Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 21 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Sandakan_Sabah_Shell-Station-Labuk_Road-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sandakan, Sabah: Shell Station Labuk Road --Cccefalon 04:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Missing only a written and is an excellent advertising --Livioandronico2013 08:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Comment Logos all over the place with no appropriate template and categorization. --SkywalkerPL 22:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 Comment The SHELL brand is within the categories. All logos are COM:De minimis. It is hence not a must, to add a template. All criteria for QIC are met. Please do not introduce new rules without consent. --Cccefalon 04:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 Comment This is not a case of De minimis logo. Logos belong to the primary subject of this photograph, you even put the company name in a title of your file. --SkywalkerPL 08:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
To which QIC rule are you referring with your critics, please? And why not just adding a template, if it is disturbing for you? --Cccefalon 12:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This one: Image page requirements Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. But I see that the issue is resolved now. In either case, lesson for future: use the De minimis#Guidelines before trying to apply it. --SkywalkerPL 09:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You haven't understood QIC so far: The requirement of a suitable license has nothing to do with trademarks. It is referring to COM:LIC. There, you can also find an important explanation:
It is important to make the distinction between copyright, trademarks, and patents. Wikimedia Commons generally only enforces copyright restrictions, for these reasons:
Almost anything can be trademarked, and it wouldn't make sense to forbid everything.
Trademarks and industrial designs restrictions are pertinent to industrial reproduction, but photographs of such items can otherwise be freely reproduced.
--Cccefalon 07:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Due to the short lens the big transparency seems a bit too broad. But QI for me. -- Spurzem 12:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Categories do not interest me and have no effect on the quality of a photo. --Ralf Roletschek 16:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Here, a "quality image" is NOT only an image with technical qualities. Please read the guidelines !!!!! --Jebulon 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Jebulon, there was an appropriate category Category:Shell Station Labuk Road from the very beginning available. Beside other categories, this category had an overcategory Category:Shell Malaysia. The guideline was perfectly met from the very beginning. --Cccefalon 08:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Of course. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My comment is an answer to Ralf, who is an activist against perspective corrections and useful categorizations for years Clin. Please notice that I did not vote !--Jebulon 21:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support per resolved copyright issue. --SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment  Oppose and  Support in the same time is not possible in CR. You have to strike out one or both of your votes. --Cccefalon 08:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment SkywalkerPL? o or s, please delete one with < s > </ s > and ur sign --Jean11 22:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Atamari 21:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Lac de Saint Andéol en juillet.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Lake of Saint Andéol on the Aubrac plateau (Massif central, France)--Jmp48 10:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Loss of details in the water and background. --Cccefalon 20:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Franchement n'importe quoi. Il faut être compétent avant de juger ! --Jmp48 06:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment What do you want to say? You think, after reviewing thousands of images, I am still not competent enough to recognize the flaws of your nomination? You still can send it to CR, if you disagree my rating. --Cccefalon 09:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Some minor flaws indeed, but imo good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 11:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy sky, unsharp background: the focus seems to be on the foreground --KL KL 19:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment I don't understand. There are clouds in the sky pusched by the wind. It's normal.--Jmp48 10:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment There can be clouds in the sky, that's perfectly fine. There is noise (see section Noise in COM:I) in the sky, which consists of grainy clouds and a grainy blue sky. In my opinion this noise could be acceptable if there was not the sharpness issue. But for instance if you look at the grass on the left in the middle, it is totally unsharp and looks blurred. --KL KL 11:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Compression problems, either blurry or overcompressed --Shansov.net 23:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment This photo is not compressed.--Jmp48 10:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 Comment Jmp48, the guys here are just trying to explain, where the visible flaws in the image are coming from. Sometimes, it is not possible to give accurate reasons, because no one was sitting behind you, when you postprocessed the image. You probably would be not happy, if the decline does not comes with an explanation. You might take the comments as a help for your future work on your images.
However, I want to point out, that the settings of your camera are not really appropriate for a landscape shot. It might have been better to choose a landscape-appropriate aperture (e.g. 8 or 9 instead of 6.4) and in the same time reducing the shutter time. For a static motiv 1/125 is good enough. You might tell me, that you just set it to "Automatic" .... well, if yes, do not complain, that the result is just random. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
f/8 is not a good idea when using a compact camera with small sensor. In case of that fuji camera f/8 would be equivalent to f/45 in 135 film format. So Fuji decided to limit the aperture setting to f/6.4 (in wide angle range), which still is equivalent to f/35 in 135er. The same lens has a maximum f-stop of f/3.1 (wide angle) which corresponds to aperture f/16 in terms of diffraction and DOF, compared to 135 film. --Smial 12:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for enlightening me :) But what is the conclusion concerning the image: Is it bad quality because of bad camera operation or bad postprocessing in your opinion? --Cccefalon 17:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The discussion is inappropriate: dismal quality. As other users--Lmbuga 00:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)