Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 18 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Trier,_Jesuitenkirche_-_Orgel_(2019-05-15_Sp).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pipe organ in the Jesuitenkirche in Trier Spurzem 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    CA on columns, quite grainy too --Podzemnik 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Podzemnik: Thank you very much for your competent review. I withdraw, though I don't agree with your opinion. -- ~~~~
    It was just a comment, I didn't disagree. Let's wait for other folks think --Podzemnik 03:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    O. K. -- Spurzem 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Some grain and small amounts of CA visible, if printed in poster size like 100cm*70cm. Good enough. --Smial 13:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Due to the numerous organ pipes difficult to photograph. Not the best, but quite good. Enough for QI. --Steindy 00:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Hertha_BSC_vs._West_Ham_United_20190731_(037).jpg[edit]

Unprocessed original photo (does not stand for candidature)
  • Nomination Vladimír Darida (Hertha BSC Berlin) in duel with Aaron Cresswell (West Ham United) --Steindy 08:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose It looks overprocessed to me. Like too much limuninace was applied, there is no detail left --Podzemnik 05:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry Podzemnik, I don't know, which details you are missing and I don't know, what "limuninace" is. The "overprocessing" is the quality of a Canon 2,8/300 objectiv. --Steindy 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries - I meant "luminance" :) Let's hear other opinions--Podzemnik 01:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I understand what you meant. Sorry, I do not know what I could do better with this picture ;-( --Steindy 09:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support schwierige Situation, perfekt umgesetzt. --Ralf Roletschek 12:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good image. I don't understand the criticism above. -- Spurzem 13:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Podzemnik. --Manfred Kuzel 13:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    •  Info The contraindication of Manfred Kuzel is a revenge act because I had dared to value two deficient pictures (stripes, moiree) of him negatively. It is sad how some users behave... --Steindy 14:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Anmerkung:Ich bin nicht allein mit dem Vorwurf der Revanche konfrontiert, wie man bei Durchsicht der Nominierungen leicht feststellen kann. --Manfred Kuzel 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
        • It is sad, far hate can lead. EOD --Steindy 19:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Das ist der dämlichste Kommentar, den ich je gelesen habe. Ich habe kein einziges Foto von Dir negativ beurteilt und mich lediglich bereits erfolgten Beurteilungen angeschlossen. Und da ich auch positiv beurteilt habe ist es einfach absurd, mir als Motiv Haß zu unterstellen. --Manfred Kuzel 04:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Das ist ein out of cam-Sportfoto-jpeg, das wird nicht besser. Mit 1/1000s und 300mm braucht man auch am Nachmittag bei Bewölkung schon ISO 400 und dann sieht das so aus. Der Herr Häddiwari wird nun einwerfen, daß man ja Blende 2,8 hätte nehmen können - aber dann wäre die Schärfentiefe zu klein geworden. Das Foto ist super für jegliche Weiterverwendung geeignet, aber nix für Pixelpeeper. --Granada 13:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Reading the comments I assumed it was out-of-camera with unavoidable artifacts. However, skin looks different from anything out of a Canon DSLR – much less a 7D Mark II – and file info mentions PaintShop Pro 19. I'm sure you get the QI votes after uploading a different version of this nice action shot. -- BTW: Just looked at your other Hertha BSC photos and noticed that Mathew Leckie does not have this painted over look to his skin.
Comparison of processing between candidate and original. Reason for my vote. --Smial 15:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too strong denoising combined with too strong sharpening -> overprocessed. --Smial 12:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC). Steindy, laß es einfach wie früher rauschen. Wenn es ansonsten OK ist, kriegt ein gelungenes Sportfoto auch mit sichtbarem Rauschen ein Pro von mir, egal was die Schönwetterknipser dazu meinen. Sport knipst man halt nicht mit f/11, 1/30s und ISO100 vom Stativ. --Smial 12:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    •  Info There is nothing(!) "overprocessed", as anyone can see on the unprocessed original photo. There was only a white balance and a slight correction of the image noise. I do not understand why there are so few sports and especially football pictures when we have so many experts here. Or is it fun to deregister the nominations of other users? Smial, Ihnen ist es egal, doch weiß ich gut genug, welche Meinung die Schönwetterfotografen bei Sportfotos haben, mit denen sie sich noch nie auseinandergesetzt haben. Aber es ist mir ohnehin schon fast sch***egal. Besser wäre es solche Fotos nicht mehr kandidieren zu lassen und noch besser, solche Fotos – mit denen ich privat viel Geld verdienen könnte, aber wegen meiner Pension nicht mehr will – erst gar nicht hochzuladen. Grüße --Steindy (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • And Smial, what do you want to say with your comparison pictures on the reight side now? Should I count the pixels now or what else? And you talk about pixel counters and noise? Anyway, if I've sharpened the picture, I'll know better than you, so do not imply such things to me! I stick to it: some users enjoy the pleasure of neglecting to talk about the work of other users, does this increase self-esteem? I find such behavior incredible! --Steindy 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't give you directions on what to do or what not to do, and I don't know what you know better than I do. The screenshot is intended to illustrate why I think the cropped version is too heavily edited compared to the original version. With the comparison, I only justify my personal opinion. Everyone else is welcome to have different opinions and of course to vote differently. --Smial 09:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose One probably would not have been able to improve the picture in this situation. But sometimes you just can not shoot a QI. --Stepro 11:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    •  Question Thank you very much Stepro for your qualified and collegial judgment. How does the situation have to be to take a QI photo? To improve me therefore the question: Is the picture in this situation too sharp or is the picture noise too little? --Steindy (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Komm' mit sachlichen Beurteilungen Deiner Fotos hier klar oder lass es bleiben. Auf dieses Niveau begebe ich mich nicht hinab. --Stepro 21:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Ach ja, "sachlich". Dabei würde ich doch so gerne von Ihnen lernen ... --Steindy 21:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)