Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2012

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Autumn landscape near Gullesfjordbotn, Hinnøya, 2010 September.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Autumn landscape near Gullesfjordbotn, Hinnøya, Troms, Norway in 2010 September --Ximonic 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 04:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really beautiful landscape, but oversaturated. --Kadellar 18:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Latest version is better. --Kadellar 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - A.Savin 12:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Iifar 15:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nice picture, for me its no oversaturated --Ralf Roletschek 12:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Herman Philipse-crop.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Herman Philipse --1Veertje 11:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp. --Mattbuck 12:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I did some noise reduction and some sharpening --1Veertje 13:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose maybe a VI, but due to unsharpness (not correctable) not a QI to me, sorry. --Carschten 18:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2011-07-08 Гатчина, памятник Павлу I (6) (cut).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Top part of monument to Paul I in Gatchina, Russia. --Art-top 05:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice detail. Could be rotated for browsers which don't support EXIF-Rotation tagging. --Niabot 10:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC):
    Could be also be cleaned from the big dust spot at the bottom right. --Moonik 10:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC):
    Orientation - fixed, dust spot - fixed. --Art-top 12:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC):
     Support It's OK for me now. --Moonik 07:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe QI (I don't oppose), but too much sky IMO. It needs a crop above. The composition could be better so.--Jebulon 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A moot point, but I tried to do - see image to the right. --Art-top (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me now, but not the first version--Lmbuga 18:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support With Lmbuga, I support the second (recropped) version. --Jebulon 09:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Time a new version came out better, I replace it. The old version is here. --Art-top 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Niabot 12:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Sergey Lapushkin Stoneham 2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sergey Lapushkin --Cephas 00:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --PierreSelim 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's cool, but it's tilted and mildly overexposed. Mattbuck 13:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • ? Tilted: it's an action photo, the subject is the action, not the background, it's a jump, it's OK if it's tilted. About the overexposure, winter sports are generally taken with +2/3EV of exposure correction due to the snow being white to compensate the underexposure of the subject. --PierreSelim 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 19:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support For me too. --Kadellar 22:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 18:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Botik-arka-4355.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Triumphal arch from 1859, in Veskovo village, Russia.--PereslavlFoto 22:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose A bit unsharp, and the sky is cyan rather than blue. --Mattbuck 23:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This is the evening time, about 21:00, so the sky has the natural color. I hope to have some additional opinion.--PereslavlFoto 12:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I like the colors, but the sky looks a bit too bright and therefore it's really hard to see, what is on the upper part of the Triumphal arch. --Iifar 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea. May you make an advice about the scene? The upper decoration is made of cast iron, so it's extremely dark and uneasy to see.--PereslavlFoto 18:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info The colours and the sharpness improved, please check again. Thank you for the helpful comments!--PereslavlFoto 13:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 14:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Looks better now. --Iifar 18:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Obesidade.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Obesity--Lmbuga 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment - Needs a better description, and preferably geocoding. I do find your comment when uploading a new version, "more size", amusing. Mattbuck 01:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, because "Personality rights warning", I don't want to say anymore, I don't want geocoding. If to you is amusing because a change of 800 × 533 (470 KB) to 2,784 × 1,856 (3.18 MB), it's your problem. Please discuss--Lmbuga 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    Lmbuga, Mattbuck didn't mean any harm, don't be offended. --Gidip 13:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    What I meant was that, given the subject, a comment of "more size" was somewhat appropriate. To my mind this is a quality image if it is given a better description. The description "obesity" is pretty much useless. Perhaps "an obese woman wearing a bikini sunbathing in (country)". Mattbuck 13:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    (Poor english) First of all, I've uploaded the picture with small size. I did that for fear that the image could be disrespectful with personal rights. Immediately, I asked an administrator. I asked for deletion if necessary. When the Administrator responded by accepting the image, I've uploaded the image with larger dimensions. I'm sorry, to me it's not amusing the fact of worrying about others. I'm not sure with this image although Commons can accept it. But I understand you, Mattbuck, sorry--Lmbuga 22:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good and useful, with or without the geocode. - A.Savin 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support without geocode. This we dont need here. --Ralf Roletschek 12:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I can cope without a geocode, but per the guidelines, to be eligible for QI, an image must "have meaningful title and description". I believe that currently this does not have a meaningful description. Mattbuck 23:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    (Es, sorry) Lo siento, opinamos diferente, pero respeto tu opinión. En este caso el objeto fotografiado y la intención de la foto es tan exacto y puntual que con una sola palabra está perfectamente definido. Quizás el problema sea que se pueda definir con solamente una palabra. En mi opinión, todas las demás palabras sobran y los datos que se puedan añadir son superfluos
(Automatic translator) I am sorry, we feel different, but I respect your opinion. In this case the photographed object and intention of the photo is so accurate and timely is perfectly defined with a single word. Perhaps the problem is that I can define with only one word. In my opinion, all other words abound and the data that can be added are superfluous.--Lmbuga 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Toulouse_-_Sturnus_vulgaris_-_2012-02-26_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common starling --PierreSelim 19:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Not sharp enough to me, but very good composition, I'm not sure--Lmbuga 23:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, but it's not perfect--Lmbuga 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. -- Jkadavoor 08:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Hauptfriedhof7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Main cementery --Taxiarchos228 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me... --WhiteWriter 11:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose due to unsharpness and lack of detail in the grass. Mattbuck 11:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose To it's a bit unsharp and the shades are disturbing--Lmbuga 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its QI, the grass is unimportant --Ralf Roletschek 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me -- Jkadavoor 15:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me -- Véronique PAGNIER 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Foggy_morning.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Foggy morning --Vitold Muratov 13:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I'm learning, but to me clear jpeg artifacts. Clear artifacts at botton without fog --Lmbuga 21:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, to me, too tight at left and right; and the image, perhaps, can be cropped at bottom IMO--Lmbuga 21:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. -- Jkadavoor 08:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very poor quality (because of the camera...) --Carschten 17:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of fine detail, artifacts, noise... --Iifar 18:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to overall quality. -Kadellar 22:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:San Paolo di GB Morlaiter in Santa Maria del Rosario.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Paul by Giovanni Maria Morlaiter in the Gesuati church --Moroder 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Good work, but there is some barrel distortion. Yann 11:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Yann 08:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it's very noisy, let's discuss. --Kadellar 18:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Of course it is noisy with a ISO speed of twentyfivehundred but otherwise you dont't have a chance to have a valuable image to document a marvellous sculpture like this if you are not allowed to use the flashlight or a tripod. But the QI fortunately does not only depend on technical data and many other images have been declared QI with high ISO speed. --Moroder 21:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but imo too much noise for QI. --Iifar 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Do you think this can be corrected (I don't have RAW files though)? I don't see an other way to make better pictures besides asking the church authorities a permission to use a tripod ;-)--Moroder 19:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective correction crushes the lower part of the image. The person looks like a midget. This point can be repaired. --Archaeodontosaurus 08:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds very interesting and I agree and will work on it. How about the noise!? --Moroder 11:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Correction of perspective distortion --Moroder 11:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me -- Jkadavoor 09:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Hight resolution but hight, to me, chromatic noise and unsharp, and noisy--Lmbuga 01:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor quality, per Lmbuga. Not every subject and motive is able to photographed for QI. --Carschten 18:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Takumar_lens_35_mm_f2.3_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asahi Auto-Takumar 35 mm f/2.3 lens, made in 1959, serial number 512931 --CLI 19:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Yann 06:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO dof too short for a studio shot. --Berthold Werner 07:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It was rather a "kitchen" than studio photo made using an A4 sheet, one desk lamp and one standing lamp. ;) But ok, I agree, I should have focused on the cap. -- CLI 08:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Kitchen or office: it's an improvisational studio ;-) (like here: File:Espresso BW 1.jpg. Perhaps you should use a smaller aperture or focus stacking. --Berthold Werner 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its good enouth for QI --Ralf Roletschek 12:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose obvious yellow cast, chromatic aberration, overexposed area in the middle of the background, short DOF (focus stacking needed). --Carschten 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient depth of field, and not bright enough (yellow cast). Try again with a brighter light source and a higher f/stop. You might also try a telephoto shot instead of a macro shot. Loadmaster 03:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Protest_ACTA_2012-02-11_-_Toulouse_-_15_-_Anonymous_guy_with_a_black_and_white_scarf.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Anonymous guy with a black and white scarf during a protest against ACTA in Toulouse --PierreSelim 23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose underexposed.--Jebulon 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Improved the exposition --PierreSelim 08:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background looks now overexposed to me. --Iifar 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. Background means nothing here.--PereslavlFoto 12:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI te me. --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 20:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The background is totally unimportant and the person is not overexposed. De728631 23:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As De728631. --T137 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to overexposure --Lmbuga 00:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • But how? The mask is a bit underexposed, and the background is underexposed too — it is visible, while on such an image the background has zero meaning and must be absent — ?--PereslavlFoto 09:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • background is overexposed, not underexposed. More than half of it is completly gone (burned out), the histogram shows it clearly too. --Iifar 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why does that matter in an image like this? In effect he's using high key. Saffron Blaze 20:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Background is underexposed — in a perfect image all the background must be burned out white, while in this case there's some cloud. Needless to say that white mask is shown gray in this portrait. But as soon as everybody tolerate this, I agree also.--PereslavlFoto 11:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with De728631, the subject is correctly exposed and the background is unimportant. Loadmaster 03:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)}

File:Pz-lodka-6911.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Traditional fishing boat in Pereslavl--PereslavlFoto 13:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question When I zoom in, some details in the blue area look strange. Is this a HDR image? --NorbertNagel 21:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not a HDR image. The boat was freshly painted that time, so the colour may really look innatural.--PereslavlFoto 12:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes? Gauravjuvekar 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ouvèze à Sorgues 1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ouvèze river in winter time --Véronique PAGNIER 06:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it isn't sharp enough. --Tomer T 16:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Tomer T--Lmbuga 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of fine detail, blurry at right, tilted. --Iifar 08:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Formation sel.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination salt in Salin de Giraud, Camargue, France --Véronique PAGNIER 17:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC))
  • Decline CAs on the ice. You can see, for example, the lower right corner--Lmbuga 19:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC);Ice ? check the title this salt : in fact, salt in formation in salt-water marshes in Salin de Giraud, Camargue Véronique PAGNIER 21:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose CAs. Sorry, salt, not ice, but the CAs are CAs --Lmbuga 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Salin du Midi 5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination saltworks in Salin de Giraud, Camargue, France --Véronique PAGNIER 17:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, to me, too many areas can be more sharp (F/3.5), Noise (see the sky). Too much sky, the image can be cropped--Lmbuga 19:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC) ;
    with less sky, the picture would be badly centered --Véronique PAGNIER 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose See above--Lmbuga 22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    See note to see a possible crop not centered (you can delete the note when you want); but there are other problems to me--Lmbuga 22:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    I just downlaod a new version, is it more you want -- Véronique PAGNIER 06:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ypthima_huebneri_by_Kadavoor.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Ypthima huebneri (Common Fourring) -- Jkadavoor 06:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Too tight at bottom (cutted legs). Too green and a bit blurry IMO--Lmbuga 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    Another image uploaded; hope better. --Jkadavoor 05:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Perhaps better, but I don't like the lighting: the butterfly is a bit dark to me. The grass in the right corner is disturbing. Too tight at bottom (cutted legs)--Lmbuga 18:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Yes; I mean to say this one can be ignored as I uploded another one as a separate file -- Jkadavoor 04:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Feria Fluvial Valdivia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Valdivia´s port (Chuile)--Elemaki 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Nice composition, but IMO it's a bit tilted. --Kadellar 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed. Mattbuck 12:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Bob Carroll.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bob Carroll --1Veertje 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, White balance, noisy and unsharp IMO--Lmbuga 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    Better now, but not QI to me: Discuss--Lmbuga 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    yeah, I should've looked at it close up. There seem to be dead pixels on the light sensitive chip --1Veertje 23:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Triomphe de la République détail 1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of Triomphe de la République at Paris, place de la Nation -- Siren-Com 12:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Excellent... interesting tear. --Saffron Blaze 14:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNice composition but too noisy for a daylight shot to an object. --Kadellar 16:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessing visibles. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Where is the merit in examining this above 100%? -- Saffron Blaze 21:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose because of noise. --Iifar 08:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment How possible to reduce "noice" ? I will upload (this afternoon) a new version with no graphic processing (but I dont' see where is "noice") - Siren-Com 11:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Quai d'Orléans Paris 004.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Louis island in Paris --Moonik 08:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tilted counterclockwise. --Sfu 21:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks Sfu, I uploaded a new corrected version --Moonik 04:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Still incorrect: the buildings on the left side is parell to the picture edge, but because of not correcting perspective buildings on the right side are tilted, as result whole image is tilted. Either you correct perspective and make it perfectly parell on both sides, or you must live some angle on the left side. --Sfu 12:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New file with a try of improvement is uploaded. Is it better now? --Moonik 14:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Still not perfect - there is some distotion visible on the left edge, but good enough. --Sfu 12:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Birmingham_New_Street_railway_station_MMB_16_221133.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 221133 departs Birmingham New Street. Mattbuck 12:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - TOO MUCH chromatic aberrations. I have added notes to the most prominent ones. Note that the platform from which the photo was taken also has bluish CAs on its edge. PLEASE DELETE THE IMAGE NOTES AFTER YOU SEE THEM.--Gauravjuvekar 12:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    Bloody hell, there's no need to shout... Anyway, I've fixed the image as best I can, but I an unable to upload to Commons directly on this connection, so I have uploaded a new version here. Could someone please upload this over the current version? Mattbuck 13:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    This has now been done, though I possibly need to do more. Mattbuck 16:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Suisse_vs_Argentine_-_Granit_Xhaka_&_Lionel_Messi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Granit_Xhaka et Lionel_Messi -- Ludo29 12:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Some noise, but otherwise good and useful.--ArildV 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know this is difficult, but focus is just behind them (see the grass) and it is a bit noisy (ISO 640 with 5D MkII shouldn't be a problem). I think we need more opinions. --Kadellar 16:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you wish say with : ISO 640 with 5D MkII shouldn't be a problem. Ludo29 08:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Just tell me if I'm wrong ;). 5D MkII is supossed to have an excellent performance at a not so high ISO value. Now I have a question: are there any other factors that affect the image quality by creating noise or something similar? (applied to this image, if possible). There could be something I ignore. --Kadellar 20:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course 5D mark II is a good tool for photography and for noisy problematics. But sports-events are probably the worst conditions in this subject. There isn't lot of light. Subjects are moving very fast. In this case, my lens is a 300 mm f/2,8 ; this photo isn't at f/2,8 (f/3,2). I reduce the aperture to obtain a better depth of field ; because of the speed of the subjects. You don't made that, you are sure to have focus behind them in 99% of the case. For the shutter speed (1/800s), it's not very fast. Less, you have fuzzy. You can see that hands and feet of players are fuzzy. The fuzzy of the ball is a good effect, imho. But I don't wish to have fuzzy on faces of players. So, I think 1/800 s isn't a bad shutter speed. Less quickly --> fuzzy. So, in this conditions, you don't have any choice for ISO ; ISO 640. Perhaps I can reduce a little bit the ISO. But ISO 200 in this stadium is just a dream. ISO 400 is good for players who seat down near the coach.
      • So, with ISO 640 you have more noise than ISO 200. And, in this type of photography you have very différent values of luminance. The white jersey of swiss-player is white. White surface with powerful light, it's good for a hight luminance value. And you have black surface : very low value of luminance. It's difficult for the sensor. These different values of luminance increase the problem of noise.
      • Of course, in a studio with a good light (homogeneity) we can make a photo with a Mark II at ISO 640 without noise, or with less noise than this photography. Yes, but a sport stadium isn't not a photo-studio.
      • It's not my first sport-photography. You can see some other here: Category:Files by User:Ludo29/Sport. It's not my first QI-proposal. I think that - with noise-problematics - you (commons-contributors) are excluding a type of photography for QI. You require features that are impossible to obtain.
      • According to me, we can not judge a photography of sport events (low light, movement) with the same criteria than this type of photography (the subject don't move, good light, etc.). But actually, we make that.
      • Ludo (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your explanation. First of all, I'd like to say that I completely agree with you on the last two points. I have nominated concert images, which have the same problems. They usually don't success, mainly because of my camera, but also because of the way of applying the criteria. But some are better than others. I really think some of your other football pictures are better than this one —at least in the sharpness/noise points—, even if they're a bit fuzzier due to exposure time (e.g.: 1, 2, 3, 4). Messi is a great player but his mere appearance doesn't improve a picture.
          I didn't know that the differences between the colours and luminosity of the t-shirts were bad for image noise, so thanks. I have another question, maybe somebody knows. Could it be that in your lens f/3.2 caused diffraction of light and therefore increased noise?
          All in all, I think I'd support those other pictures I linked, but I think this one is worse. --Kadellar 19:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I made few images during concerts, so I understand your problems for your images. Maybe the camera can improve a little bit the problem, but the better camera in the world can't undo all problems of noisy. Concerts, football, ice-hockey show, etc are very bad for that. But, you already know that. :)
          • About my photographies, I proposed this one because I have the feeling that it say something. Two players in movement, one ball in movement, eyes of the two players on the ball, arrangement of hands and feet of players, etc. I like the composition. Afterwards, the quality isn't bad. Not excellent, but I don't propose it at Features Pictures. About Messi, ok he's a great footballer, but I don't propose this picture because he's on it.
          • About diffraction, sorry I don't know.
          • Thanks for the appreciation of my others pictures. May be I'll propose some.
          • Ludo (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I'd like to see more sharpness. --Iifar 08:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support very good. The players are slightly in front of the focal plane, which is really tiny at f/3.2 and 300 mm (well visible on the turf), so not a big problem here. QI to me. --Carschten 08:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jkadavoor 09:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noise and perhaps as Iifar--Lmbuga 23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The photograph is good, and Ludo-- said all there is to say about its shortcomigs. If we go for evaluating nighttime sport images with the same criteria as for studio shots, we might as put up a rule that excludes sport photography from Quality Images, and decide that "Oppose: sport photography" is a valid opinion. Rama 09:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support From my point of view, the subject is well catched and in going out of all technical considerations, the feeling of the image seems to be a success. --Abaddon1337 09:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Rama. --PierreSelim 09:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Bonhams - The Paris Sale 2012 - Rolls-Royce 40 50hp Phantom I Shooting Brake - 1928 - 009.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rolls-Royce 40 50hp Phantom I Shooting Brake --Thesupermat 09:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 09:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise. --Berthold Werner 16:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise for QI. --Iifar 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done noise reduction --Thesupermat 22:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too much noise even. Tilted. CAs (see words on the wall)--Lmbuga 23:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMHO, okay for an indoor shot --Carschten 10:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Flèche cathédrale Saint Etienne Vienne Autriche.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The spire and part of roofs of St Stephen's cathedral in Vienna, Austria.--Jebulon 13:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose sadly lacking sharpness --Taxiarchos228 16:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure I could honestly fully disagree with you ;)... I've others, hopefully better.--Jebulon 16:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Should be discussed, I think. Not extremely sharp in full resolution but very nice in all other aspects. --NorbertNagel 20:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support as Norbert --Archaeodontosaurus 14:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support as above. --Jkadavoor 09:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:ORP Gen. T. Kościuszko 2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination ORP Gen. T. Kościuszko --Airwolf 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Opposenot self made by commons user see QI guidelines Gnangarra 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    Moved to discussion due to a misunderstanding of rules by the reviewer. QIs are to be works by a registered Commons user, but not necessarily self-made by the nominator (even thought these particular images have been. QICbot (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    :No misunderstanding of the rules I wrote them please read the requirements Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status Gnangarra 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment--This image although from an external website is made by a wikipedian as the author in question although uploaded it to an external website is also a wikimedian. See the user page of the author in question--Gauravjuvekar 13:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AporiaCrataegi.jpg

[edit]

File:Myristica_fragrans_by_kadavoor.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Myristica fragrans --Jkadavoor 09:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Dark. --Tomer T 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Brightened, a bit --Jkadavoor 05:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Better.  Support Tomer T 12:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Edinburgh_Castle_Overview.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Edingburgh Castle --Saffron Blaze 18:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose nice, but shady and underexposed areas. Not a QI to me --Carschten 19:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The file is called Edinburgh Castle not Edinburgh City. What you see as error was a deliberate choice on my part. Saffron Blaze 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 05:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The photo is a little corrected (the file is updated). --Aleks G 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Now I will have to change the file name to Edinburgh City... lol. Saffron Blaze 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support possible FP. Tomer T 12:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Licking_Cat_in_Largo_di_Torre_Argentina,_Rome.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Licking Cat in Largo di Torre Argentina, Rome --Andou 09:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • White objects in the background to the right are distracting. Perhaps cropping them would work. Move this to consensual review after cropping. Also could you identify the species of the cat?--Gauravjuvekar 12:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Tighter crop uploaded, some distracting objects are gone. Speaking of the breed, I'm reasonable sure this is a European Shorthair :) --Andou 13:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
     Comment--Better now but I require a second opinion.--Gauravjuvekar 14:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Scarce details (head and body of the cat), perhaps blurred areas because there is too much noise reduction--Lmbuga 23:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a cat? Ohhhh, from the thumbnail on this page I thought it was a bird. It's cute, but I'm afraid I don't think it's QI. Mattbuck 01:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    Or it could be the remarkable flying cat.. :) Anyway, it seems I'm not so lucky with the cats.. :)--Andou 08:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Arlesheim_-_Domkirche3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arlesheim: Cathedral of Arlesheim and surrounding --Taxiarchos228 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice, but a bit noisy--Lmbuga 21:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • noise reduced --Taxiarchos228 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Better, I think that it can be QI. Nice--Lmbuga 14:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose One of the towers is leaning to the right, the other is straight (stitching error? both should be straight), noise level is imo still too high. --Iifar 11:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
no stitching, this is a single shot picture --Taxiarchos228 15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jkadavoor 09:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Filton Abbey Wood railway station MMB 26 158766.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 158766 departs Filton Abbey Wood. Please note the left hand crop was a deliberate compositional choice. Mattbuck 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment CAs, see notes, DELETE NOTES AFTER SEEING--Gauravjuvekar 12:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the image as best I can, but I an unable to upload to Commons directly on this connection, so I have uploaded a new version here. Could someone please upload this over the current version?
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 13:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info--I cropped the major region of CAs. Now I  Support--Gauravjuvekar 15:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    I reverted your crop, as it is a major revision to the file when I specifically said the crop is intentional. If you want to upload it as a derivative fine, but do it as a new file, not over the current one. Mattbuck 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral--Ok, If you want it, that's fine by me. Let others decide whether it is ok of not.--Gauravjuvekar 05:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ebbsfleet International railway station MMB 07 395004.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 395004 at Ebbsfleet. Mattbuck 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Good quality. --Sfu 19:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeCAs as explained in image notes--Gauravjuvekar 04:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any problem, good quality. --Andou 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment You need to open the file in full. They won't be easily visible in the preview generated on the file_desc page. The platform 3 sign CA can be easily seen when the file is opened in full. Zooming to other indicated areas also shows CAs. The most prominent is the one to the extreme left(white pole on platform 1). Zoom once. Both red and cyan CAs are seen there.--Gauravjuvekar 05:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment--By zoom, I mean open the file in full and click once(when the pointer changes to a magnifying glass with a + in the centre)(I use firefox so perhaps this won't work in other browsers.--Gauravjuvekar 05:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
     Comment I always watch images in full resolution when I want to evaluate :). BTW, I made my mind to say: "Some minor CAs but QI". --Andou 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its QI, the CA are minor. --Ralf Roletschek 15:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Basel_-_Wasserturm_Bruderholz3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basel: Watertower Bruderholz --Taxiarchos228 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support If I can see where the men's washroom is it must be sharp. --Saffron Blaze 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but distortion: To me (IMO) the distortion is disturbing, see the trash (lower right corner)--Lmbuga 23:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • sorry, but there is no significant distortion, please check again --Taxiarchos228 19:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this is good quality -- Achim Raschka 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Nice light and good quality, but notable perspective distortion at the left and right side of the image. --Iifar 08:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support For me is OK, the distortion is not very significant. --Andou 22:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jkadavoor 09:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support there isn´t disortion, its QI. --Ralf Roletschek 15:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Neopithecops_zalmora_in_love_by_Kadavoor.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Neopithecops zalmora in love. --Jkadavoor 03:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion The lack of focus of the leaf in the foreground is somewhat distracting--Gauravjuvekar 09:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    Is a tight crop at bottom like this is OK? --Jkadavoor 13:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment-This is a complicated case; the out of focus area extends right up to the legs of the left one. Cropping it would cut the legs of the right one which are already very close to the bottom of the image. Another idea would be to crop it slanted and then rotate the image but the antenna of the left one would be cropped(after rotating). Can you obtain well focused images of the leaf(multiple images would be ok) from the same angle? They could perhaps be focus stacked. (Note: This method is ridiculously complicated even if it may be possible. I don't think it has been attempted by anyone.) More opinions please.--Gauravjuvekar 10:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a clear QI already for me. I don't find the foreground particularly distracting. --99of9 05:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! The butterflies are sharp in almost every part, the foreground is fine. --Gidip 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose-- I mean the region that I marked with the image note.--Gauravjuvekar 07:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes I cropped most of that part after your first comment and this little part (IMO) can't be removed without cutting her legs. -- Jkadavoor 05:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Gidip.--Jebulon 20:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Greenland_scenery.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Scenery from Ravnefjeldet, Nanortalik (Southernmost part of Greenland). --Senator2029 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, see notes. Blurry and noisy, CAs, overexposed. And to me (IMO) too blue--Lmbuga 20:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga: JPG artifacts (cornered lines, poor details, blurriness) due to the camera, chromatic aberration, bad exposure. --Carschten 16:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Power at sea fountain Hofburg Vienna.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon 20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Voting-box-6806.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ballot box in Russia--PereslavlFoto 11:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality and interesting. --Vassil 12:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Tomer T 18:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tomer T due to overexposure. Mattbuck 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • How must I do such a photo? How can I show the extra dark ballot box before extra-light window with bright snow outside? And the 2nd question: does the window has any sense in this photo?--PereslavlFoto 21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
      • 1. I don't know. 2. The window (and also the floor) are distracting. Tomer T 17:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Industry park Höchst - waste-to-energy plant - Industriepark Höchst - Müllverbrennungsanlage - 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Industry park Höchst, Germany - waste-to-energy plant. --NorbertNagel 20:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 05:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment (O) Should be slighly tilted ccw, strike this vote when corrected. --V-wolf 21:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Looks tilted cw, but guidelines tell me it's not. Is there something with the perspective? --V-wolf 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Could be done sharper with unsharp mask or with high-pass overlay. Yellow hue also.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support (the file is updated) --Aleks G 20:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:ORP Gen. T. Kościuszko.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination ORP Gen. T. Kościuszko --Airwolf 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose not self made by commons user see QI guidelines Gnangarra 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    Moved to discussion due to a misunderstanding of rules by the reviewer. QIs are to be works by a registered Commons user, but not necessarily self-made by the nominator (even thought these particular images have been. Airwolf (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    :No misunderstanding of the rules I wrote them please read the requirements Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status, also please sign your comments Gnangarra 01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    OK, so you've read the rules, but have not read the image description. :) --Airwolf 00:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    source:konflikty.pl for which there is an OTRS docket, which authorised you as a member of the website staff to upload picture here. Gnangarra 00:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    No, not Permission. Permission is permission, we are talking about the Author part. Airwolf 10:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra You seem to missing the fact that User:Airwolf is the author and owns that website. Saffron Blaze 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
To quote Airwolfs user page Photos from the Konflikty.pl and RealMadrid.pl webistes which I upload are uploaded legally by me as an authorised member of the websites' staff. nothing says he's the Author, it only says he has permission to upload the photographs. Combine that with an OTRS docket, which I cant verify but accept it grants permission as described for Airwolf to upload as an authorise member of staff, there is aboslutely no information that makes him author, if Airwolf is then there is no need for the banner advertising the website nor the OTRS docket on each image. Gnangarra 10:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  •  Comment I was still under the impression Airwolf had been taking the pictures he submits. Saffron Blaze 17:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically good, valuable image. Author is stated as Łukasz Golowanow with a link to User:Airwolf's user page, which I think is a plain statement that Airwolf is indeed the author. The "banner advertising the website" might not be needed for Commons, but I see nothing wrong with it if the author happens to fancy putting it with his images. Rama 18:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 20:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Euston railway station MMB 18 390017.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 390017 at Euston station. Mattbuck 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - CAs, added notes to image, DELETE THE NOTES.--Gauravjuvekar 12:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    There's no need to shout, please be mellow. Anyway, I have fixed the CAs as best I can, but I am unable to upload to Commons on this connection. I have uploaded a new version here, could someone please upload it to Commons over the current version? Mattbuck 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    This has now been done. Mattbuck 16:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment--Open it in full, the CA on the right pole is easily visible. The one on the London Euston sign is less visible and can be seen by zoomint--Gauravjuvekar 05:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    I have uploaded another new version to my website, can someone please upload it over. Curiously the current version here does not look like the version on my PC. Mattbuck 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 15:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Longbeck railway station MMB 04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Longbeck station. Mattbuck 02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I think there are CA, otherwise nice picture --PierreSelim 10:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    I stared at the section you outlined, and I can't see anything. If there is, it's very faint. Mattbuck 12:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    I really can't see anything. Mattbuck 23:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
     CommentIt's there, open it up in full and zoom once. See between the dark blue base and the first dark blue band above it. It's a blue CA to the right side of the above mentioned portion. It's also there in the marked portion. Go up to the top of the pole. Above the "2" sign is a blue stripe touching the right side of the pole. On the next pole, further along, same blue CA to right of pole between base and first band continuing about the same distance above the band.--Gauravjuvekar 15:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fine, new version here, but as usual I can't upload it to Commons myself. I still say that was invisible. Mattbuck 13:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 16:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now --PierreSelim 06:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--OK now. Try temporarily disabling javascript and see if you can upload.--Gauravjuvekar 13:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    It's not Java which is the problem, the problem is I'm on a university network which times out pretty quickly. Mattbuck 15:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Tour_Eiffel_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Silhouette of Eiffel tower's north pillar (it isn't BW). --Kadellar 16:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Nice work. --Saffron Blaze 16:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose I see that this kind of picture may be more emotional like this one File:Structure Tour Eiffel pilier nord.jpg, but I am not sure if this is really QI --Taxiarchos228 19:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. Tomer T 17:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Emotional (???) or not, it is a little bit tilted CW I'm afraid ...--Jebulon 00:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    • True! Just uploaded a new version, I think it's fixed now. --Kadellar 19:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-03-06 23-52-21-etang-veronne.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Near the pond of the Véronne under the moonlight, near Sermamagny, France. --ComputerHotline 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Camera shake, see the stars--Gauravjuvekar 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support There's no camera shaking, if you read the EXIF metadata, this photo has an exposure of 120 sec. Stars are supposed to move in 120sec--Andou 15:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info In 2 minutes, the earth turns on itself a little. The stars appears in some startrails. --ComputerHotline 17:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Which is the reason for taking this picture at 23:52 h. (and with this exposure time)? I do not understand it--Lmbuga 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Because it is very interesting. -- Jkadavoor 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info @Lmbuga : because the moon is in top of the sky and it makes some light what I like. And in photo, it's interesting, in my opinion. --ComputerHotline 08:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lightning. Blurry. --Lmbuga 20:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 20:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Rheinberg, St. Peter, 2011-12 CN-08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pipe organ of St. Peter, Rheinberg --Carschten 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Vassil 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, noise, perspective distortion, disturbing not centered composition, could be sharper. Please discuss.--Jebulon 23:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info new version uploaded --Carschten 17:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me now--Lmbuga 19:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support For me too. Not perfect, and crop a bit tight now, but Very good re-work. Opposition removed, I support now.--Jebulon 21:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, but I think so it will be a little better (the file is updated). --Aleks G 00:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 17:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Kulaniapia Falls, Big Island.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kulaniapia Falls, Big Island, Hawaii. --Frank Schulenburg 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment A stuning photo but it appears the area of critical focus is on the flora on the left vice the falls. Saffron Blaze 23:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    You're right. I've uploaded a better version (this time with f/16): File:Kulaniapia Falls, Big Island, Hawaii.jpg. How's that? --Frank Schulenburg 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    I didn't realise they were two seperate images. Suggest you submit both and see what happens as I am not convinced either is a QI despite the lovely setting. --Saffron Blaze 09:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me (the file is updated). --Aleks G 21:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. -- Jkadavoor 05:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 17:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Pachypodium baronii-IMG 3432.jpg

[edit]

File:2012-03-07 00-23-36-lac-malsaucy.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beach of the lake of Malsaucy under the moonlight, near Sermamagny, France. --ComputerHotline 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 07:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurry, noise. The lightning can be better--Lmbuga 20:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose interesting effect, but lack of sharpness. --Iifar 06:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Musée-promenade de Marly-le-Roi 003.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The statue of Meleager hunting a deer of Nicolas Coustou in the parc of Marly-le-Roi. --Moonik 14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment sharpening halos --Carschten 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Carschten 16:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Carschten is right...--Jebulon 11:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Trithemis_aurora_male_by_kadavoor.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Trithemis aurora, male --Jkadavoor 09:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Twig overexposed--Gauravjuvekar 12:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this is quite natural in the obelisk posture. He will be fully under exposed if I metered on the twig. --Jkadavoor 07:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Dragonfly is exposed fine.--PereslavlFoto 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment--But a considerably blown-out twig is distracting.--Gauravjuvekar 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • But how could it be avoided?--PereslavlFoto 12:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
      • By taking the shot from behind--Gauravjuvekar 16:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The details of the wing veins is the most attractive part of this photo, and I think the bright light has a big role here. And no other angle can capture those. -- Jkadavoor 05:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good and didactic work. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Redakcja Superexpresu 2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Office building in Warsaw. --Sfu 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I really like it, it is QI for me. -- Achim Raschka 20:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark in foreground.--Jebulon 22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. True indeed. I had some bad settings in the monitor after watching a movie "from the bottom". I need to correct all of images uploaded today. --Sfu 22:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jkadavoor 09:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark in foreground.--Lmbuga 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    still too dark? --Sfu 10:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Less dark, but dark. And now chromatic noise on the shades--Lmbuga 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Lmbuga. --Iifar 20:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Zosimova Pustyn 01 Belltower.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower in Moscow Oblast. - A.Savin 00:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perhaps just the setting but there does seem to be a colour issue with an orange cast even in the clouds. --Saffron Blaze 10:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Corrected now. A.Savin 13:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks natural now. Saffron Blaze 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp, sharpening halos, needs more contrast. --Carschten 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpening halos, indeed. --Jebulon 00:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support (the file is updated) --Aleks G 22:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but poor detail, see the walls of the building and the grass. Seems a bit overexposed and oversharpened IMO--Lmbuga 21:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Nice light, but image has lack of fine detail. --Iifar 07:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Vulpen inkt.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Fountain pen ink --1Veertje 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Review I think this is copyvio. Are you sure that the label is free from copyright?--Moved to discuss as it really needs attention of many people.I remain  Neutral of the image's quality.--Gauravjuvekar 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    I nominated it for deletion myself so that people patrolling there can voice their opinion --1Veertje 10:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The label is probably too simple, and de minimis anyway. Yann 11:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes? Gauravjuvekar 16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:12-01-21-yog-242.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Innsbruck, olympic village --Ralf Roletschek 14:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me. Vassil 10:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC).
  •  Weak oppose I wish to see more sharpness and composition isn't very nice too. --Iifar 17:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. Tomer T 15:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, busy and messy composition IMO.--Jebulon 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Komposition ned so doll & unscharf in Vollansicht. - A.Savin 15:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Silene succulenta 1.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Silene succulenta --Gidip 18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment underexposed/contrast missing/flat colors --Carschten 16:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment For me it's OK. Maybe you can fix and upload a better version? Thanks. --Gidip 19:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I made a try (see file history), bit it's very difficult, because the white blossoms of the flower are too bright rapidly. --Carschten 21:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Your version as of 20:55, 8 March 2012 was much better. Mattbuck 02:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 17:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
*  Neutral Better ...--Archaeodontosaurus 17:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have been bold and reverted to the version by Carschten, which I  Support. Mattbuck 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Better version, but I don't support the image because I don't like the composition--Lmbuga 00:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think OK for QI and useful. --NorbertNagel 06:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Löwenburg Gerolstein 2012 Schildmauer.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gerolstein castle: frontal wall of the outer bailey. -- Felix Koenig 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support ein bisschen überschärft, aber der Maschendrahtzaun macht das für mich wieder wett... ;) --Carschten 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened (überschärft ?), + see annotations please. Needs a discussion IMO--Jebulon 23:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I think it meets the criteria. --Iifar 07:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info new, reworked version uploaded. Felix Koenig 20:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:47, 119 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Rolsø Ødekirke Panorama 2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination da:Rolsø Ødekirke--Villy Fink Isaksen 18:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support very nice --Carschten 19:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, denoising too strong IMO. Please discuss.--Jebulon 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I'd like to see more sharpness. --Iifar 07:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Owlfly_Ascalaphidae_female_by_kadavoor.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Owlfly (Ascalaphidae), female --Jkadavoor 08:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed--Gauravjuvekar 08:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Owlflies are active in nights; rest under the sun on day time to grab the heat. --Jkadavoor 08:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Areas of overexposure are very low. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Due overexposure and tight crop. --Iifar 07:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Eiffelturm_-_Büste_Gustave_Eiffels2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower: bust of Gustave Eiffel at north pillar --Taxiarchos228 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment It's a bit tilted, otherwise it's OK for me. --Kadellar 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support -Kadellar 19:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - blurred and some overexposure. Mattbuck 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality to me, nice image --Carschten 11:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --NorbertNagel 16:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Porte de Cuarnens.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porte de Cuarnens. -- Ludo29 10:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Nice and sharp, but CAs and, to me, the sky is a bit noisy. The blues seems oversaturated (IMO, I'm not sure) (see the little car at right)--Lmbuga 11:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What CAs ? Ludo29 19:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • See notes about CAs, when you want, you can delete the notes--Lmbuga 20:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, the tree of the right is cutted out. Nothing is very important, but there are many different things--Lmbuga 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose but I'm not sure because it's a good image, I think that the better is "discuss"--Lmbuga 21:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strange blurred areas, noisy sky, CA --Carschten 12:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Reading railway station MMB 46 43187 458004 458020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A damp day at reading station. Mattbuck 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion CAs-The one at right can be seen in the 800*499 preview-others explained with image notes--Gauravjuvekar 13:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    New version uploaded. Mattbuck 02:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral--You missed a very small one to the left--Gauravjuvekar 13:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed if someone uploads it. Mattbuck 14:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support-Now fixed-Gauravjuvekar 16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Graphium_nomius_by_kadavoor.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Graphium nomius --Jkadavoor 09:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moonik 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed areas, see image notes. Delete the notes.--Gauravjuvekar 14:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurry, low details, JPG artifacts, harsh light. --Carschten 11:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-03-13 10-30-43-site-plutons-detail-barbele.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close-up of barbed wire. --ComputerHotline 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good--Jebulon 22:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but very little DOF to be QI (F:3,5) IMO--Lmbuga 23:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support An exellent choise of DOF for a pocket camera. Good shot! --V-wolf 21:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I thought that this page was QI, not QI for pocket cameras. I do not repair in the camera, I repair in the photo. This is only a opinion, sorry--Lmbuga 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to think about this image, sorry--Lmbuga 22:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say "good shot for a pocket camera". A good shot is a good shot regardless of equipment. However, with a pocket camera you cannot stand at the distances required for a high F-stop and blurry background. V-wolf 23:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lmbuga was correct. Saffron Blaze 03:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Saffron Blaze, so as Lmbuga's original vote. --Carschten 12:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm laughing out loud here. A few rows up Saffron Blaze voted pro an image with an F-stop at 2.8. I rest my case. V-wolf 05:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not all uses of an open aperature are incorrect. This one is very incorrect as it actualy robs the viewer of important detail. In contrast, in the wonderful portrait you linked to, the OOF areas do not detract from the image at all in fact they enhance it as it draws attention to the smile and eyes. Nothing is lost due to the narrow DOF. However in the picture of the barbed wire there was no need for such a narrow DOF. You can't convince me the author was trying to isolate one prong. The barbed wire image is a technically flawed and should not be QI more so for the fact it would be easy to re-shoot and get it correct. ComputerHotline is a very good photographer and will understand the constructive criticism we offered. Unfortunately you have taken a different approach. Feel free to laugh some more. Saffron Blaze 13:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I can buy all of that, but never that a low F-stop is bad per sé, which you previously said. V-wolf 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
      • You would have to point me to such a bold statement as I don't remember making it. Cheers. Saffron Blaze 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as above. --Iifar 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2005-09-20 Озеро Рица, Абхазия (1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Ritsa, Abkhazia. --Art-top 08:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 20:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)#
  •  Oppose overexposed and bad CA at the top. Mattbuck 04:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very nice view, but per Mattbuck (overexposed clouds and CA in the upper left corner); shouldn't be a problem to fix it with the RAW file. --Carschten 12:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Chromatic aberration I can fix, but the sky will not be able to fix. Unfortunately this camera does not produce RAW. --Art-top 06:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Industry park Höchst - waste-to-energy plant - Industriepark Höchst - Müllverbrennungsanlage - 04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Germany's largest waste-to-energy plant at night. --NorbertNagel 20:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Sehr ordentlich. --Frank Schulenburg 23:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lights look strange, not really sharp, see this other picture by Norbert Nagel. --Kadellar 00:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    This is a night shot whereas the one referred is taken on day time, I assume. -- Jkadavoor 05:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a night shot, but I don't want to compare both pictures, I linked the daylight one so that we know the building and all the missing details. --Kadellar 21:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support sehr schön --Ralf Roletschek 07:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jkadavoor 06:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wow... strong posterization with HDR errors (?) at the blown light areas... Do you look in full resolution? --Carschten 12:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Fontaine des Quatre-Saisons Paris 7 détail 4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of Four Seasons Fountain in Paris. --Moonik 17:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong perspective distortion--Lmbuga 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I try to fix same distortion problems. New file is uploaded. --Moonik 04:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Better, but I'm not sure it it's QI; others users can think, sorry--Lmbuga 21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very distorted (look worse now than before the correction), tight crop --Carschten 11:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distortion is still there, look at the horizontal lines. --Iifar 06:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Sleeping_Cat_in_Largo_di_Torre_Argentina,_Rome.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Sleeping cat in Largo di Torre Argentina, Rome --Andou 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Cute but overexposed patch. Mattbuck 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, with "patch" you mean the cat's chest?--Andou 22:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    Cat's right shoulder (cat's right, not ours) and front right paw. Mattbuck 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, you're right. :) Did you mind if I try to fix the original, reupload it and move to consensual?I think I made a mistake in the white balancing process. --Andou 11:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    Not at all. Mattbuck 16:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    This version is better, but I'm not quite convinced, would like other opinions. Consider me  Neutral. I would suggest sharpening though. Mattbuck 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sharpening done :) --Andou 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support- meets the standards. Óðinn 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose out of focus (unsharp), too shallow DOF --Carschten 11:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Technically there's only one oppose, Mattbuck asked to be considered neutral. :) --Andou 16:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose More sharpness is needed. --Iifar 06:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Muhammad Ali Mosque - courtyard.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The courtyard of the Muhammad Ali Mosque. --kallerna 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Strong perspective distortion. --Iifar 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's ok if the dust spot is fixed. Mattbuck 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --kallerna 14:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to fix it, any better now? --kallerna 16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it looks even worse, because now tower and columns are leaning in different directions. --Iifar 17:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Rheinberg, St. Peter, 2011-12 CN-03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Choir windows in the Catholic church St. Peter in Rheinberg --Carschten 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Can you bring the interior brightness up please? Mattbuck 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm nor sure, but I will try something within the next few days. Thanks. --Carschten 21:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Brightness OK for me. --Jkadavoor 09:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO only a radical crop of the darker parts puts in evidence the beautyful glass windows otherwise the architecture is distracting --Moroder 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. (the file is updated) --Aleks G 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - much better. Mattbuck 16:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 19:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Brombach_-_Scheurerbrunnen2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Brombach: fountain --Taxiarchos228 07:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Distracting Background --Martin Kraft 08:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • sorry, but a fountain stands commonly not in an exhausted space but is enclosed in an environment, can't see s.th. distracting here --Taxiarchos228 14:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Martin Kraft, the picture doesn't focus on it's subject or show it in it's best angle, thus failing in the composition criterea. Composition is the art and effort of choosing an angle and DOF to expose the subject. In this case this effort doesn't seem to have been made. Letartean 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Your other picture shows that it is possible to get an image of the very same sculpture without the distraction of 2 neon signs and street sign. Additionally you could have used a different lens and a narrow depth of field --Martin Kraft 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (1) If I had use I guess you would also oppose as you did at the Graz clock tower picture (2) Your argument would fit for FPC but is not significant for QIC. This is for sure not an outstanding but a proper image of this object. Lets see other opinions. --Taxiarchos228 15:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Distracting background plus perspective distortion. --Iifar 19:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 14:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ánade_real_(Anas_platyrhynchos)_en_el_Palacio_de_Nymphenburg,_Múnich,_Alemania19.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Couple of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) at the Palace of Nymphenburg, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 21:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Could you perhaps crop the picture a bit? DimiTalen 07:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Poco a poco 13:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Just a normal "easy" photo of mallards, not very sharp. Let's discuss. Makele-90 18:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, indeed.--Jebulon 15:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Old silesian chapel - Kalinow.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old silesian chapel - Kalinów (Kalinow) --Pudelek 21:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The bottom of the image is too dark. The whites are too blues IMO. Perhaps zones of the sky overexposed (or the image is too dark for this reason)--Lmbuga 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree: The lighting, whitebalance and contrast is fully appropriate for sunset --Martin Kraft 10:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support as Martin -- Jkadavoor 08:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I think it meets the criteria. --Iifar 13:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Lmbuga--Jebulon 15:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Martin --Selbymay 21:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Lmbuga too. --Alchemist-hp 22:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Nottingham_Pride_MMB_70.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photographer at Nottingham Pride. Mattbuck 16:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support A bit tight crop, but Ok. --Tomer T 11:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure about this one. The crop is very tight, especially on the left. IMO, there should be more space in that side because it is where the photographer and the camera are looking at; I also think the crop on the wrist is unfortunate, we should see more of the arm. Composition fails for me. --Kadellar 21:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for QI --Martin Kraft 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Every tinme I have looked at this I never noted the arm and only took passing notice of the camera. I mean really, who can resist a scrunched up nose on a cute girl? Saffron Blaze 11:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not sure with the result of the color balance of the picture taken by this photographer in such conditions (lol), but the nominated image could pass as QI IMO.--Jebulon 16:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Cornus mas - Kornelkirsche Blütenstand - European Cornel flowering - Cornelian Cherry - Cornouiller mâle - Cornouiller sauvage - cornejo macho - 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cornelian Cherry flowering in front of grey background. --NorbertNagel 20:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Unnatural background or/and shot--Lmbuga 00:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Well, I thought, I put a black paperboard behind the flowers to get a more neutral background. --NorbertNagel 18:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps you are right, I don't know. I don't like the image. To me this picture of yourself is better. Others can opine--Lmbuga 21:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, others can think: "Discuss"--Lmbuga 14:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Background is ok for me, but it looks too soft. Can you add sharpness? --Iifar 13:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, more sharpening results in artifacs. --NorbertNagel 20:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sorry, too soft for me. --Iifar 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Pz-elections-2012-pu37-6864.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Elections of Putin in Pereslavl, precinct 395.--PereslavlFoto 12:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad quality although it did capture the essence of Russian elections (observers especially) --Artem Karimov 12:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Tumringen_-_Wiesenbrücke_Graffiti5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Graffiti at Vally Wiese bridge (Wiesentalbrücke) --Taxiarchos228 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 16:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose barrel distortion --Carschten 17:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Carschten. Please correct it. --Alchemist-hp 22:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Colosseum_at_night_with_motion_lights.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Colosseum at night with motion lights --Andou 13:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 06:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO too dark and perspective should be corrected. --Berthold Werner 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Berthold --Archaeodontosaurus 14:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - Brightness is fine, but the perspective distortion is a bit too much. Mattbuck 02:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 25.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Freight train at Nottingham. Mattbuck 16:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - CAs explained with image notes--Gauravjuvekar 15:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    New version, can someone upload? Mattbuck 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    Re-uploaded that for you, Mattbuck. Collard 04:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks mate. Mattbuck 15:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment--The windows are fixed but the rest are still there.--Gauravjuvekar 16:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    Now you're just seeing things. I desaturated all the noted areas, there is no colour left to be aberrant. Mattbuck 17:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support-I'm sorry, I used the zoom viewer to see. That still shows version with CA. Now the CAs are gone.--Gauravjuvekar 08:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Rodošto, Košice.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rodošto - exposition of Francis II Rákóczi, Košice, Slovakia. --Rl91 09:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Notable noise on the sky, some CA. --Iifar 18:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Corrected. --Rl91 11:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Still CA on the left side and strong oversaturation of colors. --Moonik 07:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Another correction. Can it be now? --Rl91 15:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but not enough correction, I find always CA and the oversaturation --Moonik 16:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Graz_-_Modell_des_Uhrenturms.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Graz: model of clocktower --Taxiarchos228 07:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Distracting background--Martin Kraft 10:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    not significant for QI, object ist visible clearly --Taxiarchos228 15:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    Composition and Background definitely are significant for QI --Martin Kraft 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    this was not my conclusion --Taxiarchos228 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Martin. Mattbuck 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support the background really exist. for me its a QI. --Ralf Roletschek 16:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad DOF (of course you need an open aperture for the background blur, but like this there are huge unsharp areas on the main subject), disturbing background --Carschten 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad DOF. And I don't like the perspective (the angle of the perspective) and the composition: Bottom of the object of the image isn't complets to me (Random crop?)--Lmbuga 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 09:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Saint Antony church Urtijei.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Saint Antony in Urtijëi--Moroder 20:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, nice composition --Taxiarchos228 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC) May I ask a discussion about the white balance, which seems to be wrong to me ?--Jebulon 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    It's sun in the evening with clouded sky, I assure you the colors are right --Moroder 06:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support as option (the file is updated) --Aleks G 19:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Jebulon was right, much better now. --Kadellar 15:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm interested by the opinion of author. If he agrees with the changes, I could support now.--Jebulon 09:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC) It's like the the matter of the roof of the Stephansdom, but I don't mind the changes ;-) --Moroder 10:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As the author does not feel betrayed.--Jebulon 16:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Burg_Stein2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Burg und Schloss Stein --Martin Kraft 08:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose What happened to the lowest left corner? It has also some perspective distortion and partly overexposed sky. --Iifar 12:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Iifar. Tomer T 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Havixbeck,_Haus_Stapel,_2011-11_CN-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vorburg of the water castle Haus Stapel near Havixbeck --Carschten 14:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good detail. --Saffron Blaze 16:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose I see lots of blue CA, especially on wind wane. --Iifar 16:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • How should I reduce these small blue aberrations in such tiny details? CS3 RAW converter can't recognize them, (so / and) I can't correct. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • What I don't understand is why the RAW file has these CA on the wind wane and the in the camera parallel produced basic JPG not... --Carschten 17:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I thought they were just blue. Saffron Blaze 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC).
    • Nope, you can see original color from File:Havixbeck, Haus Stapel, 2011-11 CN-03.jpg. --Iifar 06:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Iifar is correct, but... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • ...but... take your black pencil, and pixel after pixel, maybe...lol.--Jebulon 01:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the lighting und perspektive. Ideally the blue outdazzle could be removed manually, but IMHO it is no veto to QI.--Martin Kraft 09:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI too. --Alchemist-hp 15:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Empty chair Batasia Loop.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Darjeeling Batasia Loop in Monsoon --JDP90 04:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong CA on tree edge, bad crop - left front leg --Tlusťa 24 March 2012
  •  Oppose As Tlusťa. --Lmbuga 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment It seems oversaturated and a bit noisy--Lmbuga 21:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted and per Tlusťa. --Kadellar 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ton Pariwat waterfall 1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ton Pariwat waterfall in Phang Nga, Thailand. --kallerna 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I think, the clouds are a little bit greenish. Can you correct? --NorbertNagel 22:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Info Made small changes, any better now? --kallerna 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, overexposed. Mattbuck 22:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
     Comment I would like to see another opinion. --kallerna 16:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support only a small sky area overexposed. The main: the waterfall are perfect for me. --Alchemist-hp 16:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per Alchemist-hp. --Kadellar 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2008-04-05 Гатчина. Руины Лесной оранжереи.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ruins of Forest Greenhouse in Gatchina, Russia. --Art-top 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Could you sharpen it a bit? Mattbuck 22:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    Slightly increased the sharpness of photo. It's ok? --Art-top 09:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Needs maybe a bottom crop, and I notice some (acceptable) CA, but good for QI in my opinion.--Jebulon 09:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination woman in a window --Ralf Roletschek 09:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposePlease see annotation (the thumb !)--Jebulon 11:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportQI IMO --Taxiarchos228 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This one annoys me quite a bit and not just becasue of the thumb. There are many little flaws that could have been touched up without affecting the images overall intent and preserved a bit of dignity for the model. I find her position to be a bit vulgar as well. Saffron Blaze 16:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Comment (es:) ¿Se critica una foto porque la persona fotografiada tiene hongos en una uña? ¿Y si fuese ciega, manca... o subnormal?, ¿que pasaría?, ¿no podría ser QI?--Lmbuga 22:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • No, I am not critising this because she has a nail fungus but because the photographer didn't take care to remove blemishes (see arms, face, between legs. These blemishes detract from the intent of the image. Unlike blindness, or other such conditions, the fingernail is a temporay issue that could have been hidden as well to save the girl any embarassment. I also didn't like that we could see so much of between the leg area as it was not necessary for this type of image. If the purpose was indeed to titulate then we are back to the problem of not fixing the blemishes in that area. In all cases this fails a QI test for me. Saffron Blaze 10:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(en:) Sorry, I don't think about your words, Saffron. I can't understand your words (the last and the others) with the automatic translator. I only don't like the note of the fingernail. (es): En mi opinión, el fotógrafo es el que decide la realidad que quiere mostrar. Si acierta, la imagen puede ser FP; pero aún sin acertar, la imagen puede ser QI, pues en QI la imagen debe ser considerada exclusivamente en si misma; pero es posible que yo esté confundido. (en:) For me, this image (nail included) is incredibly critical and suggestive; but that impression is not valid for QI, it's valid only to FP; to me, in QI the important is the image and only the image. What is a mistake for others (nail) is a wise choice for me--Lmbuga 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC))
No worries, I understand your position but I beleive for QI the subject must be treated correctly. Here I think the picture is not flattering. Saffron Blaze 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Perhaps a bit noisy and a bit overexposed, but QI to me. I don't see other problems in the picture. Perhaps there are serious problems in the model, but not to me, and there aren't problems to be the image QI IMO if the problem is the woman. --Lmbuga 22:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Lmbuga. --Alchemist-hp 14:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lights; genitals partially exposed. -- Jkadavoor 08:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
     Info I don't see any genitals! C'mon, be serious! I dont't like the background! distracting; the model and composition is OK, besides the nail (small, important!? detail) --Moroder 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I fully agree with Saffron Blaze. This is a terrible job, assuming that the pose was intended to make the woman attractive. Unless the whole thing were made on purpose, in which case it would have been of terrible taste. Almost disgusting. Alvesgaspar 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think they are, and that's not relevant to QI anyway. Mattbuck 23:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    I think there is an argument to be made regarding both composition and value, which are both QI considerations. While the thresholds are nowhere near that seen for an FPC they are still relevant. Saffron Blaze 12:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    Value is not relevant here, we are quality images - if you want your image to be valued, go to COM:VI. Our criteria are high photographic standards. Mattbuck 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    Technical excellence is just one aspect of QI. According to the QI Guidelines right here on this project page, Lighting and Composition as well as Value are suitable criteria for judging an image here at QI. Even if I constrain my critique to just technical aspects I would see the failure to remove the blemishes along the lnes of failing to remove dusts spots or a pile of turds on the lawn. The presence of the turds adds nothing to the image, poses a distraction and are an affront to the lawn. Saffron Blaze 11:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • And it is overexposed for parts...--Jebulon 09:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Tumringen_-_Gaba.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Tumringen: buisiness company building "GABA" --Taxiarchos228 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky. --Iifar 16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's just bright, and seems ok to me. Mattbuck 22:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop to me: I don't like the composition. And as Iifar--Lmbuga 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as others. --Alchemist-hp 19:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:12-03-01-autostadtr-by-RalfR-09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of 1.000.000 Beatle --Ralf Roletschek 20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support - Could be QI if you remove the dust spots. --NorbertNagel 16:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC) OK erledigt. --Ralf Roletschek 18:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose - I don't like the crop. Mattbuck 22:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose As Mattbuck, and I don't like the reflections of the light--Lmbuga 21:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)