Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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

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]] 22:08, 4 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 5, 2024

[edit]

August 4, 2024

[edit]

August 3, 2024

[edit]

August 2, 2024

[edit]

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 20, 2024

[edit]

July 19, 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:Miradouro_das_Rocas_2023-03-13-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Miradouro das Rocas, Peneda-Gerês National Park, Portugal. --The Cosmonaut 00:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 01:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching issue. Blurry frame at the right of the white car. --Basile Morin 02:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great shot but unfortunately a few blurry frames inbetween, there's also something that looks like a stitching error a bit above the frame mentioned by Basile. Not 100 % sure that the stitching around the wind turbines in the right background was correct too. --Plozessor 04:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, before nominating at FPC it should pass here. --Milseburg 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Liège_BW_2019-08-17_15-25-22.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belgium, Liège, Eglise Notre-Dame-de-l'Immaculée-Conceptón --Berthold Werner 12:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --AuHaidhausen 15:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks unnatural because of too strong PC and also not sharp at the top --Екатерина Борисова 01:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина, too distorted. --Augustgeyler 11:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ornamental_writing_desck_in_Münchner_Residenz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ornamental writing desck in Münchner Residenz --AuHaidhausen 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question It is slightly  Underexposed – fixable? --Augustgeyler 13:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, now it got too bright, you should not just brighten it, but increase exposure, to save the dark parts. Additionally you seamed to add some PC. That produced white stripes at the side. Please fix that as well. --Augustgeyler 16:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@Augustgeyler: Please excuse me, but I have the impression that you want to annoy me in a know-it-all manner and show what a great expert you are. Best regards -- Spurzem 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I reviewed here to help improving it. But to get such negative statements back feels very bad. Not willing to invest any more time and moving to CR. --Augustgeyler 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too bright now (darkest pixel is at 17 %) and white stripe in the uper left corner. --Plozessor 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: The photo was criticized for being too dark. Now if anyone else had brightened it up a bit, it would be good. But since Spurzem tried to improve the photo, it is bad. -- Spurzem 09:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: No, it is not bad because you modified it. It is bad because whoever edited it (you apparently) just increased the brightness so that some things are too bright now, instead of raising shadows/mid-tones/highlights individually and/or using contrast stretching. A picture like this should have its darkest parts near 0 % and its brightest parts near 100 %, this one has nothing darker than 17 %. --Plozessor 13:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment New image,thank you --AuHaidhausen 14:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Brightness is good now, but doesn't it have a blue tint? --Plozessor 15:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
 Weak support Yeah, background is still a bit noisy, but given the light conditions I think it is ok now. --Plozessor 04:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality (latest version). --Benjism89 08:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Site_Security_Control_Center,_Wachstube,_Blick_nach_außen_--_2024_--_4570.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Guardroom (view through the window to the entrance) in the Site Security Control Center at the Dülmen-Visbeck Special Ammunition Depot, Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 07:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
     Info In case anyone is wondering about the blurred spots: These are stains and scratches on the glass of the window that cannot be removed. Given the age of the object, this is normal. --XRay 06:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I appreciate, that the defects are due to the window glass being old. But for this motif, it doesn't matter IMO. The same view could have been shot from in front of the defective window. --MB-one 09:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment However, this would not achieve the effect of being able to see all the way to the entrance from the guardroom. But that was very important to me for this picture. --XRay 05:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok with the explanation. "View from the guardroom." --Plozessor 07:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 07:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Doesn't make it for me, sorry. A shot through the glass of a historic window would be interesting if you could see some elements of this window, such as its frame. But if the only elements you can see of this window are blurred spots, what's the point ? This picture would be the same if it had been taken through a dirty 21st-century window. Per MB-one, this should have been shot from in front of the window. --Benjism89 08:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 08:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Jesi_-_Palazzo_Pianetti_1637.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Palazzo Pianetti in Jesi, Italy. By User:Phyrexian --Lvova 09:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but isn't sharp--GoldenArtists 14:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Plozessor 10:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Fixed Please have a look. Please feel free to revert image version if not ok. --Gpkp (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Definitely better, still borderline so remaining  Neutral, let's hear other opinions. --Plozessor 04:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gpkp: thank you, but I think contrast and colours are too diiferent, in this case I would prefer to upload a separate file. Feel free to do it and nominate it here if you want. :-) I will restore the image and the vote from Plozessor. --Phyrexian 06:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I have no idea which version shows the more natural colours, but both are sharp enough for a good A4-size printout. --Smial 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp --AuHaidhausen 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough IMO. --Benjism89 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_163.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TC at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 21:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is not working IMO. The other car in the front is distracting. It could be more in view or kept out be stepping slightly to the right. --Augustgeyler 04:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Other car removed with generative AI, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 06:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --August (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --Plozessor 10:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The lower right part of the car is a bit dark. But the composition is good if I don't see the flag. We have not much images of cars with such a nice surrouding like here. -- Spurzem 13:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 20:54, 4 August 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 isn't fast enough for cycling, despite "Action program (biased toward fast shutter speed)" --PetarM 11:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus is on the second driver's vest, everything else is blurry. Would have been better with higher ISO and shorter exposure I guess. --Plozessor 14:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1/250s can be quite suitable in such a situation if you want to use blurring as a design element, as you can see in the spokes of the wheels, for example. But unfortunately, the focus here is on the second person, whereas it should be on the rider in the foreground. --Smial 15:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are all right! Once in a lifetime at QIC I did not pixel peep into the shot. It looked nice and as a semiprofessional sports photographer I know that it's not always easy to take a spot at the inside of a curve, so I voted in favour of the photo. --Granada 04:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:13, 1 August 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 panelling 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)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem, apart from the criticism of the exposure (this seems to be a plastic add-on part with a metal look and is therefore allowed to shine). --Smial 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment For sure this is not the perfect shot for illustrating articles - but I guess therefore we have VI. As far as I know, QI is more about the quality of the image. And, well, the car stood on a meadow with no number plates and the notes in the windshield, since the car is for sale.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support This is a car for sale, I don't see how the missing license plate or the notes in the windshield are an issue. Picture could be slightly sharper but IMO it's ok. There are also no disturbing foreground or background elements.
    Unsigned vote stricken. Please sign your votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Argh, I'm getting old :( --Plozessor 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak supportThis is a car for sale, I don't see how the missing license plate or the notes in the windshield are an issue. Picture could be slightly sharper but IMO it's ok. There are also no disturbing foreground or background elements. --Plozessor 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: In order to be awarded a prize in Wikipedia:KEB, the photos had to be used or could have been used to illustrate an article. For which article would you want to use the snapshot shown here? Incidentally, it is not mentioned that the photo should show a car on display for sale. And vehicles in an exhibition for sale usually do not have such a lot of notes in the windshield and do not stand out of the way on a meadow. The car is parked and apparently it hasn't been washed yet for sale. But fine by me: declare everything to be a quality photo, no matter what it looks like. -- Spurzem 13:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Is the potential "to be awarded a prize in Wikipedia:KEB" a QI requirement? And why couldn't the picture be used in an article about car sales, Hyundai dealers, something like that? --Plozessor 09:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 22:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:08, 1 August 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)
  •  Comment I am sorry, did not see this in the first place. --Augustgeyler 07:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There's no problem with someone's face being visible in a QI. Good quality overall. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    Considered as "Beiwerk", so identifiable face is no problem --PantheraLeo1359531 09:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good sharpness. --Smial 12:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
     Question What is the reason for the opposing vote? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Blown highlights + pink hue in the background -- Basile Morin 06:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:11, 1 August 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 2020 --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 off hands on the left) --Augustgeyler 22:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. Could probably try to rescue it with better raw conversion and cropping the half person on the left out. --Plozessor 15:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Sharpness is acceptable to me. But you need to crop out the hands on the left. --Benjism89 08:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:00, 1 August 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)

  •  Comment @Georgfotoart: Thanks for your review. Lower part was cut off. —- Johann Jaritz 07:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The latest version is OK to me, although the composition is not ideal. --Benjism89 08:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Georgfotoart 10:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Michael. --Augustgeyler 11:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Capreolus_capreolus_in_Murg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fearful roe deer --UnFUG-Fabi 10:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  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)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 20:35, 2 August 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)
  • Promotion
  • 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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:16, 2 August 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)

* Support ok to me.Ermell 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment Strong masking errors at the top right.--Ermell 21:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes? Ermell 15:16, 2 August 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)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:13, 2 August 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)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Solar_bench_in_Dendermonde_(DSCF0484).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Solar bench in Dendermonde (Belgium) --Trougnouf 10:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:11, 2 August 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)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basile Morin 14:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)