20:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition, focus is also perfect. --FA2010 09:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC) (No contact to A. Savin wished. This is a community project, not A. Savin's private party.)
    Welcome to QIC nevertheless. --A.Savin 14:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good idea, but, Too blurry areas --Rjcastillo 13:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- As before. I fail to understand the reason for this stubbornness. As I see it, someone is ruining what could be an auspicious start of User:Ailura at QIC... -- Alvesgaspar 15:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    You should reconsider your choice of words. User:Ailura was not informed of this re-nomination, and disagreed with it. It seems that the nominator didn't know, that there was a nomination of this pic short before. --Stepro 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    You are right, I reworded my comment because Ailura was not the nominator this time. But I see no sign that he/she was against it. Alvesgaspar 17:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    She wasn't the nominator the last time, too. Maybe you should be more careful with what you are typing. In my opinion you are one of the people, who are ruining a participation of Ailura on QIC. Sorry, but I think your comment ist still wrong, demotivating and the opposite of "as a rule, be nice and encouraging!". --Stepro 18:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    If the photographer disagreed with this nomination, why do you then support it, and - even more - canvass users from German Wikipedia to support? Nicola, Günter Fremuth, and FA2010 never ever reviewed something in QIC and now support just here. A random, heh? --A.Savin 20:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    I support the image, neither the photographer, nor the nominator. I know, you assume bad faith of every user from de-WP, because you have a personal problem with this project. But I think, that's no topic for QIC. --Stepro 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, German WP has exactly the administrators it deserves. I asked you about canvassing, you reply with ad hominem arguments. How typical. --A.Savin 07:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    Ad hominem arguments are your way to speak, so at last the God pointed it to you. If you don't like this, you are to remember the arguments you used speaking to me.--PereslavlFoto 09:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I like the image, I do, and the face is nicely focussed. However, the rest of the statue is not, and the lack of sharpness in the torso and dragon are problematic for me. Mattbuck 15:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was first who nominated this image when I parallel nominated an own image of another figure of the same object, but with a different view. I like ailuras view much more than my own, which was judged QI without any discussion. Background was to show different photographic interpretations of similar objects simply by using different camera location and camera settings without complex processing. My version uses dark background to enhance the "putto", ailura used extreme small DOF to get a similar effect. Both images will (someday...) be useful in a planned small project, which hopefully will help other (new) wiki-photographers to make somewhat better images or at least avoid common shortcomings. In showing the effect of small DOF ailuras image is a very good example. I'm very unhappy that the renomination, which was not intended by me or ailura, has lead to such unpleasant discussion. The primary decline has of course been accepted by me as nominator and (I believe) also by ailura as photographer. What can be learned? In my opinion we should be aware that a photographer uses a special view of an object to show special characteristics. This sometimes does not meet common criteria as in "must be sharp from my nosetip to infinity" or "must not show black areas". (yes, I hate blown highlights...). What can be learned next? There is something like AGF. If more of us would remember this, life could be easier. -- Smial 02:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Taxiarchos228, Poco a Poco and Mattbuck. I loved the depth of field in this other image, but 200mm & f2.8 doesn't work here. --Kadellar 19:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose About no description, no geocode. This is a fault that can be fixed. The image has no noise, but lacks DOF, so I have to oppose. --PereslavlFoto 09:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Comment please read the guidelines. picture has a (german) description, geocodes and infinite dof are not mandatory. --Ailura 13:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's QI but lets vote it the most controversial candidate of the year! Added English description --Moroder 15:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, even if the focus seems to be better on the shoulder - what private party? Did I miss something? Nevertheless, happy new year to the community --DKrieger 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 10 support (excluding the nominator), 12 oppose → Declined Kadellar 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Rinoceronte_indio_(Rhinoceros_unicornis),_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the rear side of an Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 12:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion I think the photo is overprocessed (see notes) resulting in a strange looking background. --Tuxyso 09:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    That area should play a minor role in the picture, anyhow I uploaded a new version with reduced de-noising, please, let me know Poco a poco 22:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Background / bokeh looks still very strange to me. We should ask for a further opinion. --Tuxyso 23:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Background is ditherd. Upload 27 juli 2012 does not have this problem and also have better exposure. Applying gaussian blur on all green visible above and between the rocks would improve the bokeh. --Esquilo 09:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment First version looks best to me, all others are overprocessed. -- Smial 11:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded trying to get a better noise/sharpness balance. I cannot see such problems to decline this shot. The main subject is good in focus and lighting ok, so, quality overall is good. Regarding the background I think it is a matter of taste regarding denosing. Poco a poco 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    The background is still ditherd. The rhinoceros back, his/hers food and the ground he/she stands on is a bit overexposed. --Esquilo 10:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    Ok, last try guys, I put all meat now on the grill, take it or leave it :) Poco a poco 22:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
     Support Not perfect, but I'll buy this one. --Esquilo 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The beast looks ok to me and I see no signs of posterization/dithering. Alvesgaspar 14:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image and composition, the background is poifect imo --Moroder 14:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Last version good now ;-) -- Smial 16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Smial 16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Strasse-Menschenrechte-Nuernberg-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Way of Human Rights in Nuremberg --Tuxyso 22:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  CommentMaybe I am mistaken, but for me there’s a slight CCW tilt. --Kreuzschnabel 13:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Tilt corrected. --Tuxyso 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Pretty unsharp in the back --Moroder 22:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Cannot see the point, normal sharpness with regard to lightning conditions (e.g. look at the licence tag). Focus is on the column. "Insufficient quality" is a bit harsh, we should discuss. --Tuxyso 23:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline is unjustified (I've changed to discuss), only 6 days in CR, former critisism (tilt) is corrected, IMHO sharpness is OK for QI, so we should wait for a third opinion. --Tuxyso 10:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it could pass as it is.--Jebulon 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 13:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 01:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

File:C-veskovo-2010-bell-1134.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The church bell in Veskovo village. --PereslavlFoto 12:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very distracting background. --Smial 13:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That's the argument about Feature pictures, and here we speak about technical quality. Let's wait a bit. --PereslavlFoto 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
      •  Comment Composition is also a criteria, and background is part of composition. The view in the other canditdate (with only the house in background) is much better. -- Smial 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The task was, to show the bell from all sides. So I could not choose the background, but only to make it softer, as you may see in this result.--PereslavlFoto 11:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The background is not great/perfect, but neither very disturbing IMO. OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Smial is right: composition is a QI criterium, and a "distracting background" is a good reason for an oppose vote in QI too. But I agree with NorbertNagel in this case.--Jebulon 17:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perhaps a crop to portrait format could help as in the other image above? -- Smial 16:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Unfortunate background, random composition. Alvesgaspar 11:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Alvesgaspar and Smial. Yann 13:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --King of Hearts 01:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Estatua_de_San_Ronaldo,_Riga,_Letonia,_2012-08-07,_DD_06.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Town Hall Square, Riga, Latvia --Poco a poco 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Bad lighting of main subject. --Smial 12:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded with improved lighting. Please, consider that subject is not only the statue but the whole square and the church in the background. I updated the file description accordingly Poco a poco 13:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm still unhappy, we should ask for more opinions --Smial 15:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image and nice cloud in the sky --Ximeg 10:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I see no problem with the lightning, but I think some areas (most notable at the grass and flowers in the middle) are much oversharpened. --Tuxyso 14:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    I couldn't say that it is bad, but just uploaded a new version with adjustment of denoising and sharpness Poco a poco 19:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me now. --NorbertNagel 15:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, yes, ok, we've supported images with MUCH lesser quality here. -- Smial 19:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me--Steinsplitter 21:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --King of Hearts 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Alter_Bahnhof_Atzwang.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination --Moroder 12:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 05:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virgen_de_la_Chiquinquira_en_la_Basilica_de_la_Chinita,_Maracaibo,_Venezuela.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Español: Virgen de la Chiquinquira --The Photographer 13:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Slight CCW tilt, a bit washed out, sharpness could be better (IMHO all issues are fixable). --Tuxyso 09:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank for the review. I can not find how to fix the inclination --The Photographer 12:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - gold leaves are not sharp. Mattbuck 16:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Leaves in the foto, i think, not the main..., but the reflection of the glass, I tried to reduce the ... (file updated) --Aleks G 22:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --King of Hearts 07:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Borbeck-Eingang-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle of Borbeck with entry --Tuxyso 18:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Lack of sharpness. --Iifar 20:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
     Info New processing. I think it is much sharper now. Pleas re-review, Thanks! --Tuxyso 21:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)  Comment I'm not happy with the result. Can you increase sharpness without HDR processing? --Iifar 07:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    It was also previously an HDR. Let's discuss and please be more precisely with "I'm not happy". Besides I think your first assesment "unsharp" was rather strict. --Tuxyso 08:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)  Oppose It looks now very unnatural (overprocessed), first version was better, but it was unsharp. --Iifar 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
     InfoI've again worked on the photo. My last attempt. I think you were right with your overprocessing of version 2. I think this last version is the best one (definetely sharp enough for QI). Please re-review. --Tuxyso 14:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)  Comment Much better, but please see the notes. --Iifar 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, but you're wrong with "unnatural line between the sky and building", it's black cable from a Lightning rod ! Perspective is slightly corrected, note that my standpoint is not exactly centred to the building (see position of bottom window line). --Tuxyso 14:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)  Comment It's not cable line, look carefully at the places, where cable is higher than the roof. Anyway I'm removing my oppose vote. --Iifar 16:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    You are wrong, there are spacer between roof and cable. If you like I can upload a photo showing this construction well from a different perspective. --Tuxyso 17:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can see the lightning-rod cable coming down from both towers, no problem with that. But both towers has halos, probably caused by the attempts to remove the chromatic aberration. Also, it is not very sharp. Look at the door. --Esquilo 10:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you mark the halos? Just to make sure what you mean. Probably I can fix it. Thanks. --Tuxyso 11:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Esquilo, halos. See the edges of the towers--Lmbuga 14:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File:H2-Office-Teilansicht-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Partial view of the H2-Office at the inner harbour ("Innenhafen") of Duisburg --Tuxyso 18:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Nice, but, why the darker band at the top? Poco a poco 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's vignetting from the 24mm Tilt&Shift (Nikon PC-E) (at max shift position), I tried to correct it as best as I could. I think it is only marginal (very small ared), difficult to avoid. --Tuxyso 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Tried to make some manual improvements, please re-review. --Tuxyso 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It got better, but we are not yet there, please, let's discuss Poco a poco 00:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's OK that way. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight at bottom and a bit at top--Lmbuga 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • no chance, behind me water, Tilt&Shift lens at maximum shift position :) The darker edges come from the vignetting of the PC-E 24mm at maximum shift - IMHO very difficult to correct. --Tuxyso 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Sesimbra,_Portugal,_2012-08-18,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

File:VS_-_Schwenningen_-_Volkshochschule.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Schwenningen: adult education centre --Taxiarchos228 13:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very disturbing shadow -- Lothar Spurzem 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I can see the building very clearly and the shadow is in the lower part, so what's exactly the problem? --Taxiarchos228 05:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Ungefähr ein Viertel der langen Südfassade liegt bis zum Dach im Schatten, und auch der Schatten des Baumes und der im unteren Bereich sehen nicht gut aus. Dass das Gebäude trotzdem klar zu erkennen ist, reicht meines Erachtens für ein Qualitätsbild nicht aus. Bitte nichts für ungut. -- Lothar Spurzem 11:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Wieso reicht es nicht udn welchem Kriterium läuft es zuwider? --Taxiarchos228 15:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find the shadow disturbing, no details are lost or difficult to see due to over/under exposure. Sharp and correct perspective. No vignetting or CA. Looks like a QI to me. --Esquilo 20:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Plaza_del_Comercio,_Lisboa,_Portugal,_2012-05-12,_DD_03.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Commerce Square, Lisbon, Portugal --Poco a poco 17:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too artifical to be a QI, both the perspective and the colors. Better wait for a sunny day and use another lens. Alvesgaspar 11:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Please, let's discuss. This comment or the other one (it doesn't make justice to its beauty) are not objectie in my eyes. From the other part of the continent is hard to know when it will be good conditions in Lisbon Poco a poco 13:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 Comment I took the liberty to upload a new version of this file with (hopfully) more natural colours. Revert if you are not happy with it. --Esquilo 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:VS_-_Villingen_-_Münster_Unser_Lieben_Frau5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Villingen: Blessed Virgin Mary Church, towers --Taxiarchos228 13:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Smial 13:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dustspot --Tlusťa 17:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    rather pedantic to decline cos of a little dustspot, it's removed anyway --Taxiarchos228 18:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Something is wrong with this red frame, as this pic was already supported. I left a message, seems to be a mistake...--Jebulon 18:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Support Obvious QI, no need to oppose for a (now removed) dust spot.--Jebulon 20:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:VS_-_Villingen_-_Altes_Rathaus2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Villingen: Old town hall, coat of arms --Taxiarchos228 13:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good composition, lighting, colours, but too noisy --Smial 13:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • denoised --Taxiarchos228 14:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice ! Could we have an identification, a better description, and a relevant categorization, please ?--Jebulon 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done for identification: above, CoA of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (but wrong, the gules bordure is missing for the burgundy -right- part of the escutcheon). Below, left, CoA(variant) of Vorderösterreich (Habsburg, Austria, named "Bindenschild"), and right, CoA of the old city of Villingen.--Jebulon 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. Perhaps it can be more sharp--Lmbuga 14:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient description. --Esquilo 20:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
discription added --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Schloss Schönhagen.1.ajb.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Schönhagen manor in Brodersby, Germany. --Ajepbah 08:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Perspective correction failed. --Smial 15:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Do you have a hint about what exactly went wrong? Thx --Ajepbah 16:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry to other readers, kann ich nicht auf englisch. Du hast das Bild oben auseinandergezogen, um die Vertikalen senkrecht zu ziehen. Dabei aber gleichzeitig vertikal gestaucht, so daß die Gebäudeproportionen nicht mehr stimmen. Mach einfach mal Original und Fälschung :-) in zwei Browsertabs auf und schalte hin und her, dann siehst du es. Perspektivische Entzerrung, wenn sie wie bei Verwendung von Shift-Objektiven aussehen soll, würde (in diesem Fall) oben etwas auseinanderziehen und unten etwas zusammenschieben. -- Smial 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Corrected, ratio is now 4:3 --Ajepbah 21:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • More opinions? -- Tuxyso 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective is ok with me, but the upper crop is not, sorry. --Iifar 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Suur-Kalajärv (Kreo Kalajärv) II.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Suur-Kalajärv Lake by Ireen Trummer. --Kruusamägi 22:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not really sharp, and tilted at the bank line. --A.Savin 06:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)  Info I uploaded new sharper version, please discuss. --Iifar 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No coordinates. --Esquilo 21:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Coordinates added. Kruusamägi 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_nuestra_señora_de_la_Chiquinquira.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Español: Basílica --The Photographer 15:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    Nice, could you correct the perspective and get rid of the heads in the bottom? Poco a poco 00:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Gracias por la revisión, en estos momentos estoy de vacaciones y no tengo acceso a mi computadora personal para hacerlo :(, Lo siento. Puede que más adelante cuando vuelva. Siempre puedes sobreescribir cualquier archivo mio si te animas. Un abrazo --The Photographer 02:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, no problem, I gave it a try and will move the nomination to CR ir order to get a third opinion Poco a poco 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now imo.--ArildV 15:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Portal_Klosteranlage_Maria_Luggau.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Portal Klosteranlage in Maria Luggau, Austria. --Steinsplitter 14:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Overexposed. Mattbuck 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • New version uploaded. Pleas re-review, Thanks! --Steinsplitter 13:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I like the composition and the perspective, but very strong CAs --Haneburger 07:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose chromatic aberrations, perspective distortion (I don't like the perspective), too tight at bottom (I don't like the composition). Sorry--Lmbuga 14:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Terpsichore_Mahlknecht_Museum_Ferdinandeum_Innsbruck_2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Terpsichore by J.D. Mahlknecht in the Museum Ferdinandeum Innsbruck --Moroder 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Blur at the bottom left. I'm unsure here. Mattbuck 16:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Not the best angle and framing. The worst for me is the painting in the background -- Alvesgaspar 17:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, and the picture of the background is disturbing IMO--Lmbuga 14:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose painting in the background--Steinsplitter 15:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, there is nothing wrong with the painting in the BG --Moroder 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed, I don't understand what's wrong in this picture. The painting in the background is not that disturbing. Good quality for me and the composition is pretty clever given the difficulties of taking pictures in museums. --Selbymay 20:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Orneta, ratusz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall in Orneta, Poland. --CLI 22:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Could be sharper, sky is a bit noisy. --Tuxyso 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. Mattbuck 16:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --King of Hearts 07:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:11-10-02-barnim-by-RalfR-06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Buxine (See zwischen Golzow und Joachimsthal) --Ralf Roletschek 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Nice light but a few problems (see notes) --JLPC 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And it's unsharp, sorry. --Iifar 18:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the sharpness is not too bad, given the high resolution. At 2000px the unsharpness is not noticeable. -- 06:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    •  Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. --Ivar
  •  Oppose It is unsharp, partly because focus is set too short and partly because the small aperture (f/20) causes diffraction. Also the postprocessing is sloppy done (see annotations). --Esquilo 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Taxiarchos228 05:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Rõuge Suurjärv 2011 10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rõuge Suurjärv -- Kruusamägi 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment There is vignetting and dust spots, also a bit tilted Poco a poco 15:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support One spot removed, vignetting is imho minor and I can't see any tilt (church tower is vertical). --Iifar 19:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Image is unsharp at left, needs a generous crop. Otherwise, it is good (symmetry is one of the known components of beauty...) -- Alvesgaspar 15:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not familiar with the Canon EF-series lenses, but ultra-wide angle very rearly produce unsharp images. At 17 mm you should get focus from a few feet to infinity. Nevertheles this photo is sharp in the center and fuzzy at the edges. Most notably on the left, but also on the right. I think the unsharpnes is a result of correcting for distorsion and chromatic aberration. --Esquilo 13:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Most (effortable) wide-angle lenses become softer at the edges. Not a DoF issue but a general problem of that lenses. Even the VERY expensive Nikon 14-24 is slightly softer at the edges on full format, perfect on DX (honey spot). --Tuxyso 15:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, but the softnes becomes exaggerated then the edges/corners are magnified to compensate for barrel distorsion. (There is no distorsion remaining though. Credit for that Vaido!) --Esquilo 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - blurred on the left, and it seems oversaturated. Mattbuck 06:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ruelle_16_Mascaron&porte_2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mascaron above an old door, Ruelle-sur-Touvre, Charente, France. --JLPC 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very disturbing shadow above. -- Lothar Spurzem 23:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
     Comment New file uploaded. --JLPC 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Better. Looks like a QI to me --Rjcastillo 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 17:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Railfest 2012 MMB 05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Railfest 2012. Mattbuck 15:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The front is very dark and therefore no QI for me -- Lothar Spurzem 23:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    I can see the building very clearly and the shadow is in the lower part, so what's exactly the problem? --Taxiarchos228 05:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    What building? -- Lothar Spurzem 11:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    I assume he means the train, which doesn't look very trainlike. Mattbuck 23:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 17:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Citroen_Traction_Avant_2012-07-15_14-12-04.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Citroën Traction Avant --Berthold Werner 13:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline

* Support Good quality. --Steinsplitter 13:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  •  Comment Distracting background, disturbing sheet behind the windshield, not nice field of license number; sharpness is not bad but cut be better. -- Lothar Spurzem 23:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- The framing is not good enough. Alvesgaspar 15:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@Lothar: is your post a "comment" or a "contra"? --Berthold Werner 09:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a comment. -- Lothar Spurzem 09:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar--Steinsplitter 18:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Calidris_alba_on_Margarita_island_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Calidris alba on Margarita island --The Photographer 03:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice bokeh - good quality Martin Falbisoner 06:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC).  Comment Very nice composition, but imo significant CA should be removed before promotion. --Vamps 20:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC).
    ✓ Done : CA removed. --JLPC 18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks --The Photographer 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Support --Ximeg 11:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 16:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:ST_vs_RM92_-_2012-11-01_-_Gaetan_Germain-2.jpg

[edit]

File:Bay_of_Fires-Nueva_Zelanda15.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Bay of Fires, Tasmania, Australia --Poco a poco 11:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Dust spots (upper left corner), some noise in the sky, not entirely convincing overall quality imo. Maybe you should go back there with your new equipment?--ArildV 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. I fixed that among other improvements. Regarding going back there. I tell you, if I had time, money and permission, tomorrow :) Poco a poco 16:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC).  Comment It looks oversaturated, horizon is not horizontal. --Iifar 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    Should be ok now, please Ivar, have a new look Poco a poco 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC).  Neutral Better, but I agree with Arild, overall quality is just not up to it. --Iifar 06:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    Please, be more concrete, it is not precise enough to me. I do think that the current version is good to go Poco a poco 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    I hope you don't mind if I move it to CR. It is not just one more picture to me and I believe that it meets QI criteria Poco a poco 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Compression artefacts along all the horizont, edge to edge. Large areas looks fuzzy, probably caused by overprocessing. Unnatural, oversaturated colours. The versions from february last year doesn't have these problems, although they had other problems (tilt, barrel distorsion). --Esquilo 17:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Oostriku jõgi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oostriku river in Endla Nature Reserve by Tauri Pärna -- Kruusamägi 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Overexposed sky Poco a poco 15:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC).
  •  Support Despite of some overexposure, I like the composition and sharpness. --Iifar 16:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The snow is darker than the sky, so if you want the snow to look white, you have too blow out the sky. Maybe the right filter could lessen the effect, but I think this is good. Add a geotag and I will support it. Why is there no EXIF? --Esquilo 15:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    Clearification: I will not support this image until it has a geotag. --Esquilo 13:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Geotag added. Kruusamägi 19:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good. Thank you. --Esquilo 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice --Moroder 18:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 18:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-01-02_17-41-09-mold-72f.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mold (true macro : reproduction ratio greater than 1:1) --ComputerHotline 13:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Most of it seems to be weirdly misted. --Mattbuck 10:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Wrong, it's some mold at reproduction ratio greater than 1:1, not mist. --ComputerHotline 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Too many blurred areas. Misuse of Focus staking. --Archaeodontosaurus 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Blurred edges. --Esquilo 11:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose En plus, no id. Biopics 08:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:2012-12-29 Hersley, Svedberg 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ice hockey players Patrik Hersley and Johan Svedberg.--V-wolf 20:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too strong denoising, the beard of the guy on the right looks painted Poco a poco 22:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • New version up. Better? --V-wolf 18:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Not really, but feel free to move it to CR to get further opinions Poco a poco 18:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok, thanks. So folks, pros, cons, potentials? --V-wolf 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Martin Falbisoner 20:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp. Good colours. A bit ditherd due to high ISO, but there is not much to do about that. --Esquilo 10:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Same as Esquilo. Noise is hard to avoid in indoor sports. Jastrow 13:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Unknown_Dragonfly.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination unknown Dragonfly, Margarita island, Venezuela --The Photographer 03:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good! Martin Falbisoner 07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness could be better, species has no ID. --Vamps 20:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Species has no id (yet). Biopics 19:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Minolta XG1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Minolta XG1 -- Ludo29 19:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. Jastrow 12:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop is not optimal, too much empty (white) space. --Tuxyso 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
New crop. Ludo29 17:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Better, but I would still prefer a slightly tighter crop at the right. I think it's a good idea to let more empty space at the right as you've done it (due to the heading of the camera). Other opinons? --Tuxyso 19:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't like photo without space around the subject. Ludo29 23:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you read precisely?
I did't not say "without" space, but less space. I think it normal in product photography, especially with a white clinic background. For instance look at this or this FP of a similar object: very less space. It is not an enviornmental oriented photo, but a product photo! --Tuxyso 05:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Good photographies. Me, I don't like the small space around subjects, howerver other people like that.
The quality of these two photographies is very good. I would have preferred these pictures with more space around, but quality is here. This does not mean that they do not have the quality to IQ or FP.
You prefer a photography without space around the subject, I prefer with more. Ok. But it's not the question. The question is Does this photography has a good quality ? Ludo29 08:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
IMHO it can not be QI if it has (very easily) fixable issues (like crop). Why not improve such obvious problem? Let's discuss and wait for the assessment of others. --Tuxyso 15:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ludo29's point is that the amount of white margin is subject to taste. While you think it's a problem, he doesn't. I thought the first crop was a bit wide, but acceptable. Now I would prefer a centered composition, but I find it acceptable too. Jastrow 15:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. In fact, there is, two points : position and size of the crop. We are not agree about the size of the crop. Jastrow talk about the position, she said that she prefer a center position.
Me, I prefer to have space around the subject and in front of the subject. That's why, there is some place in front of the lens, for the movement. For me, space backside of the subject is less important that space in front of it. As Jastrow said, it's a question of taste. And finally, some space backside and frontside of the subject can afford to make his own cropp for each re-use, after. Ludo29 17:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support 1/8 margin around subjet is acceptable. I would have prefered 1/8 to the right as well, but I don't see why that would disqualify its as a QI. The left part of the camera with the film-spooling crank is slightly out of focus, but that is nothing major either since there are no details lost. --Esquilo 15:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --Selbymay 15:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Looper-Innenhafen-Duisburg-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination previously unaccessed "Looper" at the inner harbor ("Innenhafen") in Duisburg --Tuxyso 07:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Some overexposure on right, some CA. The decline though is due to the tilt - clear due to the post on the left. If tilt/perspective were corrected, you'd have to completely crop out the post, and then you'd have too tight a crop. --Mattbuck 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    Let's discuss, I like the image, you should give me a seconde try and not directly decline. ✓ Done Perspective and (very marginal) overexposure is corrected. Note that the flagstaff is not straight in real. --Tuxyso 22:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    That looks better, shame lighting isn't ideal. Mattbuck 00:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Vincennes_-_Statue_-_PA00079920_-_021.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Détail d'une statue au château de Vincennes. --Thesupermat 07:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Disturbing foreground (the hand is hiding the face) --PierreSelim 08:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree: it's one of the most striking features of the Venus of Arles, of which this statue is a copy. Classic viewpoint. --Jastrow 11:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI have to agree with PierreSelim; The composition is awfull. Step back to get the whole statue in or step right to get that hand out of the face. --Esquilo 10:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_Nuestra_Señora_de_la_Candelaria,_Candelaria,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-12,_DD_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basilica of Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria, Candelaria, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 16:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Weak composition, notable noise, light conditions not so good. --Vamps 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version, What you call weak composition I call interesting composition, noise was reduced, the lighting is called dusk and I like it very much, interesting skies and no harsh shadows Poco a poco 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • User not editing anymore but this case needs discussion IMO Poco a poco 22:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oh my god! You take a photo of a statue and choose to focus on its butt!? Which also happens to be the shadow side!? --Esquilo 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment How can you know where's the focus with 17mm and f7.1?? Everything is as sharp as the rest here. And I also like the composition. You should find other reasons to oppose. Pero no la veo demasiado bien en cuanto a nitidez y detalle, no puedo apoyar esta :( --Kadellar 13:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not talking of the focus of the camera. I'm talking of the focus of the photographer. Why would anyone photo a statue from behind? --Esquilo 18:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    It's part of the statue as well, and you can get very interesting views. For example, where's the statue looking at? I have pictured statues from behind 1, 2, 3, 4, and one became FP. In this case, the statues lead to a vanishing point, and if you focused on their faces, you wouldn't see the church. --Kadellar 13:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think that Esquilo is trying to say that it is not a very enciclopedic shot, but I think, as Kadellar does, that that is not the whole story Poco a poco 14:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lincoln 1938.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chevrolet 1938 --Rjcastillo 17:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
     Comment are you sure this extreme perspective is appropriate for an enzyclopedia? --Berthold Werner 13:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry: Car and background are distorted too much. I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I agree Berthold Werner--Archaeodontosaurus 08:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 Support Wounderfull usage of wide angle lens. It highlights the main subject by pushing the background further away while at the same time keeping the background details which otherwise would have been lost in the bokeh. Unfortunatly, the distorsion of the building to the left is distracting and so is that cable lying on the ground. Straigthen up the building and remove that cable and I will support. --Esquilo 10:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version uploaded --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Appropriate use of wide-angle. --King of Hearts 09:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Monument_Valley_Arizona_october_2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination "The Monument Valley, Arizona. --Moroder 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality! --Martin Falbisoner 19:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky seems rather red to me. Mattbuck 00:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Wide angle distorsion at the edges. The sky is not red, but a bit noisy at the top. --Esquilo 11:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Corrected the distortion --Moroder 16:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      •  Support Looks good now. --Esquilo 18:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 11:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:2012-12-31 15-39-52-ronce-18f.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rubus sp. branch --ComputerHotline 13:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good Quality --Rjcastillo 13:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Per guidelines: no sufficient ID. Biopics 18:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    Decline per Biopics. Mattbuck 23:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

File:San_Giovanni_in_Laterano_Front.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: San Giovanni in Laterano --Martin Falbisoner 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment too noise imo --Rjcastillo 13:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
     Info I denoised it. Better? --Martin Falbisoner 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  SupportFor me it's a QI now --Haneburger 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - borderline sharpness, but ok. Mattbuck 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Mattbuck 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Luxor_Ramses.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Ramses II. --Martin Falbisoner 20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Very good, but, sligthly overexposed imo. I think Fixable --Rjcastillo 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    changed it a bit. Better? --Martin Falbisoner 05:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
     Support - OK for me --Rjcastillo 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Compression artifacts, loss of detail; too tight framing. --Kadellar 13:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - lots of artifacts. Mattbuck 23:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 23:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Brombach_-_Germanuskirche_-_Turmuhr.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Brombach: tower clock of Germanus Church --Taxiarchos228 05:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad composition - tight crop. --Mattbuck 17:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    too tight because of? the clock is visible clearly, no FP criteria for QI --Taxiarchos228 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB 77 406-585.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination DB 406-585 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 14:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately nothing to see of the station --Martin Falbisoner 12:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
    The photo is of the train rather than the station, I don't see why that's a reason to decline. On that basis I could decline every single image that comes up here if it doesn't have my cat in it. --Mattbuck 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    ok, I admit to that. It's just that I thought your image intended to show that this "was the first time such an ICE train had travelled to Britain". Another opinion? --Martin Falbisoner 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I aggree with Martin that the statement of the photo "ICE train in Britain" is not visible here. Nonetheless relevance is not a QI criteria. The title is confusing "St Pancras railway station MMB 77 406-585.jpg". Your photo only shows details of the wagon, the station does not matter in this case. No QI for me because the main motive, the text "Schwäbisch Hall" is not sharp enough. --Tuxyso 08:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    I have a consistent naming scheme (well, working on it), of the form (place) MMB (number) (details), so by naming it St Pancras railway station MMB 77 406-585 it fits between photos 76 and 78 of St Pancras, which probably show the train in more context. While yes, this probably means that there are a few images where the place is irrelevant, it groups photos together in the correct order, which I find makes up for it. Mattbuck 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Pelican_in_mangroves_of_the_Restinga_Lagoon_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pelican in mangroves of the Restinga Lagoon --The Photographer 03:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Yes, it is a nice catch but the lighting and sharpness are on the poor side. Alvesgaspar 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Sky is not overexposed and the bird is not an underexposed silhouette. I don't see much problem with the sharpness either, at 1/500 motion blur is almost gone. --Esquilo 10:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support per Esquilo, seems ok for me --Martin Falbisoner 17:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, but a bit small. Mattbuck 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Mattbuck 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Yegorievsk Aug2012 listed objects 07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Listed building in Yegorievsk, Russia. - A.Savin 10:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - Bad CA on right, generally dull. --Mattbuck 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    Right, I had forgotten to correct the RAW (shame on me...). New version: No CA, improved brightness. --A.Savin 09:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    It's better, but still seems a bit dull to me. Contrast increase perhaps? Mattbuck 00:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --A.Savin 09:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    OK. Mattbuck 02:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Rolltreppe_Zeche_Zollverein.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Deutsch: Zeche Zollverein, Rolltreppe Kohlenwäsche --Martin Falbisoner 10:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Interesting but no QI: perspective distortion, overexposed at the top, moiré effect. --A.Savin 11:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I disagree: Moire appears only at small resolution and is not present in the full-size image; overexposed part is very small and doesn't contain any meaningful details. It can be even cropped out --Ximeg 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment perspective distortion, easily fixable and overexposed I think can be improved a little. imho --Rjcastillo 00:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    •  Info reduced distortion, lowered exposure. --Martin Falbisoner 05:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur. See Image guidelines. --Esquilo 09:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support An escalator is moving, thus not surprising that there is some motion. Trade-off between noise and motion. I like this photo. --Tuxyso 08:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting composition, and I think that the motion blur was used by the author intentionally, since it gives an unusual representation of the escalator, where you see the sharp lines along it, but cannot distinguish individual steps. I'm pretty sure that the tripod was used for this purpose, and the exposure time was at least 2 seconds. It would be nice to add a geotag and the EXIF, or at least the {{Photo information}} template. --Ximeg 21:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    •  Info I added a geotag. As for the EXIF: I suppose it got lost when converting from tiff to jpg. Since I don't know how to handle the Photo Information template (sorry!): Canon EOS 5D Mark II, 5s, f/22, ISO 100, 24mm --Martin Falbisoner 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 10:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Torre_del_Polvorín,_Riga,_Letonia,_2012-08-07,_DD_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Powder Tower, Riga, Latvia --Poco a poco 16:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Cropped people and cars on the foreground, (cw) tilted tower on right side, overprocessing caused posterization (on people) and loss of detail. --Vamps 20:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Crop changed (not cutting people or cars is often just impossible), tilt corrected, denosing reduced Poco a poco 21:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    User not editing anymore but this case needs discussion IMO Poco a poco 22:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 Comment A bit oversharpend with makes the streetlamps and the people dithered, but fortunaly not the main subject. It need to be straighten up though. Do that and I will support. --Esquilo 10:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version improving the vertical perspective correction. Did I address your issue? If not, please, help me adding a note Poco a poco 11:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Additional version addressing the barrel distortion after note of Iifar Poco a poco 15:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 Support Yes, now it's vertical. --Esquilo 18:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 07:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:DVLR shunting - 2009-06-21.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: British Rail Class 03 shunting on the Derwent Valley Light Railway near York --Optimist on the run 12:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Good Quality --Rjcastillo 12:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    Overexposed clouds, bit unsharp, noticable CA. --Mattbuck 16:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 07:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Clevedon MMB 30 Pier.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clevedon Pier. Mattbuck 11:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Weak oppose Soft, noisy, WB problems. --A.Savin 11:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think I have corrected these issues now. Mattbuck 16:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    Imo, Photoshop cannot add detail, but let's put it to CR. --A.Savin 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Montreal-Canada5926.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Squirrel in Montreal, Quebec, Canada --Poco a poco 09:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --King of Hearts 10:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Noisy and slightly overexposed. Biopics 19:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    Noisy and oversharpend, especially the background. --Esquilo 08:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Fiddler crab 2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fiddler crab in El Guamache, Margarita Island --The Photographer 03:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice composition. Depth of field could be deeper, but ok for me. --Kadellar 14:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    Needs species id. Biopics 07:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    That's true, I forgot it. You need to add the species for QI. --Kadellar 18:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    I don't personally know any (marine) biologists in Venezuela, but this shouldn't be that difficult to find out... Biopics 19:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)✓ Done --The Photographer 15:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Fibroblastid (BPAE).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fibroblasts by Heiti Paves -- Kruusamägi 14:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good work --Archaeodontosaurus 08:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs size indication. Biopics 07:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Iifar 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Fibroblast (BPAE).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fibroblast by Heiti Paves -- Kruusamägi 14:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good work --Archaeodontosaurus 08:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs size indication. Biopics 07:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Iifar 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Brombach_-_Haltepunkt_Brombach-Hauingen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Brombach: train stop Brombach-Hauingen --Taxiarchos228 07:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tilted, overexposed on right. --Mattbuck 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • white clouds does not mean that the sky is overexposed--Taxiarchos228 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sky partly overexposed --Iifar 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_DR-Baureihe_ET_65.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach main station: DRG Class ET 65 --Taxiarchos228 07:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky. --Mattbuck 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • white clouds does not mean that the sky is overexposed --Taxiarchos228 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is definitely overexposed. --Iifar 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • the sky was definitly white on this day --Taxiarchos228 06:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Pantherophis_bairdi_Kletternatter.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pantherophis bairdi --Holleday 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good Quality --Rjcastillo 23:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Disturbing rectangular (i.e.. unnatural) reflections. Biopics 18:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I see nothing wrong with reflections, but the DOF is too low for me. Mattbuck 23:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment The aperture is set to f/16. Anything tighter than that and you'll start to get diffraction. --Esquilo 17:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 23:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Merivarblane.jpg

[edit]

File:Panorama_of_Saumur.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Panorama of Saumur --Martin Falbisoner 12:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Significant posterisation and loss of detail. Lovely in thumbnail though, and nice reflections. --Mattbuck 03:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC) You were right, I adjusted the contrast and tried to rescue some details. Is it better now? --Martin Falbisoner 10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    A lot better yes, but it needs some perspective correction before it can be promoted - right hand side is fine, but bottom left needs to be squeezed in. Mattbuck 14:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    OK, done. I also slightly changed the crop --Martin Falbisoner 22:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
     Support. QI for me now. --JLPC 18:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Parque Esplanade, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kekava Park, Riga, Latvia --Poco a poco 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Blur and CA at edges. --Mattbuck 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • After some improvements I think it is worth discussing it Poco a poco 11:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Significant CA is still there. --Iifar 14:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I addressed the CA Poco a poco 20:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment blue color is almost gone, but overexposed places with CA are still looking unnatural, my oppose stays. --Iifar 07:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 19:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC))

File:Flowers Brussels April 2012-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tulip flower bed. Jardin du Petit Sablon, Brussels. -- Alvesgaspar 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I'm not convinced - quite dark, and general JPEG quality doesn't seem great.
  •  Weak oppose I think. Mattbuck 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Light could be better, but overall quality is ok. --Iifar 07:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good DoF, all flowers are reasonably sharp. I don't think this photo is too dark. Any brighter and the tulips would suffer from single-channel overexposure. --Esquilo 08:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 19:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Arkhangelskoe Estate Aug2012 buildings 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arkhangelskoe Estate near Moscow, Russia: main gate. - A.Savin 09:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Significant haloing around the trees. --Mattbuck 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    This I cannot follow. Where do you see haloes? Pls. discuss. --A.Savin 10:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Behind every single tree, edging into the sky around. Mattbuck 16:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined Mattbuck 23:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Jägala_juga,_Jõelähtme,_Estonia,_2012-08-12,_DD_36.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Jägala juga, Jõelähtme, Estonia --Poco a poco 11:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 13:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please add correct english description. Ivar
  • Done, Poco a poco 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization all over the trees. --Iifar 17:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 20:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • a bit better, but imho still not good enough. --Iifar 06:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support A tiny bit of CA in the tree at the right and slightly overexposed foreground. Not enough to reject it though. --Esquilo 12:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Still seems to be rather good. Kruusamägi 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I agree, the trees, don't look right. Mattbuck 03:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Alcochete 2013-5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Typical canoe of the Tagus River, Alcochete, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Bit of noise at bottom, blur lower middle. Shame, it's nice otherwise. --Mattbuck 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I usually accept the veredicts here but I like this one very much and believe it deserves the logo. You're right, the surface between the camera and the canoe is not focused; that was a choice of the photographer, knowing that it would not be possible to focus everything. As for the noise (it is really noise?), I don't think that such a large photo should be evaluated at full screen size (that is, at 72 dpi). On print no noise is visible at all. -- Alvesgaspar 23:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Geotag? --Esquilo 08:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done -- Alvesgaspar 00:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 07:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Alcochete 2013-4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Tagus River from Alcochete, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Several dust spots in the sky. Mattbuck 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done -- Sorry for that, I should have removed them before submitting but some are hard to detect. -- Alvesgaspar 23:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean, it can be tricky. That said, I'm not convinced by this one, as with #File:Alcochete 2013-5.jpg. This is not an oppose, but I don't think I can support either. Pretty photo. Mattbuck 00:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing geotag. --Esquilo 08:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done -- Alvesgaspar 00:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good. In the future, I recomend that you get a gradual filter to even out the brightness between the dark mud and the bright sky. --Esquilo 17:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Superstar_Tallinn,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Superstar Tallinn, West Harbour, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not quite sharp. --Mattbuck 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    I don't concur, please, let's discuss Poco a poco 16:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharp enough for me, but there are artefacts in the blue bar. --King of Hearts 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Again, the first version is less noisy. There is some wierd contrast artefact/abberation/whatever where the white rope hangs down over the blue deck. --Esquilo 17:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Tamron 28-75 2.8 A09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tamron 28-75 2.8 A09 (without built-in motor) --Tuxyso 09:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Background, carpet bump in front of lens cap. It's not perfectly vertical ( \ ). Missing other_versions. --SkywalkerPL 10:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree, QI is about photography, not about cleaning lenses. What do you mean by "missing other versions"? I see no reason why only white background are allowed. Reality is not that clean. --Tuxyso 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)  Comment It's got CARPET in front of a lens. And it's not even vertical. Certainly not a QI. QI isn't about making shots in high resolution, certainly not for products. We should aim for something better then just random high-MPx shot of a carpet and a lens. --SkywalkerPL 10:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Tamron-SP-28-75-F-Mount.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tamron 28-75 2.8 A09 (without built-in motor), Nikon F-mount --Tuxyso 09:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Background, depth of field, lens is not cleaned. Missing other_versions. --SkywalkerPL 10:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree, QI is about photography, not about cleaning lenses. What do you mean by "missing other versions"? I see no reason why only white background are allowed. Reality is not that clean. --Tuxyso 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)  Comment Missing other versions means that it doesn't have other version pointed out in a template, while it should. But that certainly does not disqualify it. What does disqualify it is that it didn't go through any correction - depth of field is paper-thin, and the sharp area is full of scratches, dust particles, etc. Use lightroom or photoshop to correct. Also: you are right, QI isn't about white backgrounds, but QI shouldn't allow people to be careless shooting stuff on their carpets. Just put a paper sheet, or do some photoshopping to get a proper background. No offense, but if you don't bother with such a basic thing and prefer shooting on carpets - we shouldn't bother with promoting it to QI status. --SkywalkerPL 10:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    You should definteley re-think about your abusive criticism against me. Discussion about photos YES (if you are not satisfied with the result, it is also OK), personal attacks and disrespect to the efforts of contributors: NO. And no, it was not a random shoot on a carpet (it was a chair upholstery), but one with tripod, remote and mirror-lock-up and time-consuming light-setup with transparent umbrella and addional flash. Don't be to fast with your prejudices. --Tuxyso 10:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)  Comment I'm sorry, I didn't intended to make any personal attacks. Blame it on a fact that english isn't my native language. I was merely pointing out that doing very basic thing can dramatically improve the overall quality of the image, and moreover: There's more then one way to achieve QI. You can either post-process in photoshop, or create a proper setup (and no amount of lights / lenses / cameras will fix the basic mistakes) SkywalkerPL 10:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per SkywalkerPL. Biopics 12:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF too shallow. Ok if it does not cover the whole lens, but it should cover the whole bayonet if that is the main subject. --Esquilo 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lion (Panthera leo krugeri) 03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panthera leo krugeri --Godot13 07:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeNice capture, but too soft, sorry --Poco a poco 12:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

°Second opinion please-Just short or off the mark? - Godot13 20:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Softness is just still OK for me (some single hairs are visible). But in the metadata there is "National Currency Foundation" as creator and an information that the photo is copyrighted. Please explain. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is my company. Not sure why it is in the metadata-possible digital watermark by me. - Godot13 08:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC) -- Clean image added-- Godot13 09:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support After a detailed discussion and some clarification from Godot13, everything is clear to be. He is the founder of the National Currency Foundation, and he placed a link from the foundation page to COM and accepts the publication of the photos on Commons. --Tuxyso 09:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft. BTW, please use the OTRS to confirm ownership of this image. It is much better as cleaning an exif is not sufficient since anybody can do that. Biopics 21:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The use of OTRS is a bit paradoxial in this case because it is the org of Godot13 , see contact page of the org. I am against overformalization on COM. Cleaning the EXIF is the decision of the creator and should not be critizized. --Tuxyso 08:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)--- For the record there was no data cleaned or altered. I simply used the pre-watermarked file... Godot13 10:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 10:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Schwanenkopf_Nymphenburg.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Schwanenkopf --Martin Falbisoner 10:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --A.Savin 12:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    Missing species id. Biopics 22:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    Fixed OK, I added the species --Martin Falbisoner 14:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC))
  •  Support Nice detailed photo and great quality on close up.--Danesman1 16:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Pata_e_Cabra_Food_in_Margarita_island.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pata e Cabra Food in Margarita island --The Photographer 02:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Dof too short im(h)o. --Moonik 07:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
     Support I think it's ok. Mattbuck 03:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
     Support I think it's ok, too, though the image is a bit tilted. Maybe you want to fix that?--Martin Falbisoner 07:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, thanks ;) --The Photographer 12:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment The DoF is sufficient (I guess f/8 was choosen to make it sufficient). There are strange blue halos around the trees in the background. And, as Martin said, it is tilted. --Esquilo 15:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 10:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Zebraprofil.jpg

[edit]

File:University Park MMB X4 Nightingale Hall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nightingale Hall, University Park. Mattbuck 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much perspective distortion (and feel like it was an accident and not volunteer). Léna 21:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC) --Léna 21:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The perspective distortion was, I suppose, a choice. I tried a perspective correction, but with the angle the photo was taken at (and you can't get further away), the correction meant that the two drainpipes were barely within the frame, and it didn't really look very good. I'd like another opinion on this one, but I do understand what you mean. Mattbuck 09:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - distortion (even though it's difficult to avoid it with that short distance), + disturbing shadow. --A.Savin 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You should have had a wider lens. You say you couldn't get further away. Was there a building behind you? In that case a photo from a window in that building would have been better. --Esquilo 13:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    A cherry tree actually. But noted, let's end this here. Mattbuck 07:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? A.Savin 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Stetten_-_Hauptstraße28_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Stetten: buildings Hauptstraße 28 --Taxiarchos228 05:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposure causing loss of detail in the background building and the sky. --Mattbuck 05:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    sorry, but white clouds does not mean that this image is overexposed --Taxiarchos228 06:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Actually, clouds are never white. If they are, the sky is overexposed. Sometimes you have to accept that because the sky is almost always brigther than the ground and getting an even exposure can be very difficult. However, this is a picture of a stationary subject so the photograpther had plenty of time to take several pictures with different exposures to get it right. When you photo a bird och an aircraft in flight you don't have that time, so I'm more forgiving with such photos. --Esquilo 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • clouds are never white. If they are, the sky is overexposed. sorry, but this is definitely wrong. It is very interesting to follow up this iterative argument that is always given if the white areas are at the corner of an image. if the white clouds are classical in the middle of the image this argument I never read. --Taxiarchos228 19:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Rannamõisa cliff, 2011-06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rannamõisa cliff by Hannu -- Kruusamägi 00:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --King of Hearts 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, red CA, and a bit too harsh shadow. --A.Savin 11:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco. Mattbuck 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Hohenschwangau,_Füssen,_Alemania,_2012-10-06,_DD_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hohenschwangau Castle, Füssen, Germany --Poco a poco 10:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Bad composition (maypole) --MB-one 12:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Crop re-arranged, among other improvements, Poco a poco 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    Now OK for QI --MB-one 23:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Weston-super-Mare MMB 46.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Weston-super-Mare. Mattbuck 06:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Too dark for me. --Léna 21:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    I have brightened it. Mattbuck 08:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    Ok for me. Léna 18:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Black-headed_gull_in_the_snow_Eiffel_Tower_2013-01-20_n02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Black-headed gull in the snow, Paris. --Jastrow 09:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --A.Savin 10:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it's too tight a crop at the bottom. Mattbuck 15:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The bottom is just plain snow, but the picture can be recropped. How much more snow would you like? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think Mattbuck wants snow, he wants disposition, which in this case means more even space around the main subject. --Esquilo 13:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support slightly more foreground and less background will improve the photo imo, but already QI imo.--ArildV 11:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I uploaded a new crop. Jastrow 19:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support New crop looks good. --Esquilo 06:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:13-01-15-leipzig-hauptbahnhof-by-RalfR-03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Regional Train in Leipzig Main Station --Ralf Roletschek 13:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good Quality --Rjcastillo 14:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - dark, bad crop at the top. Also the train is not categorised. Mattbuck 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The train is categorized as a Stadler Regio-Shuttle RS1. But it is a bit too dark I think. --Esquilo 13:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      It wasn't when I looked at it, but ok. Mattbuck 07:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. --A.Savin 11:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Brythnoth statue Maldon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brythnoth statue, Maldon. Brythnoth, Earl of Essex. hero and loser of the Battle of Maldon in 991. Brythnoth was important because, although he lost the battle, he inspired the Saxons to resist the maurading Danes.The statue is Cast in bronze and was created by world famous local artist John Doubleday.This photo was nominated a while back and has been cropped and brightened as per previous requests. photo taken by Oxyman, Nominated by --Danesman1 18:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Posterisation. --Mattbuck 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Posterisation?, please kindly explain. This photo was nominated a while ago and has since been ammended and made better by User:Poco a poco thus why it has been renominated.--Danesman1 16:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above - lots of unpleasant artifacts on the sky, sharpening haloes at the edges - obviously no QI. --A.Savin 11:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed and noisy. The original had acceptable quality save for the cropping. --Esquilo 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Valaam_GephsimanskiySketeChurch.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos, 1911, Gephsimanskiy skete, Valaam Island by Ludvig14 --Zac Allan 15:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support --Iifar 08:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction needed (left side leans in), and dark. Mattbuck 00:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    •  Info I've uploaded a new version, pls. check. --A.Savin 11:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky is a bit dark, but QI nevertheless. --Esquilo 13:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Bryce_Canyon_USA_october_2012_Wolfgang_Moroder.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Bryce Canyon in Utah. --Moroder 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion I quite like it, but there are sharpening haloes and I think it's tilted clockwise. Mattbuck 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Tilt corrected, thanks for the hint. Can't see halos at 100%, never do sharpening!? --Moroder 12:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 09:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 Question What? --Moroder 08:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I see now that you put a note (I can't see notes with the browser google chrome which gives me a hard time). Do you really think that that halo is relevant to the quality of the picture? (we are not talking FP) --Moroder 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture. Mattbuck: I don't see more halos in the annotated part than in the rest of the pictures. Wolfgang: if you shoot JPEG, your pics may be affected by in-camera sharpening (see Picture Controls). Jastrow 09:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks, but I don't shoot jpg any more (today I bought a 2TB ext disk ;-) (pic control is set to neutral) --Moroder 10:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Identified halos are very minor. Not a problem IMHO. --Esquilo 13:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Doetinchem, kasteel Slangenburg RM527492 positie3 foto4 2012-07-22 13.02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination castle: Kasteel Slangenburg-Doetinchem, Netherlands --Michielverbeek 13:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs slight perspective correction. CA, jpeg compression could be better (see the bricks). --Kadellar 14:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality picture, nice angle across the water and reflection, In my opinion leave as it is.--Danesman1 16:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion, lack of sharpness, minor CA. --Iifar 19:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per iifar, a pity for that nice place. --A.Savin 10:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distorsion. Strange red halo along left side of the building. --Esquilo 13:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Iifar--Steinsplitter 12:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Muhu Katariina kirik Liiva külas.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Muhu church -- Kruusamägi 00:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    Some walls are too bright and it needs a perspective correction Poco a poco 11:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline I think the details are a bit lacking, but it's ok as is. Mattbuck 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco, definitely distorted perspective & definitely overblown highlights. --A.Savin 10:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Serra_de_Tramuntana_Valldemossa_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from a mountain passage near Valldemossa, Mallorca --Heuschrecke 20:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Nice view, but quality issues with the foreground. --Mattbuck 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with your other two reviews, but I do not see unsharpness here. Could I please ask for another vote to persuade me? Heuschrecke 11:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:La_Defense.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: La Défense --Martin Falbisoner 15:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose High ISO noise at the bottom. --Mattbuck 03:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)  Info Really? It's only ISO 200. Still, I denoised it slightly. Better now? --Martin Falbisoner 05:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment The noise does not look like hig ISO-noise. More lik normal noise enhanced when the darker areas was lightend in postprocessing. --Esquilo 15:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info I have to admit that it does look like that. It's just that I actually did the opposite in postprocessing: I darkened (!) the shadows in version 1. In version 2 I kept the darker areas in a neutral setting... --Martin Falbisoner 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Doubtfull copyright status. There is no Freedom of panorama in France. The design of the buildings in La Defence is almost certanly copyrighted. If this photo is free enough to be usable on commons, there must be a template stating why and how. --Esquilo 11:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Interesting point, but it would lead us - in final consequence - to a situation that positively prevents us from providing any images depicting contemporary architecture in France at all. Luckily our current policy seems different: La Defense. This tag might be useful though: :NoFoP-France. OK? --Martin Falbisoner 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I see you already tagged the image. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner 17:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Unfortunatly, there is exactly where it leads us. I see there is another template at the top of Category:La Défense explaining the situation. --Esquilo 17:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
        • And still, Commons has lots of images from France that haven't been deleted yet, even including FPs like this one: Panorama La Defense. Maybe you should initiate a general discussion among Wikicommoners? --Martin Falbisoner 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lancha_de_motor_I.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Lancha de motor. Transporte de personas dentro del Parque Nacional Morrocoy --Rjcastillo 00:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Weak decline - pretty, but a lack of detail in the background, and an annoying floaty thingy bottom left. --Mattbuck 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Comment removed thingy left, but I not agree. Please other opinions --Rjcastillo 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Clevedon MMB 51 Pier.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clevedon Pier. Mattbuck 07:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Levels less then perfect, a bit noisy --MB-one 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • What noise are you talking about? That's got to be just about the most noiseless photo ever taken with a *ist DS. Mattbuck 03:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition. A flag is obscuring the main subject. --Esquilo 06:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    That was intentional, it's more a photo of the flag, which happens to be at the pier. Mattbuck 07:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Janulus_stephanophorus_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of a small endemic Madeiran land snail, Janulus stephanophorus --Llez 07:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--ArildV 09:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dirty shell and right bottom image is not sharp. Biopics 12:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info Fragile shell, only 8 mm diameter, impossible to clean without damages. We had already the same discussion in a previous nomination of another shell --Llez 11:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  weak support First of all I though the comment regarding "cleaning" was a joke, but obviously it isn't. A shell is an object from Nature and I see no necessity of a 100% cleaned surface. Nonetheless sharpness of top left and bottom right image is not optimal, but IMHO still OK. --Tuxyso 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support No technical problem. QI & useful --Archaeodontosaurus 17:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «I5 Bristol East Junction 43122.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bristol East Junction. Mattbuck 10:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    43122 on some rails. Mattbuck 20:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Different subject then photograph. Can't see any Junction here. Just a First train and some rails. SkywalkerPL 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    The train is at Bristol East Junction. See the rails going in different directions? Mattbuck 20:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)  Comment Are they? I don't see any junction on the photograph. They might as well go parallel next to each other after closing in. If it's suppose to be QI the subject needs to be clear. Here most certainly it's not. Subject of this photograph is a train, not the junction as intended by author. --SkywalkerPL 20:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    And the train is also in the title. The train is at Bristol East Junction, so I put that in the name. How is that a bad thing? Mattbuck 06:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 Support QI for me, there are numerous junctions seen one being the jucntion that the train is passing over and a number of others seen in the background.--Danesman1 16:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 Support Also OK for me. Junction is sufficiently visible. --Tuxyso 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Heissen-Markt-Und-Alte-Buergermeisterei-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Central building at the market of Heißen (an urban district of Muelheim an der Ruhr). Former use: Office of mayor in Heißen, current use: district office of the Sparkasse Muelheim an der Ruhr --Tuxyso 17:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very dark, some CA. --Mattbuck 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree, main motive is in nice light. No reason why unintersting foreground should be as bright as the building. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 22:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneI've corrected CA and slightly increased local brightness. Please re-review and support if possible. --Tuxyso 06:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, but no, it's still very dark. Mattbuck 09:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question Second opinion? I still think that the main motive is well lightened. --Tuxyso 12:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I withdraw my opposition.  Comment disturbing shadow + tech flaws --Moroder 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:85mm-1.8-AF-D.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination AF-D Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 --Tuxyso 10:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Dust particles all over the lens. Requires cleaning in photoshop --SkywalkerPL 10:41, 20 January 2013
    Why the tight crop? Poco a poco 10:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Modified crop. IMHO crop with lens photos is difficult. [Ken Rockwell] (excellent product photos) takes a VERY tight crop for photos of lenses. --Tuxyso 10:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support With all white or transparent background you can crop tighter, but this one is good. --Esquilo 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I withdraw my opposition. The "rug" doesn't look very professional --Moroder 22:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • New to me that WP / COM is a "very professional project". I have the idea of committed (and encouraging) amateurs in mind, who learn from each other. The rug is an issue for FP but not for QI. BTW: Striking that all votes of you from 23th of September are for my photos, all negative. Probably a "revange" for my FP vote? ;) --Tuxyso 23:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support imho QL--Steinsplitter 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 22:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Casa_de_las_Cabezas_Negras,_Riga,_Letonia,_2012-08-07,_DD_04.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination House of Blackheads, Riga, Latvia --Poco a poco 12:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'm not convinced by the composition - the cloud rather ruins the finials. Mattbuck 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    I can understand this kind of comments at FPC, but not in this case and in this page --Poco a poco 17:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with clouds as background. -- Smial 18:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Smial. --Rjcastillo 23:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Poco a poco 18:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Stetten_-_Zeppelinstraße46.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Stetten: building Zeppelinstraße 46 --Taxiarchos228 05:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Perspective correction needed on the left, and there's some white background dragged in top left. Mattbuck 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info Some  Overexposed , however, QI for me --The Photographer 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    The Photographer, top left corner - that's not overexposure, it's a sloppy crop allowing the background to show. Mattbuck 03:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CCW tilt and bad crop. --Iifar 12:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined Poco a poco 18:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Landtagswahl_Nds_2013_-_Linda_Zervakis_by_Stepro_IMG_9925.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination German television presenter Linda Zervakis --Stepro 09:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - QI for me. --Léna 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - too noisy for QI --Taxiarchos228 21:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus set too short and/or DoF too narrow. Nose and right eye eylashes are unsharp. --Esquilo 11:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Noisy? DOF? Are we looking at completely different images? -- Smial 16:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus too short, indeed.Compare her left cheek with her left eye. --Lucasbosch 20:49, 27 January

2013 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Too noisy, less details on skin, eyes and hairs. --Tuxyso 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined Poco a poco 18:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Lurie_Garden,_Chicago,_Illinois,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lurie Garden, Chicago, Illinois, USA --Poco a poco 17:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Huge loss of detail on the foreground trees and bushes. --Iifar 08:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose - I agree, and frankly in composition it doesn't seem very good. It's a nice idea, bit so much empty space. Mattbuck 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Improved could you please re-review? Poco a poco 18:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    Guys, I'd like to discuss this one if you don't mind Poco a poco 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    It is better, but I'm still not convinced by the composition. Mattbuck 11:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some small problems with corner sharpness, CA, noise, overprocessing, but still QI. -- Smial 18:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Lucasbosch 20:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Foreground is a bit underexposed, some noise and the skyscrapers at the edges looks a bit distorted. But on the whole good quality. --Esquilo 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 18:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Monument_Valley_Arizona_october_2012_sunrise_view_with_tree.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination "The Monument Valley, Arizona. --Moroder 17:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion There seems to be a lack of detail, also there's a dust spot more or less in the middle of the sky. Mattbuck 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)✓ Done Cleaned DS, not sure about lack of detail, used a tripod, shutter speed data lost with NEF-JPG conversion, but the rocks seem prettysharp!? Thanks for the review --Moroder 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    Bit of blur I think is what I meant, esp in trees. Mattbuck 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Info Shutter speed was 1/50s so its probably the wind in the trees, is it relevant? --Moroder 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The tree is barely within focus. With shutter f/11 you would have been better off focusing on the tree and leave the rocks in hyperfocal. --Esquilo 13:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, thanks for the support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that nothing relevant to decline. the rock's good sharpness. For me acceptable. --Rjcastillo 23:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Pfarrkirche_hl._Rupert,_Stumm_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The parish church Saint Rupert (hl. Rupert) in Stumm im Zillertal, Tirol, is protected as a cultural heritage monument. Frescos by Christoph Anton Mayr at about 1765. --Herzi Pinki 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment nice, but, too noise imo. --Rjcastillo 01:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think it's OK. Mattbuck 07:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not see any critical noise, probably it is the surface of the paining. --Tuxyso 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some noice, but not disturbing. Good focus coverage. Good colours. --Esquilo 11:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Nacimiento_de_una_Dryas_iulia,_Mariposario_de_Icod_de_los_Vinos,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Birth of a Dryas iulia, Butterfly zoo of Icod de los Vinos, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 10:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)  Comment It looks very weird. Like if you'd use some very aggressive denoising algorithm that creates artifacts all over the place Similar thing with Tenerife photo although there it's not nearly as bad as here. You post-processed it or it's just how 5D MKII JPGs look like at ISO400? SkywalkerPL 11:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    I post-processed it with luminosity denoising 15%, I have uploaded a new version with denoising of only 5% (in addition there is also a chromatic denoising of 15%, but that one is necessary) Poco a poco 12:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Much better now! SkywalkerPL 16:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, IMO too shallow dof and not sharp enough. Also quite noisy. --Kallerna 07:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 22:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Vaca_Pastando_I.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Cow --Rjcastillo 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review A few months ago I was neutral, on the grounds of wasted space. Reflecting on this again, I'm going to bump it up to  Weak oppose (so please feel free to discuss) on grounds of not quite sharpness and mild overexposure. Mattbuck 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Comment I have uploaded a new version. I think maybe acceptable. Please other opinions --Rjcastillo 02:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Focus seams to be on the tree, but since the DoF cover the cow as well it's ok. --Esquilo 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Incendie_Elysee_Montmartre_2011-03-22_n21.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Firefighter looking at his colleagues after a fire in Paris. --Jastrow 11:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    Bad crop at the bottom, can you fix it? --Poco a poco 19:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, no. There's no extra space on the original file. Jastrow 21:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support - I think it's probably acceptable. Mattbuck 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I keep looking at the heel and it is really disturbing to me Poco a poco 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days A.Savin 22:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)