Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 10 2014

• Nomination Aldwick Beach, Sussex. Mattbuck 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Too dark at left, motion blur on clouds --Daniel Case 05:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  It was a 15-second exposure, intentionally! While I'm happy to believe this isn't QI, motion blur is not a good reason for it. Mattbuck 07:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose unsharp and posterizarion Christian Ferrer 17:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination 30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140202 - BMW vs Deutsche Bank --Pleclown 11:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline  Oppose Crop too tight at top --Christian Ferrer 22:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  This type of composition (cut stick) is quite common in polo photography. --Pleclown 11:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Socio-cultural centre in Mondorff, France --Cayambe 08:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC).  Oppose Lots of noise or artefacts especially on the roof, on the wooden boards, and on the shadowed areas --A.Savin 13:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Sorry, but I would like to hear a second opinion here. --Cayambe 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm afraid A.Savin is right (anyway, I agree with him). Additionally, Remember: I don't know about the "threshold of originality", but there is no FoP in France...--Jebulon 15:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Green shield bug (Palomena prasina) --Charlesjsharp 09:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Not in focus. --Mattbuck 22:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  other opinions pleae --Charlesjsharp 09:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
   Oppose Insufficinet sharpness due to f/36 -> diffraction blurr. --NorbertNagel 21:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)  Oppose Good colour and light, but slightly blurry by head section.--Peulle 11:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination --Charlesjsharp 13:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Northern wing and portal of Herzogenburg Monastery --Uoaei1 21:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline  Oppose Blur and brightening haloes in the left half --A.Savin 11:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
   Info I uploaded a new improved version and ask for re-review. --Uoaei1 13:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Better, but I'd like further opinion --A.Savin 19:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough in my opinion, sorry.--Jebulon 14:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I also think the sharpness is a problem. Otherwise a good composition.--Peulle 11:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Junonia atlites. --JDP90 15:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline  Oppose This one seems a bit too soft to me --A.Savin 10:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  The subject is sharp I think. May be you are right. But I don't want to change the status to discuss for my own nomination . --JDP90
  

No problem, let's put it to CR. --A.Savin 10:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak  Support --Uoaei1 12:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Oppose Good colouring, but slightly blurred torso and head.--Peulle 11:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Gullfoss waterfall in Iceland in the summer --Reykholt 18:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Mattbuck 21:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice but poor level of detail considering the small image size (foreground, left part). --Kreuzschnabel 07:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --P e z i 19:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose a nice 2006 picture... Which does not fit no more with the current QI standards, sorry. Sky very noisy.--Jebulon 14:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Gullfoss waterfall in Iceland --Reykholt 18:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Bit noisy but ok.# --Mattbuck 21:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose A slight blueish cast might be acceptable under the dark blue Island sky, but this kind of blue is just bad white balancing. (I could upload an improved version.) --Kreuzschnabel 07:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Agree to Kreuzschnabel. --Till.niermann 12:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose strong and unnatural blue cast.--Jebulon 21:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Timber framed historic house in Hamburg-Allermöhe --Dirtsc 17:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose - Blur around the edges. --Mattbuck 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  Please let's take a look if the new version is good enough. --Dirtsc 19:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  Now it's quite incredibly oversharpened. Mattbuck 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Please also take note of the posterisation effect in the top right corner. --Sitacuisses 18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose Oversharpened, overdenoised, sharpening halo (see the wire on the roof), posterization as noticed by Sitacuisses. Nice light and composition, but sadly not a QI.--Jebulon 14:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm sorry, that was not well done. I resetted to the former version. Thanks for review! --Dirtsc 17:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• weak  Oppose Nice composition, but the quality is just not there. Sorry. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Please use only normal assessment templates. Any other templates are not recognized by the bot. Thank you.--Jebulon 21:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination bicycle rent station in Budapest --Ralf Roletschek 13:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  OpposeNice composition, but too much overexposure for me. --Mattbuck 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
•  SupportSky is of no importance for this image, and the shiny parts are that bright, i don’t see many blown parts. QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 07:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Mattbuck. --VT98Fan 19:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Per Kreuzschnabel. Exposure is adequate for the main subject. --Sitacuisses 20:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice image, but problematic crop: the subject is the bike station, and some of the bikes are cropped out; the station itself is out of focus. Suggest zoom out. Also, image description is inadequate.--Peulle 11:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• weak  Support DOF is obviously intentional. If you have completely covered sky, then this is the light source. This is not the most desirable lighting, if the sky is inside the frame. You can chose between RGB 255,255,255 or RGB 250,250,250 or RGB 240,240 240 etc.... Although I usually decline images with burnt areas, if they are leading to false colours or affect important parts of the subject, in this case the problem is ineglible. -- Smial 06:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Better image than the old version which got declined here Mariofan13 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline
•  SupportGood quality. Please provide English image description. --Uoaei1 06:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness and chroma noise --A.Savin 11:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  CommentEnglish description provided. @A. Savin: What is blur except the background and where can you see noise? Mariofan13 13:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm sorry, but there is no sharpness nowhere, we have chromatic noise indeed, and chromatic aberrations too. Nice flower, but not a QI. Sorry.--Jebulon 14:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • + no identification about the species (please read the rules)--Jebulon 14:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  CommentSorry, I'm not a botanist so I don't know the exact species. And where the piture is blurred except the background? Mariofan13 16:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose No identification. Caption insufficient. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Tower overviewing the bathing area, Taman Sari, Yogyakarta --Crisco 1492 08:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  : Oppose Overexposure and both sides leaning in Poco a poco 20:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  Restitched and reworked.Crisco 1492 07:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  Better, but the overexposure is still too significant Poco a poco 20:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  Dropped the exposure by 0.2, and according to Lightroom there are now no blown highlights worth mentioning.Crisco 1492 06:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  Not convinced, fact is that the details are gone. You can go for discussion if you like Poco a poco 20:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  Have asked for a discussion and will upload proof of my statement.Crisco 1492 01:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Decline *This shows four areas which look like they have blown highlights (i.e. the areas with the greatest amount of light, and fairly plain textures), as well as what Lightroom finds blown (in red). The first three, the main parts of the structure and the focus of the image, have texture; the building is simply cleaner there, and the color of the roof tile is already a very pale cream (this can be confirmed by looking at any other image, including the decidedly under-exposed File:Taman Sari Yogyakarta 2009 panoramic.jpg). The last one, the steps, admittedly have more blown highlights, but they are secondary to the focus of the image and even then the blown area is not particularly large.Crisco 1492 10:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Moroder 11:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Softening (denoising) too strong = loss of details (see palms, for instance) and posterization.--Jebulon 14:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't recall adding any more than 10 to luminance denoising, even before downsampling from 18k to 12.5k.Crisco 1492 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)