Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 29 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Pierce The Veil Vic Fuentes 2016 Köln 2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vic Fuentes of Pierce The Veil performing. --Goroth 13:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question - Why is this here? It looks like no-one reviewed the photo, in which case, you should have simply submitted it for a normal review, and it doesn't belong in Consensual Reviews. -- Ikan Kekek 14:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - It was up for normal review and got declined by yourself. You mentioned I should bring it to Consensual Review if I like and I brought it here, so what's wrong? --Goroth 14:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I guess, I know now what went wrong. I misunderstood your point and was too fast. I'm sorry. I guess this discussion can get closed for now until the nomination got promoted or declined. Sorry. --Goroth 15:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not quite sure what's going on here but I'll format this just the same so things can be ironed out. cart-Talk 00:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Now it is here... Sorry, three problems combined: a) focus neither on the face nor the guitar, b) motion blur and c) not caught a really good moment because the face is too much hidden behind the mic. I've deleted hundreds of such shots on my hard disk. Hint: use ISO800 or ISO1600 to get shorter exposure times, if possible. Your camera is good enough. With some restrictions, even ISO3200 is acceptable, if necessary. --Smial 01:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I guess motion blur is a problem most photographers have to deal with when taking photos of guitarists. I used Auto-Iso during the concert otherwise it would have activated flash light and I got in trouble some weeks before for using flash. A security person mentioned that my lense was some kind of dirty on that evening. Can I do anything to make this picture a QI or is this a hopeless case? --Goroth 07:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Goroth, if you want to control the result, do not use any Auto mode. Set ISO, and aperture or speed to a reasonable value corresponding to the available light, and use the corresponding program mode. Regards, Yann 21:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - So, Goroth, you deleted my decline comment when changing to "Discuss". I hope that wasn't intentional, and please make sure you don't do that again. The only thing to do in order to move a discussion to Consensual Review is to change "Promotion" or "Decline" to "Discuss". Nothing else should be changed. Now that I've jogged my memory, I recall that my comment was along the lines that you made a good effort, but the picture is overexposed in places and not sharp enough. I doubt the problems are fixable in post-processing, but someone else with much more know-how may be able to address your question in detail. -- Ikan Kekek 08:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ikan Kekek deleting your decline comment wasn't my intention. --Goroth 09:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, I now see that you didn't delete anything. My decline and the comment are still there up the page. Somehow, you put an empty duplicate nomination here in CR. I don't understand how you were able to do that. -- Ikan Kekek 09:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't recognise that. Sometimes I am able to do such things even without knowing that I am able to these things. --Goroth 09:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok Goroth, since you are new to this a bit of explanation. To "take something to CR" does not mean you post a duplicate here, instead you change the text at the original nomination from "Nomination" to "Discuss". After that's been done a BOT will move the nomination to this place after a day or so. Try to remember that in the future. W.carter 13:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. W.carter 13:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Red_Clock.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red Clock --The Photographer 11:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose DoF problems, disturbing reflections on the clock, disturbing shadow in the back, noise, definitely not a QI, sorry --Poco a poco 12:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I was trying fix it, please, let me know what do you think? --The Photographer 16:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Good editing, moving now to  Support. Still I think that spending more time on the setting is a better solution (and quicker) than editing the image later on Poco a poco 12:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
What could be a good setting in this case?, use tripod to get more DoF? and how do to fix the reflection problem?. Thanks in advance --The Photographer 03:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)