Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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

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]] 09:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

August 21, 2013

August 20, 2013

August 19, 2013

August 18, 2013

August 17, 2013

August 16, 2013

August 15, 2013

August 14, 2013

August 13, 2013

August 12, 2013

August 11, 2013

August 10, 2013

August 9, 2013

August 8, 2013

August 7, 2013

August 4, 2013

August 2, 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 image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 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:Restos_de_la_Catedral_de_San_Pablo,_Macao,_2013-08-08,_DD_05.jpg

  • Nomination Remains of the Cathedral of St. Paul, Macau --Poco a poco 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion too overstraightened for me, sorry AleXXw 06:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    What do you suggest me to do? reduce the correction? drop the nomination? Poco a poco 15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I'm not in the position to tell you what to do, that is just my opinion. I was in Macao two days before you where there and from that position the outer edges can't be straight. Please take a look at the top of the top left column, they are spheric in nature. But let's hear other voices. --AleXXw 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Pilatus PC-12 HB-FVA (1).jpg

  • Nomination Pilatus PC-12, at the Prangins Fly-in (Switzerland) --Gzzz 20:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality -- Spurzem 07:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Blown-out highlights. Clouds appear yellowish: WB off? --A.Savin 08:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done WB corrected : is it better now ? Gzzz 16:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Kloster Maria Engelport (2013-07-09 01) Kirche.JPG

  • Nomination Church of monastery Maria Engelport in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany -- Spurzem 15:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Some CA should be removed. -- Smial 17:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    Done. -- Spurzem 18:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I can't see an enhancement. Look at the small figurines at the right wall, they still have red and green CA, also the loudspeaker and the window above. We should ask for a third opinion. -- Smial 22:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    I can't see an improvement either, sorry. --Kadellar 12:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    I ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 13:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_BelAir_logo_back_IMGP4763.jpg

  • Nomination Trunk handle of a Chevrolet BelAir --Smial 10:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. Useful. --Kadellar 11:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Not QI for me--الجوكر 11:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Why? You should give a reason to oppose. --Kadellar 12:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
     Support --Christian Ferrer 22:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
     Support. -- Spurzem 20:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question Copyright problem ? I'm not sure this logo is free...--Jebulon 01:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is not a copied logo. It is a photograph of a real 3D-object. -- Smial 11:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Some years ago, a photograph by me of the "real 3D-object" of the Cavallino Rampante of Ferrari, taken on a car like yours, was destroyed for " copyvio " reason...--Jebulon 20:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not know US law in such cases. In Germany this would not be judged as illegal 2D reproduction. Maybe the image must be transferred to German wikipedia, I don't know. -- Smial 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_BelAir_back_IMGP4770.jpg

  • Nomination Chevrolet BelAir rear view. --Smial 10:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Quality is ok but IMO it's tilted on right, look at the building in background --Christian Ferrer 11:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    New version uploaded. -- Smial 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)  Support OK --Christian Ferrer 22:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Some shadows urgently must be removed. -- Spurzem 17:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know which shadows and I don't know how to do that. -- Smial 11:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There is the dark shadow at the right so that tires are not to be seen. Further I see a disturbing stripe on the trunk and shadow at the rear light left. Of course it will be difficult to reduce it. -- Spurzem 19:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-Fort de la Miotte 07.JPG

  • Nomination Miotte fortifications and tower. Bourgeois.A 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose unsharp, tilted --A.Savin 08:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Better Now ? Bourgeois.A 09:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    For my part, sharpness is hardly better; but feel free to replace "Decline" by "Discuss" if you want third opinion. --A.Savin 17:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Brucéro,_Rencontres_de_l'imaginaire_de_Brocéliande_2013,_Paimpont,_France.jpg

  • Nomination Brucéro, french illustrator. --EdouardHue 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Dark line growing from the head is disturbing. Crop to closeup and the it can get through. --Yndesai 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Not quite convinced by this objection, I'd appreciate other opinions. --EdouardHue 20:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Grantham railway station MMB 22 180102.jpg

  • Nomination 180102 at Grantham. Mattbuck 06:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose too soft for me --A.Savin 21:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Sharpened. Mattbuck 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Sue_Gardner_at_Wikimania_2013_in_Hong_Kong.jpg

  • Nomination Sue Gardner during her last speech as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation at a Wikimania. Hong Kong, August 11th, 2013. --Frank Schulenburg 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion * Oppose  Neutral Quality is OK (with regard to the resolution but could benefit from masked sharpening to reduce noise on the background), but the shooting position is IMHO too low for a QI portrayal and leads to a very unfortunate photo of Sue Gardner. --Tuxyso 15:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. CR. --Kadellar 16:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Frank is a very good photographer, we all know that. But sometimes I do not understand why human portrayals are reviewed that laxly (compared to macro shots or architecture shots). She looks anywhere but not in direction to the camera (that should be the minimum requirement for a QI portrayal despite artistic shots). --Tuxyso 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Tuxyso. I'm not reviewing so laxly, I just don't think people have always to be looking at the camera (e.g. this one). Of course it's nice if they're looking, but it's not mandatory. --Kadellar 11:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it's a very good portrait, telling a story besides its technical merit. Sue Gardner's pre-eminent position (as the post she had in WMF, and as an acknowledged powerful woman) is well called to mind by the low-angle shot, and she is looking elsewhere, further—that evokes her departure (this was her last speech as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation at a Wikimania).--Myrabella (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I am unsure if this was the original intention of the photographer but your argument sounds plausible to me. I've changed to neutral. But I stick to my opinion that the shooting position is not really good for a human portrayal if the main interest lies on the person and not on the context and/or event the person is speaking on. --Tuxyso 14:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Here's my thinking behind the shot: the image captures Sue in a way that's very typical for her – listening to someone in the audience and being super focused and attentive. The low angle – as Kadellar already pointed out – somewhat naturally highlights her position as ED of the Foundation. This one shows her with a friendlier face, although – as someone who knows Sue well – I can tell you that both images capture what I find most typical about her (focused, open, friendly). However, I'm totally ok if people don't like the photos. I'm not here to make a point, I just want to explain what my thinking behind the shots was. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As for Kadellar -- Smial 07:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Hyacinthoides_non-scripta_LC0140.jpg

  • Nomination Common Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), Wittgensdorf, Germany --LC-de 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Background is disturbing (please, see the picture with other size)--Lmbuga 21:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
     SupportI cannot understand your contra vote, sorry. This is a detail shot, DoF is OK. Probably LC-de can you reduce the highlights. --Tuxyso 22:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I try to explain: Just behind the flowers there is another set of flowers. The composition seems to me not appropriate if the subject is front of some flowers with the same color. The picture is not QI for me. The background is disturbing. Sorry--Lmbuga 19:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support Not featured of course but QI for me --Christian Ferrer 05:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lmbuga is right there are too many blurred areas --Archaeodontosaurus 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Agree with Miguel, another angle (and exposure...) should have been chosen. Alvesgaspar 21:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Castle Combe Circuit MMB C6 Castle Combe Saloon Car Championship.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Combe Circuit. Mattbuck 17:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • OK  Support --Rjcastillo 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. First, the image is unsharp. Second, there are too many distractions in the background and third it needs to be cropped (too much track and not enough car.) Royalbroil 01:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    The subject is sharp. Mattbuck 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice lively an dynamic shot. Good quality. --Dirtsc 17:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a really great shot, but meets QI criteria. -- Smial 08:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I'm with the opposer: the quality (sharpness, composition) is not really enough to pass the QI bar. Alvesgaspar 21:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Not sharp enough for good quality. Further the hood is overexposed. The car should be bigger. -- Spurzem 20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    Overexposed? It's really not. Mattbuck 21:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Heroés_trujillenses_I.jpg

  • Nomination Heroes trujillenses. Parque Fuerzas Armadas Nacionales --Rjcastillo 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose f/11 is definetly the wrong decision here, f/5,6 would have resulted in a less distracting background, in addition the lighting is poor, sorry --Poco a poco 15:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Not featured but enough quality IMO --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Agree with Poco a poco. Alvesgaspar 21:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Jagstquelle_im_August.jpg

  • Nomination The spring of Jagst river, Germany, in a dry summer --Kreuzschnabel 17:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's tilted CW. Too tight at top IMO--Lmbuga 21:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- No tilt that I see. But the framing is too tight on top and the light is not the best. Alvesgaspar 21:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Cam_Paradise_Reserve.jpg

  • Nomination (Renominated) River Cam in Paradise Fen nature reserve --Heuschrecke 22:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Greens are oversaturated. Strong oversaturation (see note)--Lmbuga 00:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    The new version is better, but CAs and IMO oversharpened. Let's other users think: "Discuss"--Lmbuga 14:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion good quality. -- Spurzem 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Hårstadnebba_and_Langrabbpiken_above_Dalavatnet_in_Litldalen,_Sunndal,_2013_June.jpg

  • Nomination Dalavatnet in Litldalen, Møre og Romsdal, Norway, in 2013 June. --Ximonic 11:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support --Christian Ferrer 11:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, perhaps I'm not right, but the shadows are a bit clear and the blues -see note- are too much saturated (oversaturated), unnatural IMO--Lmbuga 23:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Charbonnage du Hasard 21.JPG

File:Charbonnage du Hasard 21.JPG

  • Nomination The colliery Hasard located in Cheratte in Belgium: Tower of Well No. 3 view from the buildings well No. 1. Bourgeois.A 10:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Sorry, unfortunate light, all the subject is in shadow. The two vertical lines of the foreground are disturbing--Lmbuga 23:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I do not see the problem, it is a particular aesthetic. Bourgeois.A 09:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's only mi opinion, others users can think: "Discuss"--Lmbuga 14:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
     Info I improved the picture Bourgeois.A 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

File:East_Stonesdale,_Keld,_North_Yorkshire.jpg

  • Nomination East Stonesdale viewed from Keld, Swaledale, North Yorkshire --Kreuzschnabel 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Do you see the possibility to darken the bright areas and especially the sky a bit? --Dirtsc 19:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don’t see any reason to do so. The sky was overcast by fine clouds, hence the bright light. --Kreuzschnabel 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I'd like to see more opinions. I like the image, but maybe it's too "overexposed" for a QI? --Dirtsc 20:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support There are a few dozen pixels possibly clipping, see interim version, but these are imo negligible. -- Smial 08:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Mammoet_skelter.jpg

  • Nomination Mammoet skelter with moped engine --Uberprutser 21:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good but you could add some contrast and reduce the slight CW tilt. --Tuxyso 21:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    * I think there is more then enough contrast and no tilt to worry about. I assume you are talking about the horizon level. Tilt is usually used when pointing the lens up or down. btw, the ground is not flat. It's parked at a slightly bend corner. --Uberprutser 00:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's ok to me. Mattbuck 16:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Kaluga 2013 trolleybus 01.jpg

  • Nomination AKSM trolley in Kaluga, Russia. Photo by Kaluga.2012. --A.Savin 18:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion The composition doesn't feel quite right. It's not wide-angle enough to show the full context of the wires, but too wide to just be of the bus itself. Mattbuck 16:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough quality, trolley bus is entire --Christian Ferrer 12:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And sharpness, colors, contrast... are very goods, I don't understand why this picture can't be QI, it is! --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As Christian Ferrer. --Dirtsc 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Ford_A_ver_2.jpg

  • Nomination Ford A --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Corrected --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    Flot billede. Førerens moustache passer også godt til bilen :-) --Slaunger 18:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Tried to fix overexposed --Villy Fink Isaksen 11:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Remapping the white point is not a fix. Mattbuck 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, all your images of the ford are good pictures IMO, but the blue of the sky of this image seems unnatural: too yellow, perhaps? --Lmbuga 19:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    new attempt adjustment whitebalance --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:K_563_i_remise.jpg

  • Nomination K 563 in roundhouse --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Corrected --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Dirtsc 19:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Tried to fix overexposed --Villy Fink Isaksen 11:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    You remapped the white point - that doesn't fix overexposure, it just makes it grey instead of white. Mattbuck 17:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    No, I have maked an adjustment in the raw file: setting down the exposure. --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Even if you did so, the image still suffers from overexposure. The brightest pixels will be found in large areas - given images should normally include some points which are #FFFFFF and some which are #000000, this means that the image is overexposed. Mattbuck 21:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some #FFFFFF-pixels does not make an image overexposed. This is an example of an overexposed image. --High Contrast 09:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Alfarei_Badia.jpg

  • Nomination Farmhouse "Alfarei" in Badia --Moroder 17:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Dust spots. --Mattbuck 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Cleared dustspots --Moroder 18:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. ...and no need to try to hide yourself, I've recognized you with your red hat, Moroder !...--Jebulon 00:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
wellcome back. Its Not me, its my assistent! --Moroder 06:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Educatieve doe- en beleeftuin van It Fryske Gea nabij De Alde Feanen. 03.JPG

  • Nomination Garden Structure benefit of insects and butterflies.--
    Famberhorst 07:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Dirtsc 15:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - the flowers just don't look right. Lack of fine detail causing oversharpness I think. Mattbuck 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as above, I'm afraid.--Jebulon 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Aragonit_-_Fluorescence.gif

  • Nomination Fluorescence of Aragonite --Llez 05:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Posterisation due to file format. --Mattbuck 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, JPEG was better, but animation is only possibble as GIF, and unfortunately you have a (unavoidable) loss of quality in transforming a JPEG into an animated GIF! --Llez 17:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is enough considering the "special" character of this picture, IMO. (But I'm not sure the german museum geocode is relevant for a stone from Sicily, I don't know...)--Jebulon 00:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Evangelische Kirche Lorsch 2013.jpg

  • Nomination The Protestant church of Lorsch, Southern Hesse. -- Felix Koenig 16:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Further vertical correction necessary (especially at the left). --Tuxyso 06:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems ok to me. Mattbuck 09:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Dirtsc 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Retford railway station MMB 09.jpg

  • Nomination Retford railway station. Mattbuck 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Neutral Blurred IMO, sorry --Christian Ferrer 14:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see what you mean. Mattbuck 16:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I Change to neutral, the right is too much blurred and also there is a spot, I have added note --Christian Ferrer 17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Maybe I have been a little too fast, IMO you can improve it. I have maked a test and uploaded it, revert it and rework your version or keep mine, as you want --Christian Ferrer 18:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Forget, my version is a disaster, sorry --Christian Ferrer 18:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Now I've uploaded a new version (much better I hope --Christian Ferrer 18:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:RheinFantasie (ship, 2011) 128.JPG

  • Nomination Passenger ship RheinFantasie in Cologne --Rolf H. 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very dark shadows. Mattbuck 07:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
     CommentI photographed the image at 6:00 p.m.. The ship has tinted windows - I do not see any dark shadows. --Rolf H. 06:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

File:RheinFantasie (ship, 2011) 129.JPG

  • Nomination Passenger ship RheinFantasie in Cologne --Rolf H. 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very dark shadows. Mattbuck 07:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  CommentI photographed the image at 6:00 p.m.. The ship has tinted windows - I do not see any dark shadows. --Rolf H. 06:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I agree with Mattbuck, the constrasts are too harsh. Please notice the underexposed front of the ship's bridge showing noise due to lack of light. -- Alvesgaspar 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Nottingham MMB D7 Wollaton Road.jpg

  • Nomination Wollaton Road, Nottingham. Mattbuck 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support OK --Christian Ferrer 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose missing sharpness --Rolf H. 09:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Indeed. I think I understand the purpose of the photo: to illustrate dof. But I don't think it works. -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Sines July 2013-1.jpg

  • Nomination Beach and sky -- Alvesgaspar 23:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Dust spots, fairly dark, feels unbalanced. --Mattbuck 19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC) -- Two dust spots removed. I don't agree that the image is dark and the composition unbalanced. Alvesgaspar 22:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Compo ok for me but a little dark for me too --Christian Ferrer 11:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment 1/2 f-stop brighter would be better. The red channel clips at the dark side of the histogram, all channels have some room in the bright areas. -- Smial 09:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info-- Ok, here is an improved version. I just wanted to preserve the end of the day mood... Alvesgaspar 11:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now in my opinion. More votes? -- Smial 08:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me too. --Jebulon 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)