Commons:Quality images candidates

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

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 01 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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]] 06:15, 1 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).


August 1, 2024

[edit]

July 31, 2024

[edit]

July 30, 2024

[edit]

July 29, 2024

[edit]

July 28, 2024

[edit]

July 27, 2024

[edit]

July 26, 2024

[edit]

July 25, 2024

[edit]

July 24, 2024

[edit]

July 23, 2024

[edit]

July 22, 2024

[edit]

July 21, 2024

[edit]

July 20, 2024

[edit]

July 19, 2024

[edit]

July 18, 2024

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

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".



File:Eckersdorf_OT_Schanz.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial panorama of Schanz, part of the municipality of Eckersdorf, district Bayreuth, Germany --J. Lunau 12:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too high contrast (burned out highlights and too dark shadows) combined with  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 12:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
     Comment* Thank you for your review. Accoriding to your first review with oppose I slightly reduced the noise and for me now the photo meets all given QI creteria, especially for an arial view it shows enough details. I would like to hear other opinions. --J. Lunau 17:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Stage_20_Tour_de_France_2024_Col_de_la_Couillole_22.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Valentin Madouas and Guillaume Martin on stage 20 of Tour de France 2024. --Kallerna 07:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Nice shot! --Granada 08:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose He is far from focus point. Time 1/250 isnt fast enough for cycling, despite "Action program (biased toward fast shutter speed)" --PetarM 11:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Yak_in_Khövsgöl_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yak near (Bos grunniens) Khatgal in Khövsgöl Province, Mongolia --Bgag 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry. Image is not sharp and overexposed. --Needsmoreritalin 02:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Should be better now. --Bgag 19:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Hyundai_Ioniq_5_N_IMG_9406.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hyundai Ioniq 5 N for sale in Neu-Ulm --Alexander-93 18:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 18:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    * Oppose No license plate yet, lots of notes in the windshield, parked in an unattractive area on a meadow, part of the paneling at the front is too bright, too tight cut. A photo like that is not a QI for me; sorry. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Peugeot_e-2008_Facelift_Autofrühling_Ulm_IMG_9300.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peugeot e-2008 Facelift at Autofrühling Ulm 2024 --Alexander-93 20:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose There is a persons face visible and there is no sign that this person did agree on publishing this image. --Augustgeyler 22:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-AMG_X254_43_IMG_9851.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-AMG X254 43 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 18:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Noisy at the front - fixable? --Mike Peel 09:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Mike Peel: thanks for your review, I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 18:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 18:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Insufficient DoF and chromatic aberration at the lest tire. --Augustgeyler 22:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Pandit_Rajan_Sajan_Mishra_Performing_at_Bharat_Bhavan_Bhopal_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pandit Rajan Sajan Mishra Performing at Bharat Bhavan Bhopal on 38th foundation day 13 February 2020I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 16:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough and poor composition (cut of hands on the right) --Augustgeyler 22:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Lille_lycee_baggio_jardin_des_plantes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Lycée Baggio from the Lille Jardin des Plantes, France --Velvet 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Too harsh shadow at the tree on the left. Fixable? --Augustgeyler 07:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review. Shadow lightened a bit. But it's real dark, I don't think I can do much better. --Velvet 08:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Left shadow isn't too disturbingin my view. --Sebring12Hrs 08:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand why intervention was necessary here before any vote was made. Now I have to oppose until this is fixed. --Augustgeyler 08:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment In my humble opinion, the fact that for some time now pictures have often ended up in CR that have no contradictory ratings in the candidate list, but only more or less detailed discussions, is at least partly due to the fact that there are discussions in the list at all. --Smial 11:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good rework. --Smial 11:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 15:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Varese_-_Villa_Toeplitz_0023.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain in Villa Toeplitz, Varese, Italy. --Phyrexian 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is tilted cw and its shadows are too harsch. --Augustgeyler 13:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, both fixable I guess. --Plozessor 15:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Canon_EOS_R100,_front.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Canon EOS R100, front side, cap intact. --FreeMediaKid! 04:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support The crop is quite tight, but ok. --MB-one 08:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is too tight for me, the are only very few pixels space left --PantheraLeo1359531 09:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Should be better now. --FreeMediaKid! 18:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
 Support Thank you, this is good :) --PantheraLeo1359531 08:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 15:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Tooth_capping_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tooth cappingI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 07:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurred --George Chernilevsky 07:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Somewhat low DOF, but regarding the high resolution and somewhat special circumstances sharp enough for a decent A4 size print. --Smial 09:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Smial. According to QI guidelines low DOF is acceptable if it serves a purpose, which it does here. The capped tooth is the subject of this photo, and it's in focus. ReneeWrites 09:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It serves its purpose. Good one. --Jaronax 19:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 09:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per ReneeWrites and Jaronax. --Plozessor 03:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Maria_Rain_Kirchenstraße_61_Pfarrkirche_Mariä_Himmelfahrt_Inneres_27072024_5242.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the pilgrimage and parish church Assumption of Mary on Kirchenstraße #61, Maria Rain, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 02:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the picture composition is "strange": The backside of the last bench ist most present. --2015 Michael 2015 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The image looks a little distorted. For example, is the big bench (?) in the foreground really as crooked as it seems? -- Spurzem 08:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Composition (with the prominent bench and the floor in foreground) ist probably not ideal but acceptable. However, it seems to lean out on the left side. --Plozessor 03:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The impression of the leaning out bench on the left side was lifted and improved. —- Johann Jaritz 05:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cutting off the lower part makes the picture better, otherwise good --Georgfotoart 11:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 03:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Capreolus_capreolus_in_Murg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fearful roe deer --UnFUG-Fabi 10:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Beautiful composition but it is very noisy. Fixable? --C messier 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I have denoised it a little better. --UnFUG-Fabi 09:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strong NR resulting in artifacts and lack of detail and sharpness. --Plozessor 03:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor --George Chernilevsky 04:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)/
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 13:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Aaron_Douglas_by_Edwin_Harleston_(51419).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aaron Douglas, 1930, by Edwin Harleston --Rhododendrites 01:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the reflections of light on the face spoil the painting, when you compare with Google Arts & Culture's version https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/portrait-of-aaron-douglas-edwin-harleston/VAHluxT2x5reHQ?ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.39356178503810696%2C%22y%22%3A0.29227352173045734%2C%22z%22%3A10.995145481481481%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A0.488969756147055%2C%22height%22%3A0.23746436668109303%7D%7D --Basile Morin 02:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree that version is better, but this isn't VIC. There was no flash used and no protective glass -- this is how it was displayed in the museum. QIC is about whether it's a technically adequate capture, not the best version. Rhododendrites 04:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it is inadequate, because it gives the impression that these reflections are parts of the painting. Whereas they're not. You realize the reality only when you can compare, which is the case here. The artwork should be recognizable. It's not as if the photo was the masterpiece. The painting should be the piece of art. Then, if you produce an image with obvious flaws, it directly affects the original artwork, and its "quality" of course. Hence no QI for me -- Basile Morin 11:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. --Plozessor 05:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment License or description info needs to be changed IMHO to reflect that the main subject is public domain. --C messier 07:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh right, I totally overlooked the description. It should actually use the "Art Photo" template to make it clear that the photo, not the artwork, is Rhododendrites'. --Plozessor 08:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't often upload photos of paintings. I'd be appreciative if someone who knows the appropriate template(s) could add it to the file page to reflect the point above. Rhododendrites 18:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: ✓ Done --Plozessor 19:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about the licensing though. Is this painting Public Domain in the US at all? --Plozessor 19:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The painter died in 1931 so I think it is PD. --C messier 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Not necessarily because the copyright in US can be renewed in its 28th year to a maximum of 95 years. However, the majority of paintings was not renewed, and I could not find a renewal record for this painting in the publicly available databases. Thus it seems that it's Public Domain now and accordingly I added the PD-US-not renewed template, but still I'm not 1000 % sure. --Plozessor 08:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Brest_Railway_Museum_Л_0009_Steam_Locomotive_2023-03-05_3262.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Л 0009‎ Steam Locomotive in the Brest Railway Museum. --Mike1979 Russia 07:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Unfavorable crop on the left. I don't know if that's fixable. --Benjism89 18:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The main object is steam locomotive and It is whole on the foto. The tender isn't object of this foto. --Mike1979 Russia 13:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit soft, but good for QI. Composition is OK, not a great fan of the shadow bottom left. --C messier 07:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Plozessor 08:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Benjism, technically good, but bad crop. --Augustgeyler 09:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Locomotive is complete. OK for me. Signature is missing. --Augustgeyler 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support @Augustgeyler I see you are new here, you dont strike but add " {{Unsigned |1= User:Jovo|Jovo}} --Mile (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Thank you. --August (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Liège_BW_2019-08-17_15-07-30.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belgium, Liège, Couvent des Mineurs --Berthold Werner 14:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Well exposed, but not sharp at full resolution and teh crop doesn't let the image breathe. --Needsmoreritalin 14:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We should not overdo. For me the image is O. K. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issues with the crop, but this picture has extremely unnatural colors (can easily be seen when comparing it to the many other publicly available pictures of the same building). Signatur is missing.--August (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issues with the crop, but this picture has extremely unnatural colors (can easily be seen when comparing it to the many other publicly available pictures of the same building). --Plozessor 10:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I wonder how you know what the ‘right’ colours should be. --Berthold Werner 15:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Berthold Werner: Actually the colors of the sky in your picture are looking strange, that's why I checked at all. Found tons of picture of this building on the Internet, and from those it seems clear that something is wrong with 'your' colors. That should be not too hard to fix though. --Plozessor 16:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Temp  Oppose. The image sharpness is completely sufficient for QIC, considering the image resolution. The ancient lens is obviously still easily good enough for good A4 prints if you take care of the CA, which has been done well here. The colours of the building itself are fine, because we don't have direct sunlight here, as in most other photos of the same object, but rather a more or less blue sky, which is particularly noticeable on the roof. A polarising filter could have helped, but on the other hand this probably corresponds to the visual impression at the moment the photo was taken. The only thing that went wrong was with the sky itself, where there are a few strange processing artefacts and it generally appears slightly greenish to me. The treetops also seem to be too saturated in colour. --Smial 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello Smial , we usually agree with the assessments. But I can't follow you here. Please take a look at some of the underexposed photos, for example, that we mark as QI and compare them with the picture presented here. Best regards -- Spurzem 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Ich hab mal zwei Notizen hinzugefügt. Da sind halt scharfkantige Flecken, die da so nicht hinpassen. --Smial 13:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Berthold Werner: Die Farbkorrektur ist jetzt in die andere Richtung gekippt, dann lieber die Originalfarben lassen, Hauptsache die komischen Flecken kommen irgendwie weg. --Smial 13:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Ich habe die Flecken retouchiert. --Berthold Werner 16:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Besser ;-)  Support. --Smial 09:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Colors are a bit dull, but sharpness and perspective are ok. --Sebring12Hrs 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, the WB is off. Additionally the sharpness is too low, especially on the upper left part of the building. --Augustgeyler 09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Macaque_de_Gibraltar_(Macaca_sylvanus)_-_tête_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barbary Ape (Macaca sylvanus) at Monkey Mountain in Kintzheim (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 03:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 06:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed background. --2015 Michael 2015 06:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture including background is perfect IMO. --Plozessor 05:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Michael. --Smial 16:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. There are some bright spots in the completely blurry background, but I don't think that this is disturbing. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I think the face was captured very well. But per Michael. Even some parts of the arms are  Overexposed . --Augustgeyler 08:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support "Overexposed background" does not mean that the PICTURE is overexposed. And it's different also from a burnt background, where the highlights are blown, when the camera reaches its technical limits and cannot capture enough nuances of shades. Different case here. It's very clear that reducing the intensity of the light would bring more details of this background, because it's not completely white. There are a few clear colors. So, the light is correctly managed in this situation. It is just a picture with important contrasts, subject in the shadow, and luminous background. Nothing wrong, and this photo is of the same kind. You may like or dislike the effect, but technically it is as acceptable as a luminous subject with dark background. Focus is correct, level of detail is important, animal is normally lit, no problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Basile Morin --Jakubhal 15:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Topaasstraat_54,_Breda_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Large sticker mural on a window of potatoes being prepared in various ways --ReneeWrites 23:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 06:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness to me, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 23:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 05:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lack sharpness and detail due to intense noise reduction. --Augustgeyler 07:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Not perfect but good enough IMO. --MB-one 09:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 09:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:BMW_G61_IMG_9890.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination BMW G61 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 16:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unfavorable composition with the grey car in background (so that the subject doesn't stand out). --Plozessor 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, subject stands out sufficiently in the composition. --Mike Peel 09:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. Parking lot photo,sorry. --Smial 13:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Augustgeyler 22:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 22:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Bier-Bauch-Buche_bench,_Oberursel_(LRM_20240128_140326).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wooden bench at the "Bier-Bauch-Buche" (Fagus bierbauchus) in Stadtwald Oberursel --MB-one 09:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting image with a story behind, but I don't think that these dark shadows and CA on branches make it QI. Let's discuss --Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина. --Augustgeyler 08:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Solar_bench_in_Dendermonde_(DSCF0484).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Solar bench in Dendermonde (Belgium) --Trougnouf 10:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Interesting, but let's sweep first? --Georgfotoart 17:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That wouldn't be authentic and it's irrelevant here anyway. --Trougnouf 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, the cigarette butts are annoying --Georgfotoart 11:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Why has this been moved to Discussions without a single supporting or opposing vote? From my side  Weak oppose because of the perspective. --Plozessor 05:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, I overlooked --Georgfotoart 11:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 10:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support COM:I "good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations." This is the floor of a public place, not a palace. The pavements behind are not leveled, it will never be perfectly clean. No problem with the current perspective in my view. It is very appropriate to show the subject (solar panels and bench shapes) under this specific angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective is good, as is the reflection. I guess you just have to live with the cigarette butts. --Georgfotoart (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basile Morin (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Общий_вид_на_центр_Москвы_с_Софийской_набережной.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Good quality now. --Augustgeyler 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my support Spurzem and Plozessor made a point here. I am not sure if this is QI now. I am undecided and hope others decide. --August (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Large parts of the area are too much in shadow. That's a shame, but in my opinion the photo is not a QI. --Spurzem 13:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment As this is an evening view it is obviously large parts will be in shadow. I don't understand how it may be a "shame", or we must forbid any evening photos here? --Юрий Д.К. 14:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Composition is part of QI, that would include choosing a proper time to take a picture of an object (= when light is good). Personally I have an issue when the subject of an image is dark while the surroundings are bright (like here). --Plozessor 12:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I agree that the light is not ideal for the object. But as a backlight photo it satisfy the QI. --Mike1979 Russia 06:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Virgin_Mary_Queen_of_Poland_church_in_Znin_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Virgin Mary Queen of Poland church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 07:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not upright --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Verticals are OK, I don't see any problems with this image. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was above not clear, correct is: For me it looks like as it is leaning to the right, i.e. a "perfect" perspective correction is sometimes the wrong attempt. --2015 Michael 2015 09:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with 2015 Michael 2015, the image is leaning a bit to the right. --C messier 20:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A clear and sharp image. But the intense PC applied here led to an unrealistic impression of the dimensions. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 24 Jul → Thu 01 Aug
  • Thu 25 Jul → Fri 02 Aug
  • Fri 26 Jul → Sat 03 Aug
  • Sat 27 Jul → Sun 04 Aug
  • Sun 28 Jul → Mon 05 Aug
  • Mon 29 Jul → Tue 06 Aug
  • Tue 30 Jul → Wed 07 Aug
  • Wed 31 Jul → Thu 08 Aug
  • Thu 01 Aug → Fri 09 Aug