Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 19 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Palacio_del_Infantado,_Guadalajara,_España,_2023-01-02,_DD_21.jpg

[edit]

File:Местность_Огланды.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oglandy. Zhabaiushkan sanctuary, Mangystau Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Максат79 --Красный 10:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice --Nino Verde 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Extreme distortion on both sides due to wide angle shot. No QI for me. --Milseburg 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, it's a wide angle shot of a landscape, so I would expect a wide angle perspective. Maybe the camera was tilted a bit when taking the picture and you could think about a perspective correction, but since the picture is already cropped, the parameters for that would be purely speculative. I don't see anything that the photographer should have done differently, other than taking a completely different picture from a different location with a different lens. The lens flare is neither annoying nor really avoidable. --Smial 13:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. Quite a pretty and high-quality picture. The sun star is fine and the subsidiary flares are tolerable. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment The image creates an unnatural landscape impression. The horizon is deformed in a v-shape. In an architectural shot the distortion would be obvious. What is needed is a different recording technique for such wide angles that makes it possible to compensate for such distortions through suitable projection. --Milseburg (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment There is no horizon. At least I see none. Which different recording technique (different to a rectangular wide angle lens) do you mean? --Smial 17:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
        •  Comment Well, if you look at other images from this bizarre and interesting area, you'll notice that the rock layers and plateaus are nearby horizontal. So take them as horizons. They are not horizontal in the image. Here they are inclined and run in a V-shape. Basically, I think the panoramic technique is suitable for depicting the subject. The cylinder projection should be sufficient for a realistic representation of the horizons. You can't certainly save every angle with this technik too, but I think the candidate is too destorted.--Milseburg 18:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
          •  Comment For one thing: Here File:Босжира9.jpg we have a photo from the area with a proper horizon and, oops, both horizontal and sloping rock layers. For another: Why are photos of buildings where horizontally aligned stonework is "distorted" by the wide-angle perspective accepted as QI, but for landscapes the same imaging method is evil? Don't misunderstand, if you find the representation in the photo above ugly, that is your right. But please do not justify it with "technical deficiencies" that must or even can be remedied by technical means. A cylindrical projection or a fisheye projection would only be "differently wrong" in any case. --Smial 20:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
            •  Comment The plateau on the left is clearly tilted clockwise. Like the other plateaus in the region, it should be straight, as your example image shows. The rock layers in the right part of the image show the opposite slope to those in the left part. Why is the characteristic horizontal layering completely missing? This is objectively wrong and not a question of taste. I have nothing against wide-angle shots, and distortion can sometimes be unavoidable as a side effect in order to show another situation particularly well. (For example, necessarily curved contrails in 360° mountain panoramas, where the main aim is to show the visible peaks.) But I see no such advantage or justification for the candidate. The unrealistic impression of the landscape predominates. --Milseburg 13:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  • It seems like a disclaimer should be added somewhere on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 Comment We have an even stronger "v-shape" (and no horizon) on the facades at File:20230318_Köhlbrandtreppe.jpg. They are definitely built horizontal and therefore depicted objectively wrong, if I follow your arguments. What optical projection would you suggest for such and similar distortions in architectural photos? --Smial 00:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Rignano_sull'Arno_-_Comune_di_Rignano_sull'Arno_-_2023-09-08_11-10-08_009.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rignano sull'Arno The Mulino district, the first in the town, is reflected in the Arno river--Anna.Massini 19:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ktkvtsh 02:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low level of details and posterized sky --Jakubhal 04:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  CommentThe sky is not posterized, it is the fog rising from the Arno river.Now I've also corrected it slightly, so that it's clear that it's fog. Thank you.Anna.Massini 07:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 07:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support: The level of detail could be higher in a couple of places, and there's some subtle green/purple COM:CA in the water, which would probably be hard to remove, but the overall quality seems OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 21:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bridge and area beyond slightly blurred --Virtual-Pano 09:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  CommentI slightly modified some parts of the photo and cut above, so that the focus is on the neighborhood that is reflected in the water.Anna.Massini 07:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 07:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough IMHO --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

File:20230318_Köhlbrandtreppe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Köhlbrandtreppe in Hamburg as seen from the Carsten-Rehder-Street --FlocciNivis 08:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too busy, undefined focus --Ktkvtsh 02:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is good enough for QI --Jakubhal 04:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Too busy as Ktkvtsh says. Furhter the house at the left above appears to be shown too brightly. Above all, however, the crooked traffic signs are annoying. I would have tried to position myself a little further forward so I wouldn't have they in the picture. -- Spurzem 09:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now: Not too bad, but somewhat overexposed, so the medallions on the staircase have less visible detail than would be desired. -- Ikan Kekek 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I fixed those harsh lights now --FlocciNivis 15:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Big improvement. Good quality to me now. -- Ikan Kekek 06:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Above the QI bar. --Sebring12Hrs 05:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)