Content deleted Content added
Christian Ferrer (talk | contribs)
46.126.167.8 (talk)
Line 11: Line 11:
== October 3, 2013 ==
== October 3, 2013 ==
<gallery>
<gallery>
File:Richard Hill at CoPS2013-IMG 9267.jpg|{{/Nomination|Richard Hill speaking at CoPS2013 at the EPFL. -- [[User:null|null]] 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |}}

File:Foiano War Cemetery 03.jpg|{{/Nomination|Foiano della Chiana Commonwealth war cemetery --[[User:Edisonblus|Edisonblus]] 20:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |}}
File:Foiano War Cemetery 03.jpg|{{/Nomination|Foiano della Chiana Commonwealth war cemetery --[[User:Edisonblus|Edisonblus]] 20:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |}}



Revision as of 21:28, 3 October 2013

Nominations

Due to changes in the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 17:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.

October 3, 2013

October 2, 2013

October 1, 2013

September 30, 2013

September 29, 2013

September 28, 2013

September 27, 2013

September 26, 2013

September 25, 2013

September 24, 2013

September 22, 2013

September 21, 2013

September 20, 2013

September 18, 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:Olena_Tsibulska_(DakhaBrakha)_(Haldern_Pop_2013)_IMGP6613_smial_wp.jpg

  • Nomination Olena Tsibulska (Олена Цибульська) of DakhaBrakha at Haldern Pop Festival 2013. --Smial 09:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose unfavorable light, noise, messy background --A.Savin 10:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree I believe the result is not too bad, given the actual lighting situation --Smial 10:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    QI imo. --Kadellar 16:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Kruszwica kolegiata śś. Piotra i Pawła(WLZ13).JPG

  • Nomination Saints Peter and Paul collegiate church in Kruszwica, Poland --1bumer 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Slightly tilted, can you fix that please? --Kadellar 17:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Better? --1bumer 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    Lovely. Mattbuck 16:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    Still tilted (there was a message on user's talk page) --Kadellar 19:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Casa_de_los_Abades_de_Pelplin,_Gdansk,_Polonia,_2013-05-20,_DD_08.jpg

  • Nomination House of the Abbots of Pelplin, Gdansk, Poland --Poco a poco 18:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Bit too much contract on the low end I think. Mattbuck 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    Didn't get you, sorry, what do you mean? Poco a poco 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    Just brighten the low levels. Mattbuck 19:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 21:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done Just on time!, sorry, I missed your comment Poco a poco 22:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    Hm, better but I'm not sold. The right side is a bit blurry, and looks to be suffering overexposure. I'll let CR people decide. Mattbuck 15:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Graffiti_Michael_Jackson_near_Hollywood_Blv_2013.jpg

File:Graffiti Michael Jackson near Hollywood Blv 2013.jpg

  • Nomination Graffiti of Michael Jackson near Hollywood Blv. in Los Angeles --Tuxyso 20:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI; funny picture --P e z i 23:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, but this picture shall be deleted, no FOP in the States --Poco a poco 18:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    Have you got an explanatory link? I have taken a look on - there are many graffitis from the States. --Tuxyso 22:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    I guess it is painted before 1978. There is no further copyright notice on the graffiti. --Tuxyso 22:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    The photo is based images in Jackson's video for the 1988 song Dirty Diana, so it can't be from before 1978. The image should be deleted as a derivative on the artist's painting. Royalbroil 03:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That is really pity. IMHO any restriction FOP is absurd and senseless, but this is another debate. --Tuxyso 07:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Dlijia_San_Genesio_La_Val_01.JPG

  • Nomination Parish church in La Val --Moroder 06:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 06:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment In my opinion the picture is gloomy and the crop below is too tight. Further it seems to be a little bit lop-sided. I ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:13-05-05 Oldtimerteffen Liblar Porsche weiss 01.jpg

  • Nomination Whtite Porsche 912 at Oldtimer meet-up -- Achim Raschka 05:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality.--ArildV 08:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Entschuldigung, aber ich bin nicht begeistert. Das Auto sollte ins Bild hineinfahren, d. h. links etwas mehr Abstand zum Rand, rechts weniger. Außerdem sind die Konturen der Tür, des Kofferraumdeckels und der Tankklappe zum Teil nur schwer erkennbar (schwierige Lichtverhältnisse!). Und was mich sehr stört, ist das Informationsblatt an der Windschutzscheibe. -- Spurzem 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed --Christian Ferrer 21:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Cerkiew_w_Milejczycach.JPG

  • Nomination Orthodox church in Milejczyce, Poland (by Adam Falkowski --Winiar 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overprocessed --Smial 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
     Support I see no overprocessing here. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 07:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
     Support --Christian Ferrer 05:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Canon RC-6 Wireless Remote Control 02.jpg

  • Nomination A Canon Remote Control, taken by an EOS600D. --Varmin 15:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Cayambe 08:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
    * In my opinion there is too much dirt around the object. Additionally, the picture is not very sharp. --Florian Fuchs 06:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    * I can remove the dirt aroud the objet with the gimp, is it better ? --Varmin 11:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    The dirt is almost gone now. However, the picture still is not very sharp. --Florian Fuchs 14:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    I made some little modifications with the sharpness, but for me it's sharp, except for the little triangle in the top of the remote (because low f and focus on the "canon" logo). --Varmin 15:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose The problem is the triangle. In my opinion you should do the shot again and either use a different aperture or try focus stacking. --Florian Fuchs 05:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:King's Cross railway station MMB 78.jpg

  • Nomination King's Cross station. Mattbuck 08:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Underexposed --Colin 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    Fixed Mattbuck 21:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Elvas September 2013-32.jpg

  • Nomination View in the city of Elvas, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 22:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion I would crop tighter at the top. Slightly burnt highlights. --Tuxyso 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC) -- Only the blue channel is slightly blown. In don't agree with the crop. To CR, then! :)

File:Milton Keynes Central railway station MMB 12 377208.jpg

  • Nomination 377208 at Milton Keynes. Mattbuck 09:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose too harsh shadow --A.Savin 13:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Shadows brightened. Mattbuck 08:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    Don't think you can recover this -- the lighting is just too harsh. -- Colin 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Sorry. But the shadow is too dark. -- Spurzem 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Marius_Chivu_at_Göteborg_Book_Fair_2013_01.jpg

  • Nomination Marius Chivu at Göteborg Book Fair 2013. --ArildV 06:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined slight noise in dark areas, POF not on eye, nose unsharp --P e z i 14:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC) As far as i can see, the POF is on the eyes and the sharpness is imo good enough for QI. Did you think "slight noise" is a reason to decline photos taken indoors? --ArildV 17:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment I've set it to Discussion. Let's have additional reviews. --P e z i 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
     Support OK for me. I would in contrary say that NR a even slightly too strong. BTW: I would try to brighten the area around the eyes. --Tuxyso 09:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
     Support --JLPC 15:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Death_Valley_Bad_Water_Basin_03_2013.jpg

  • Nomination View from Bad Water Basin in Death Valley --Tuxyso 00:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Darker spot in the sky (dust on sensor?) that could be removed. Image might be cropped to remove a bit of the somewhat too bright soil, in an application of the rule of thirds. --Tufta 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    It is somehow unusual to decline directly when there are minor issues which can be corrected easily (like crop or dust spots). Thus I changed to discuss and will upload a new version soon. --Tuxyso 23:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Dust spots removed. Rule of third (+ diagonal lines) was massively used, I composed the image very carefully. Please take a look on the image notes. BTW: Also if I had not used rule of thirds that hat not been an QI issue. --Tuxyso 01:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
     Support QI for me. Pleclown 08:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
     Support --JLPC 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerstift Altenburg-DSC 3067w.jpg

  • Nomination Benedictin Monastery, Altenburg, Austria --P e z i 23:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The dark areas of the right are a bit noisy. Slight dust spot (see note)--Lmbuga 01:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done dust spot removed --P e z i 13:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Too dark sky. --Kadellar 13:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO--Lmbuga 21:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • CR, because of the sky. --Kadellar 10:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment worked on sky; better? --P e z i 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, better, but isn't it too soft? Could you increase sharpness somehow? I'm sorry I didn't see this when I first commented. --Kadellar 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Uploaded a sharpened version - please could you have a look? --P e z i 23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, a bit soft, but ok. --Kadellar 19:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The last version seem ok --Christian Ferrer 19:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Roberto_Fico_2013.JPG

  • Nomination Roberto Fico, Italian politician. --Jaqen 13:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality for me. Pymouss 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    The shirt is overexposed and actually glowing. Mattbuck 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Andreas Prommegger - Tag des Sports 2013 Wien.jpg

  • Nomination Andreas Prommegger. --Tsui 13:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    Shirt appears overexposed. Mattbuck 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Jaeger-LeCoultre_Polo_Masters_2013_-_31082013_-_Final_match_Poloyou_vs_Lynx_Energy_3.jpg

  • Nomination Jaeger-LeCoultre Polo Masters 2013 - 31082013 - Final match Poloyou vs Lynx Energy --Pleclown 11:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Roars the image and the colors in the background are flooded. I do not understand why you need ISO 800 in bright sunshine. --Steindy 13:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    To stop the action. As you can see I'm at 1/3200 and the pictures can be blurry because of action. Polo is a very fast game. Pleclown 18:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Faster than Formula 1 Rallye, football or handball? I can not believe it! --Steindy 19:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    faster than football or handball, without any doubt. I don't know about F1, but a galloping horse is fast, and a stick even faster. Pleclown 20:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    I can not see any issue with ISO800, no visible noise. The lens has an ugly bokeh, and we have a slight overexposure. Please discuss. --Smial 13:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Jaeger-LeCoultre_Polo_Masters_2013_-_31082013_-_Final_match_Poloyou_vs_Lynx_Energy_22.jpg

  • Nomination Jaeger-LeCoultre Polo Masters 2013 - 31082013 - Final match Poloyou vs Lynx Energy --Pleclown 11:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Roars the image and the colors in the background are flooded. I do not understand why you need ISO 800 in bright sunshine. --Steindy 13:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree No problem with ISO800. --Smial 13:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Calvaire à Saint Silouane.jpg

  • Nomination Calvaire in the Monastery of Saint Silouane --Massalim 18:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not a Commoner. --King of Hearts 07:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Invalid decline; author is a Commoner. --Óðinn 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me.--Jebulon 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Ciasa_Sompunt_porta_de_ciule.jpg

  • Nomination Door to the cellar in the manor "Sompunt" in Badia --Moroder 15:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI --P e z i 18:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp, sorry.--Jebulon 19:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is perfectly acceptable for me, especially given the 36 MP. --King of Hearts 20:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support These high resolution cameras show the smallest flaws of any lens. The same lens with the same conditions on a camera with 6 or 12 MPix would produce perfectly sharp images at 100% view. This image scaled down to 12 or even 6 MPix will also be perfectly sharp. But it would loose much detail. So we have the choice: Full resolution uploads with minor unsharpness at 100% view, but with the possibility to make enhanced versions or crops based on full resolution, or scaled down versions, which seem to be somewhat sharper, but with much less detail. I believe, images with about 6 MPixels are good enough for most real world purposes, but declining an image because of minor(!) problems which would disappear by simply downscaling it to 6 MPix, is not ok. -- Smial 08:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose per Jebulon. --Iifar 09:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Sharpness adjusted. -- Smial 11:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I should think imho that if you see from the picture what tipe of screws were used to fix the hinges, the sharpness is good enough --Moroder 14:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm agreeing to user:Smial. Had the same ideas behind my promotion. --P e z i 09:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  CommentDownsampling does not make a picture sharper nor better... It just hides the issue...--Jebulon 23:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    But people with lower-resolution cameras, such as a D40, have no choice but to "hide the issue"; their camera does that for them whether they like it or not. And yet we have plenty of QIs and even FPs taken on a D40. -- King of Hearts 07:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    Agree to King of Hearts. My 12-24mm zoom performed excellent on my old *istDs besides some easy removable CA. On the k5 it shows some softness with full resolution. Is the lens today worse than a couple of years ago? No, if I resize to 6MPix, the images are as good as before, or even better because of better noise level of the K5. This has nothing to do with "hiding". --Smial 20:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question Is author ok with so strong downsampling? --Vamps 09:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I reverted to the full size version - Commons provides by default smaller versions if someone prefers them --Moroder 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. With two megapixels is a perfect image. Maybe could be useful to consider changing the rules of QI--Lmbuga 21:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks to Vamps--Lmbuga 21:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Valley_View_Yosemite_August_2013_002.jpg

  • Nomination Valley View, Yosemite National Park. --King of Hearts 08:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI imo, nice view.--ArildV 09:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is nice, definitely. But I would like to discuss about the focus point. For me the rocks are not really sharp and they belong to the overall motive and are not only background.  Question Can you remember the focus point? For such shots the use of hyperfocal distance could be helpful. Probably the focus point was too close to the camera standpoint. The unsharpness of the rocks could also come from foggy air. --Tuxyso 13:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    I just used autofocus on a D5100, which generally chooses the closest thing in a central diamond region, which I estimate is about 10 m. --King of Hearts 20:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support To me the image looks good enough for QI. Btw, the hyperfocal distance - for the settings applied according to the exif data - would be 1.45m ... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    The grass is very close, maybe focus is on the grass bush on the right. --Tuxyso 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Imo it meets the QI criteria. --Vamps 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Upper_Antelope_Canyon_People_2013.jpg

  • Nomination Upper Antelope Canyon with people inside --Tuxyso 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support looks good for me --Rjcastillo 00:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    Nice to see a non-standard picture of Antelope Canyon! But I'd like to discuss the sky section, which looks darkened too much and has odd fringes (some CA(!), some due to the local contrast changes. --Dschwen 02:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's an HDR! After five further attempts the one I've uploaded now is imho the best one. For me more than ✓ Done. What do you think? --Tuxyso 12:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Upper_Antelope_Canyon_Entry_2013.jpg

  • Nomination Entry to Upper Antelope Canyon nearby Page --Tuxyso 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  SupportGood quality. --JDP90 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposePlease correct the fringe due to overexposition in the central upper part.--Jebulon 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please precisely mark it with the note tool? I have only a single RAW shot here, no HDR. BTW: Slight overexposure with Antelope Canyon should not be a reason for decline. The bright area is is neglectable due to its size. Look at the other photos in the appropriate category. --Tuxyso 22:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done? I made some local corrections. Please take another look. --Tuxyso 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry. I've annotated as requested. Easily fixable, IMO.--Jebulon 09:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC) How? If you like: Feel free to fix it. I mostly work with Lightroom. --Tuxyso 12:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support Jebulon, this is not FPC ;-)--Berthold Werner 17:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • As I often say and write here, it is a common mistake to think that "FP" means "technicaly better than QI"...;)--Jebulon 23:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support. May be. But in my opinion it is absolutely enough for QI and nearly excellent. -- Spurzem 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am on Jebulon's side that we should stick to quality criteria. He is also right that there could be FPs which have not chance on QI, like File:USA_Antelope-Canyon.jpg. But it is essential to judge every image with an individual weighting of quality aspects. Example: If you are directly in front of a high building you cannot expect straight verticals for QI. If you do indoor concert shots you cannot expect an image with zero noise. If you photograph a bird in flight you cannot expect 1/200sec at ISO 200 (although you are using a 100mm lens). If you have tiny bright spots (e.g. street lamps on a night shot) you cannot expect that these lamps are not overexposed. In the case of the canyon it is the same as with the street lamps. For me is makes no sense to strongly stick to the criterion (no overexposed parts) if there is no way to photograph such an image without tiny overexposed parts. The bright spots are about >9 f-stops as the brightness inside the canyon - thus even HDR does not help in every case. --Tuxyso 09:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 20:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Photographer_at_Bright_Angel_Point_1.jpg

  • Nomination Photograpgher capturing the sunset at Bright Angel Point, Grand Canyon North Rim. --Dschwen 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --JDP90 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    Very nice, but please remove CAs (see note). --Tuxyso 22:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Eichhörnchen_Düsseldorf_Hofgarten_edit.jpg

  • Nomination squirrel, Sciurus_vulgaris by User:Ray_eye --Jean11 15:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    Below 2 MP, not meeting current QI criteria, despite FP status from 2007. --Yerpo 18:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
     Support 1792 x 1216 = 2.18 MP. --King of Hearts 07:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support. Die Megapixel sollten nicht darüber entscheiden, ob ein Bild gut ist oder nicht. Meiner Meinung nach ist das Eichhörnchen hervorragend getroffen. -- Spurzem 12:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 12:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support als grober Anhalstwert sind Megapixel brauchbar, als Kriterium nicht. Es gibt 1,3 MP Superbilder ebenso wie 20 MP Schrott. --Ralf Roletschek 13:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the head and front legs are clear. For an animal of that size is not good: f/4.8 is a bad choice. --Archaeodontosaurus 08:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose just above minimum 2 Mp and it's not very sharp. --Vamps 09:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Please don't use such unofficial templates: the QI bot does not recognize them. Thanks.--Jebulon 15:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nicht genug scharf, für mich.--Jebulon 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but it's not a quality image IMO: poor DOF and too little with this DOF--Lmbuga 20:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Pfarrmesner_in_St._Peter_03.JPG

  • Nomination Sacristan's home in the parish Saint Peter in Villnöß --Moroder 12:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Lack of fine detail. --Mattbuck 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree. Looks like you've run out of arguments --Moroder 21:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Hamburg Europapassage-Blick-SO-DSC 0251w.jpg

File:Hamburg Europapassage-Blick-SO-DSC 0251w.jpg

  • Nomination Europapassage, Hamburg (shopping mall) --P e z i 20:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not a QI in spite of the nice composition, too much noise --Poco a poco 23:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment strange, twin of this picture (File:Hamburg Europapassage-Blick-NW-DSC 0255w.jpg) was promoted on 17th of Sept. --P e z i 00:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    Well, I didn't promote the other one, and to be honest, wouldn't have. If you disagree, please, move to CR Poco a poco 07:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    That was me a few days ago. In this case - it's an indoor image - we shouldn't overrate noise that much - imo. In order to keep shutter speed at a reasonable level - if we want to avoid motion blur - it seems necessary to increase ISO. So let's discuss it --Martin Falbisoner 12:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise and detail --Lmbuga 20:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC) ..., but nice--Lmbuga 20:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Clifton Down railway station MMB 15 150221.jpg

  • Nomination Passengers at Clifton Down. Mattbuck 06:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Identifiable people --P e z i 14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    • That is not a QI criteria. Mattbuck 17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Shadows too dark for me, can you lighten them up a bit? --Kreuzschnabel 05:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 08:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Hamburg Europapassage-Blick-NW-DSC 0255w.jpg

File:Hamburg Europapassage-Blick-NW-DSC 0255w.jpg

  • Nomination Hamburg, Europapassage --P e z i 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    Very noisy, see comment to same image a couple of days above. --Dirtsc 11:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Just for the record: It's not the same image but a similar one; view direction is 180° --P e z i 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Nice, but noise and detail--Lmbuga 20:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Liverpool Street station MMB 20.jpg

  • Nomination Liverpool Street station. Mattbuck 14:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Seems a little bit unsharp. --Dirtsc 07:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    Looks sharp to me. Mattbuck 19:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
     Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 12:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  ok --Vamps 09:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

File:南海观音像.jpg

  • Nomination Guan Yin of the South Sea --Shizhao 14:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is tilted Poco a poco 19:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Some minor blown parts but overall OK for me. --Kreuzschnabel 16:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still tilted --Poco a poco 07:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment The statue itself is straight. The building underneath is leaning because it’s not shot from the exact frontal direction. --Kreuzschnabel 21:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Panorama_unweit_Matrei_in_Osttirol.JPG

  • Nomination Panorama unweit Matrei in Osttirol --Steinsplitter 20:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Lack of fine detail, overexposed foreground thingy. --Mattbuck 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    Level of detail is marginally OK for me, but the disturbing foreground should be cropped out. --Kreuzschnabel 05:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    uploaded a new version --Steinsplitter 20:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - better now. Óðinn 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Still lack of fine detail. --Vamps 09:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)These kind of unofficial templates cannot be used in QIC page: the bot does not recognize them. Please avoid using them, thanks.--Jebulon 14:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question Have you got the RAW and can try it with much less NR? IMHO noise reduction has killed several details. --Tuxyso 13:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
no, (habe die RAW leider nicht mehr) :-( --Steinsplitter 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:070_Malmö_centralstation.JPG

  • Nomination East façade of Sweden's 3rd busiest train station Malmö Central --Sanyambahga 11:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Need sharpening and  Underexposed --Wilfredor 17:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    Blurry. Mattbuck 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sharpened and improved exposure. Sanyambahga 08:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely convinced, let's send it to CR. Mattbuck 18:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 ok --Vamps 09:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo May 2009-2a.jpg

  • Nomination Main square of Porto Covo, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blur (see notes), trees cut --Wilfredor 17:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Mattbuck 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me too. --Kreuzschnabel 06:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obviously the photo was stitched from several single shots, which have either different sharpness or are affected by decreasing sharpness from the centre to the periphery of each image, which is common for many lenses. The tree in the middle and the objects in the same region are crossed by a stitching seam, thus they are half sharp (right) and half unsharp (left). This is too disturbing for QI. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Johannes Robalotoff: Detail quality and composition is nice, but the unsharp area within the panorama is too crucial for QI. There is also a small stitching error at the left door (see note). --Tuxyso 13:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Capela_a_Maria_Costadedoi.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Mary chapel at Costadedoi in San Ciascian --Moroder 17:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm afraid I find the light very bad. It was not the good time of the day with this back light. We need a third opinion, IMO.--Jebulon 19:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 20:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Jebulon is right that this is not the best time of the day. But every part of the image is exposed well, details in the shadows are good, no overexposure. --Tuxyso 12:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Malbork,_Polonia,_2013-05-19,_DD_27.jpg

  • Nomination Malbork Castle, Poland --Poco a poco 16:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Underexposed See notes --Wilfredor 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    I have uploaded a new version, but I want you to think twice about it. According to LR there was no undexposure and therefore the pixels were not artificially darkened, lightening that up makes the picture to me further from reality, shadows are natural and they are dark Poco a poco 20:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    Pienso que el contraste es muy fuerte, pudieras tomar de nuevo la fotografía en horas con un sol suave, por ejemplo, al amanecer o al atardecer --Wilfredor 13:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    Are you telling me that it cannot be QI because the sun was too strong and the shadow in the early afternoon too dark? I understand this comment in FP, but this issue has nothing to do with quality. I'd like to discuss it. Poco a poco 19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. This is dark brown wood in the shadow, it must be very dark, no underexposure. -- Smial 10:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 21:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Unbalanced light - partly overexposed sky (blown up elements on the roof) and underexposed well. --Iifar 09:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lifar.--Jebulon 23:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With lifar: Dynamic range is too high for a single shot. Other time of the day, or an HDR had been better. --Tuxyso 12:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Dortmund_St_Martin_IMGP0839_wp.jpg

  • Nomination Katholische Kirche St. Martin in Dortmund, Gabelsberger Straße --Smial 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Oversaturated, overpolarized sky --Daniel Case 04:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, I do not own a polarizer for that lens and always used the "natural" setting with that camera. Maybe there are other flaws, please discuss. -- Smial 09:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good, though the small cloud at upper right is a little bit irritating (but real). --Dirtsc 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support, weak: Considering the tiny image size quality is at the low QI end, but imho barely OK. Light is nice. --Tuxyso 13:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)