Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→‎December 13, 2013: Edit Conflict - +2 uploaded by user:Fedaro
Line 13: Line 13:
==December 13, 2013 ==
==December 13, 2013 ==
<gallery>
<gallery>
File:Luna llena hemisferio sur.jpg|{{/Nomination|Full moon seen from the southern hemisphere. Uploaded by [[user:Fedaro]]. --[[User:Ganímedes|Ganímedes]] 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)|}}

File:Southern Cross and Coalsack Dark Nebula.jpg|{{/Nomination|Southern Cross and Coalsack Dark Nebula. Uploaded by [[user:Fedaro]]. --[[User:Ganímedes|Ganímedes]] 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)|}}


File:Maubeuge Hotel de ville.jpg|{{/Nomination|Town hall of Maubeuge, France. --[[User:Velvet|Velvet]] 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)|}}
File:Maubeuge Hotel de ville.jpg|{{/Nomination|Town hall of Maubeuge, France. --[[User:Velvet|Velvet]] 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)|}}

Revision as of 21:49, 13 December 2013


Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).

December 13, 2013

December 12, 2013

December 11, 2013

December 10, 2013

December 9, 2013

December 8, 2013

December 7, 2013

December 6, 2013

December 5, 2013

December 4, 2013

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review

File:Meenikunno_raba_laudtee.jpg

  • Nomination Boardwalk at Meenikunno bog --Urmas83 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry but you used the wrong aperture, that makes the picture look washed out. But feel free to revert to discuss after perspective correction --Moroder 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Sometimes it seems to me that you are not looking at the picture but only the metadata. It is possible to change the metadata information about the aperture and it seems to me that if I had changed it to 1/16 or bigger, you would have approved it. There is no such thing as wrong aperture! It is photographers decision witch aperture to use. Some lenses might be a little unsharp at f/22 but not the one I am using. It is somewhat unsharp because it is HDR. And still so much sharper than some pictures accepted as Featured pictures. I am not desperate to get this picture approved as QI. I just want you to look at the picture and not the metadata. --Urmas83 09:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)*
  •  Comment This is not the way I do my reviews! I noticed that the picture was not up to the level of a good D800 picture and I wondered why and the high f value is the answer IMHO. An other reason could be the could be the high exposure time (pardon me if I look at your EXIF data) --Moroder 23:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I'm not sure what the reason is but there seems to be no sharp parts in this picture. Did you use a tripode? -- Alvesgaspar 20:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Massener_Strasse_23_(Unna)_IMGP4253_wp.jpg

  • Nomination House in Unna, Germany, cultural heritage monument A 071. --Smial 18:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --JLPC 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    It is technically again of good quality and destined to be QI, but there is still a slight perspective correction necessary. Furthermore, I strongly suggest a crop of the foreground shadow. --Cccefalon 08:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Kornkasten_beim_Breitner_Villanders_04.JPG

  • Nomination Southern view of the barn at the farmhouse "Breitner" Villanders --Moroder 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose overexposed, severals parts are burned out --Christian Ferrer 10:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Comment I am afraid your remark is a bit inappropiate. There is only small area of the bottom of the sky with irrelevant clipping of the blue channel. If you like I can fix that on the RAW file but still it's really irrelevant imo --Moroder 17:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I don't know what is "clipping of blue channel", I said overexposed because a part of the house and the foliage at right, and the house in background are burned out, this picture is maybe nice and with a big value but IMO burned out areas are not synonyms of quality, when my pictures have "burned out areas", and if I see it, I don't nominate its, I don't uploaded its but I go back take a better picture if I want a QI. If you find it irrelevant, please go to CR --Christian Ferrer 08:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree Did you look at the histogram, well look at the histogram of the blue component of RGB which is the only one clipping and you will see that the area of lost highlights is negligible --Moroder 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe that I exaggerate, it is very possible, but if it was one of my photos I would not promote(nominate) it, I apply you the rules that I apply for myself. But it's also true these areas can be considered like negligible, but I will change my vote only if you try to decrease this effect of "burned out ares", maybe with highligh levels or the tool brush --Christian Ferrer 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

<>*:Just out of curiosity. Here you can see the lost highlights and the clipping blue channel --Moroder 13:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you for trying to give some explanation, I appreciate, but honestly I do not understand much in graphs, and I trust you when you tell me that curves are OK. But my arguments are based on the fact that I see on photos. At full resolution the part of the house exposed to the sun seem to have burned out, but it's not a big area, indeed. I do not want to frustrate you and the image is beautiful, so I change to  Neutral. Another opinion would be welcome. --Christian Ferrer 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes Christian, this is frustrating me because I work a lot on my images. I thank you anyhow for your reviews and appreciation. I'm glad if you lear something in this process as I did --Moroder 21:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «75 Netham Weir.jpg

  • Nomination Netham Weir. Mattbuck 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Needs perspective correction (please look at the top on the right). Composition not optimal.--XRay 07:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that wall is actually vertical. Mattbuck 21:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Let's discuss.--XRay 07:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Isla_Ko_Phi_Phi_Don,_Tailandia,_2013-08-19,_DD_13.JPG

  • Nomination Bay and rocky beach at Ko Phi Phi Don Island, Thailand --Poco a poco 10:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Noticable haloing around the hills. Mattbuck 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded, better? Poco a poco 11:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)  Comment By doing this, the image in general lost a lot of its sharpness. Maybe you should only remove the haloes next to the hills by using some kind of a filter. DerHexer 22:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    Well, yes, I could, but I am not convinced about its need. I have reverted to the original version and move to CR with the hope to hear some more opinions Poco a poco 10:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO it's acceptable, Diego, when I have this problem, the only solution which I found is of decreased the clarity and the sharpening with a very small brush Christian Ferrer 18:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    I would have used the brush with a decrease of sharpening (I take note of your advice to do the same with the clarity, thanks!) but I am not really sure whether this is needed, I never was asked to do it earlier and to me it does not look bad. Poco a poco 19:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Volucella bombylans (AF)-right.jpg

File:Volucella bombylans (AM)-right.jpg

File:Osterwieck_Altstadt_by_Stepro_DSC_5355.JPG

  • Nomination denkmalgeschützte Häuser in der Altstadt von Osterwieck --Stepro 20:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose blown sky, check the histogram --A.Savin 21:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • OK you're right; color and brightness adjusted --Stepro 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Seems better, but I'm still not sure if it's OK for QI, I'll ask for CR --A.Savin 14:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose Nice pic, colours and sky are OK for me, however the loss of detail (see the "Nikolaistraße" sign) exceeds what I expect from a QI at only 6 megapixels. Visible CA on left side (timber framework) is quite unusual for a not-so-fast 50 mm prime. --Kreuzschnabel 05:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Our_Lady_of_the_Rosary_of_Chiquinquirá.jpg

  • Nomination Our Lady of the Rosary of Chiquinquirá --Beria 11:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too tight a crop IMO. --Mattbuck 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    * Considering the place where the table is and that is covered by a glass, is almost impossible to get a decent shot with a wider frame. Can you reconsider? Beria 19:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Reality sometimes makes a QI impossible, this may well be one of those times. Mattbuck 21:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose As per Matt. The quality is too poor for QI. --Cccefalon 10:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB «96 The Downs.jpg

  • Nomination The Downs of University Park. Mattbuck 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Sorry, it's too dark. The shadows are too dominant. --XRay 07:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    This is an accurate representation of conditions. Mattbuck 21:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok for the conditions, can you can brighten just a bit the shadows? --Christian Ferrer 11:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Sportwagenmanufaktur_Wiesmann_(Gewerbegebiet_Telgenkamp)_--_2005_--_9.jpg

  • Nomination Wiesmann Roadster, Sportwagenmanufaktur Wiesmann, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 14:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose blown whites --A.Savin 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support What against this photo?! For me QI! -- Spurzem 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Fixed I've reduced the lights. So white doesn't look blown.--XRay 05:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --A.Savin 07:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Support – visible sharpening artifacts around edges at such a small size usually drive me to decline but regarding the fine composition and lighting it’s altogether good enough for me. --Kreuzschnabel 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 05:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall_2013.jpg

  • Nomination Walt Disney Concert Hall with reflections from the sun in the evening --Tuxyso 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support --Cccefalon 05:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    I have to admit that I overlooked the fact of the blown out highlights. My bad, but should be fixable by shifting the histo however. --Cccefalon 13:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)~
    * Oppose The overexposed part is too strong and appealing (no details of the structure are visible)--Jebulon 10:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    IMHO Nothing to fix here. The Concert Hall has a strong reflecting surface. I can shift the histogram, but really bright stays really bright. If there is sun you have not chance to get a photo without such reflections because the surface is directed in different directions and is like aluminium foil --Tuxyso 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    I could recover some details from the RAW, Jebulon. Better? --Tuxyso 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 05:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Rösrath_Germany_Old-townshall-01.jpg

  • Nomination Old townshall of Rösrath in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --Cccefalon 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose for the moment, until the correction of the slight tilt, and the slight perspective distortion at right.--Jebulon 21:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done A hint would have been good enough, rather than sending it to CR. Anyway. --Cccefalon 22:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO, it's ok now, in more I think the walls of this house are not straight and if you correct more, windows will tilt to the outside --Christian Ferrer 08:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 05:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Kornkasten_beim_Breitner_Villanders_02.JPG

  • Nomination Barn at the farmhouse "Breitner" Villanders - Northern view --Moroder 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Halo. White sharpening fringe (roof). Bad lighting. The fence in foreground is disturbing (composition issue)--Jebulon 10:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Comment You don't like the fence, i'd wish it was wooden but I don't like to cut it - it's a matter of taste and of long dicussion for QI. The lighting is not bad its backlit but you can see every detail. There is no sharpening fringe because there was no sharpening done, the 5 px fringe (1 in one thousend of the size of the picture is a regular fringe with high res digital photography, I explained it several times on my comments. Let's look for other opinions ;-) --Moroder 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 11:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 05:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Aeropuerto_de_Hong_Kong,_2013-08-13,_DD_18.JPG

  • Nomination B-HNG aircraft of Cathay Pacific in Hong Kong Airport --Poco a poco 09:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • All the straight lines of the aircraft look kind of wobbly. Too much smog/moisture in the air? --El Grafo 10:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd rather say that is kerosene, but anyhow no technical glitch but loyal to what the human eye would say. I'd like to hear more opinions --Poco a poco 10:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Where do you suppose kerosene to come from at the plane’s nose? It’s just air wake and movement, equivalent to the waves on the waterline of a moving ship. --Kreuzschnabel 07:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
        • No clue, maybe from the previous airplane? The point is that this picture is loyal to the way it looked and that shouldn't be punished IMHO Poco a poco 11:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Nice idea to cover the succeeding plane into kerosene shortly before touchdown to make sure their brakes won’t work :-) honestly, no airman would ever do that. Kerosene is dumped in emergencies only, and only over uninhabited areas. --Kreuzschnabel 14:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 05:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:People_at_Sunset_Cliffs_Natural_Park_San_Diego_2013.jpg

  • Nomination Sunset Cliff Natural Park in San Diego --Tuxyso 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • see notes --A.Savin 11:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the hint, I will correct it in 2 days. --Tuxyso 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done, A.Savin, please take another look. --Tuxyso 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • There is still a very big dustspot at the top in the left part --A.Savin 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pretty, but the foreground feels slightly odd - oversharpened maybe? Mattbuck 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
        • ✓ DoneA.Savin, please take another look. I see no dustspots anymore. Please note that the image becomes darker to the edges due to the bright sun and its radial light. If you disagree, please marke again if possible. Mattbuck, why decline? Sharpness is imho OK. --Tuxyso 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me now. --A.Savin 07:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharpness is just but ok IMO, but the horizon is a bit tilted on right --Christian Ferrer 08:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Surely? In which direction, Christian? I used the note tool here and grid tool in LR and could not see a tilt. --Tuxyso 12:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
      • To see it Tuxyso, I open it at full resolution, I put the top left corner of the horizon (it' easy there is a darker straight at top of the horizon) at top left of the window and I use the scrollbar and you will see on the right a very little gap, it's not big I know. --Christian Ferrer 12:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the hint, I will look at it later. --Tuxyso 12:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
        • @Christian: ✓ Done. --Tuxyso 07:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Tuxyso, ok for info there is a little outline around the girl in red, and the red is maybe a bit oversatured --Christian Ferrer 08:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 07:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Oly-EM1-connector.jpg

  • Nomination Olympus OM-D E-M1: bayonet mount, connector pins and image sensor --Kreuzschnabel 14:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose The camera is very dirty. Besides the upper right corner is disturbing. --Florian Fuchs 14:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
     Support dirty camera? sorry, lets discuss! to me its QI, the corner can be corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 20:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done The shadow was cast by the camera belt, I left it there as a framing corresponding to the heavy shadow in the lower left, but I don’t need it there. And sorry I have been using the camera before, I just couldn’t resist ;-) --Kreuzschnabel 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Warum arbeitest du mit so komischem Mischlicht? Ich finde das sehr störend, warme Lichter und blaue Schatten. -- Smial 16:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Dieses Bild ist mit reinstem Tageslicht entstanden, unter einem Dachfenster. --Kreuzschnabel 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Seltsam. Sah mir nach Blitz + Tageslicht aus. Egal. Dann reflektiert da evtl. etwas ungünstig. Ich habe schon eine ganze Tabletopserie neu machen müssen, weil mir erst am PC-Bildschirm auffiel, das alle Bilder einen komischen, ungleichmäßigen Farbstich hatten. Dann schaute ich an mir herunter und entdeckte, daß ich Schussel einen roten Pullover trug... -- Smial 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 05:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Isla_Phi_Phi_Lay,_Tailandia,_2013-08-19,_DD_14.JPG

File:Isla Phi Phi Lay, Tailandia, 2013-08-19, DD 14.JPG

  • Nomination Crab-eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis), Phi Phi Lay Island, Thailand --Poco a poco 10:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  SupportGood quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 06:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose overexposed (foliage is burned out) --Christian Ferrer 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 22:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Christian_Lindner_(Martin_Rulsch)_1.jpg

  • Nomination Christian Lindner, North Rhine-Westphalian politician (FDP) and member of the Landtag of North Rhine-Westphalia. --DerHexer 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose left is unsharp --Christian Ferrer 17:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Does that really matter? It's not a studio photograph. DerHexer 00:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. f/2.8 is not the best choice in such a situation, but the eyes are sharp enough. -- Smial 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    To express the situation: It was a shot taken by hand when he gave an interview. Cheers, DerHexer 15:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    It's always the problem of making the best job: higher ISO and somewhat more DOF or less noise and less DOF ;-) -- Smial 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • zu mittig, nicht dicht genug dran, Offenblende... aber trotzdem  Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Stepro 01:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 05:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 31.jpg

  • Nomination Nottingham station western throat. Mattbuck 08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  OpposeImo too unsharp. DerHexer 13:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    I request a second opinion. Mattbuck 10:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support sharp enough IMO --Christian Ferrer 08:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 05:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:TaxiSalta.jpg

  • Nomination Taxi en la ciudad de Salta, Argentina --Ezarate 02:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Red CA and perspective issues, correctible Poco a poco 09:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Did some improvements but I still think it’s overexposed. Let’s get some more opinions. --Kreuzschnabel 09:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 06:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Arando 150706 REFON .jpg

  • Nomination Arando a terra para cultivo da cana-de-açucar, Avaré, São Paulo, Brasil--Jose Reynaldo da Fonseca 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support OK --A.Savin 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I wouldn’t mind overexposure on background or in headlights, but i do mind it on the man’s shirt. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Point_Mugu_September_2013_010.jpg

  • Nomination Mugu Rock, Point Mugu, California. --King of Hearts 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Nice to see you - at the bottom. May be a better crop without the shadow.--XRay 08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
    I feel that not much can be cropped at the bottom without affecting the composition. I don't think the shadow is a major distraction; in fact I did not even notice the shadow myself until you mentioned it, and even then I'm not sure if it is a shadow of me or of something else. --King of Hearts 10:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Let's have a look for a third opinion.--XRay 05:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    * Support with or w/o the shadow--Moroder 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --P e z i 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Autignac, Hérault 03.jpg

  • Nomination Autignac, Hérault, France. --Christian Ferrer 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  SupportGood quality --EpsilonEridani 21:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
     Neutral Underexposed IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 06:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Brightened version, however the sun is close to the horizon --Christian Ferrer 10:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Brightened again, but if I put this image more bright, take out your sunglasses --Christian Ferrer 17:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support now. --JLPC 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Ciasa_Rü_La_Val_04.JPG

  • Nomination Manor house "Rü" in in La Val --Moroder 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Looks a bit washed-out to me. Could you raise the contrast a little? --King of Hearts 22:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks!--Moroder 10:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Still feels washed out, and blurry on left. Mattbuck 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good enough for me. --King of Hearts 08:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Support QI -- Spurzem 12:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Peep_show_Iran.JPG

  • Nomination Peep show in Golestan Palace --مانفی 09:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Needs perspective correction. --Cccefalon 19:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    --مانفی 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I am afraid to say so, but it is not properly done. Please observe the verticals of the ashlars: The building is supposed to be rectilinear while the golden box might stand on a slope. --Cccefalon 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    I got your point now.--مانفی 21:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    Not really. I made an annotation what I mean concerning the verticals of the ashlars. Also when I open the new version in fullsize, it shows up 90 degrees rotated. strange ... --Cccefalon 07:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry. H had uploaded wrong ,actually first and non edited, version.مانفی 08:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Back on track but still not sufficient. Observe the two annotations: One line is inclining to left the other to right side; that means that perspective is opening to the top of the photo. You have to correct the photo with by incremental modifing rotation and vertical distortion parameters in 100% view. It won't work if you do it on zoomed out view. Please give it a last try. --Cccefalon 11:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    When I was fixing the perspective, I understood that problem but unfortunately I couldn't change the perspective more than this. Why? Because not only the right margin and peep show became unparalleled, but also the right crop became too tight (almost no margin remained).مانفی 12:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm so sorry, but I cannot let it pass as QI then. If you object, you can still send it to CR.--Cccefalon 12:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC) --Cccefalon 12:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneI tried one more time. Please have a look again.مانفی 08:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a very interesting and strange object, and I'm sorry to decline, but I find it is not sharp enough at full size. It is a pity.--Jebulon 09:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Stepro 01:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 08:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Zürich_(Schweiz),_Auto_in_der_Bahnhofstraße_--_2011_--_12.jpg

  • Nomination Car at the Bahnhofstraße in Zürich, Switzerland --XRay 08:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Overexposed, blown red causing blueish colour. --Kreuzschnabel 10:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I do not think the image is overexposed. The car was actually pink, not red. (You've seen too many red Ferraris, right?)--XRay 12:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe :-) what struck me is that the top side has a much bluer tone than the sides. The red channel is pure white without showing any detail. --Kreuzschnabel 12:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I changed espacially the blue color. I do not see any color problems. If there are problems, please tell me. --XRay 14:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Support Interessantes Foto. Außerdem technisch einwandfrei. -- Spurzem 10:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 06:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Spain_-_Chile_-_10-09-2013_-_Geneva_-_Pedro_Rodriguez_2.jpg

  • Nomination Spain - Chile - 10-09-2013 - Geneva - Pedro Rodriguez --Pleclown 12:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Very noisy and rather a tight crop at the bottom. Mattbuck 22:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    I didn't do noise reduction by choice, it masks the details. As for the crop, it's not a crop, it's the picture as I took it, on the fly. :) Pleclown 07:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
     Support I don't mind the noise given the circumstances (almost night, floodlights, sport). Ideally we could have seen more of the 2nd player, but good quality. --Jastrow 10:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Purple CA on Pedro's face --Christian Ferrer 12:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    I've uploaded a new version. Pleclown 18:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral ok thanks, really sorry but I'm not very competent for this kind of picture (sport at night with artificial light) --Christian Ferrer 05:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose : strong chromatic noise and white clothes partially blown out. --JLPC 19:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Cccefalon 05:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Ips-nscf-2013-immers-3686.jpg

  • Nomination Cooling system «Immers» filled with coolant, contains the electronic boards and SSDs in that coolant. --PereslavlFoto 20:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose unsharp --Stepro 10:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC) But where is it unsharp? --PereslavlFoto 20:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
     Support --JLPC 19:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 22:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Liverpool Street station MMB 15 379021.jpg

  • Nomination Interior of 379021. Mattbuck 08:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose I think it is too dark. Sorry. --EveryPicture 21:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    I can brighten it, but this seems fairly natural to me. It was taken at an underground station with no natural (and little artificial) lighting. Mattbuck 00:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose : chromatic noise visible, especially on the grey areas. --JLPC 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 22:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Paris_Farniente_jardin_Tuileries_2009.jpg

  • Nomination Spring lazing, jardin des Tuileries, Paris (1st arr.), France. --JLPC 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Sorry, but the composition is quite poor. --Pleclown 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
    We don't have the same idea of composition. If someone wants to decline there must be some more serious reasons to do so.--JLPC 16:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Bad composition is a reason, and one I agree with. The foreground people are in the way, but not fully in shot. You're at a halfway house which is no good. Mattbuck 00:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition is not so bad, foreground people are turned in direction and are showing the slepping peoples, good illustration of a calm moment in this garden --Christian Ferrer 14:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality --P e z i 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 22:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)