Commons:优质图像评选

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 98% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
跳至提名

下列图像正在参评优质图像。 请注意,这与特色图片不同。 如果您只是想为自己的摄影作品征求些非正式的反馈意见,请前往Commons:Photography critiques

目的

优质图像旨在鼓励维基共享资源的根基——个人用户——为共享资源贡献独特的图像。 “特色图像”被认定是维基共享资源所有图像中最好的图片,而“优质图像”目的则是认可和鼓励用户为维基共享资源提供优质图像作出的努力。 此外,如果用户想了解如何改善自己的图片,优质图像也可用来参考。


指引

所有的候选图像都应是本站用户的工作成果。

如何提名

以下是优质图片的一般性准则,更详细的指引可见图像指引

图像页面要求

  1. 版权状态。参与评选的优质图像需以合适的版权协议上传至维基共享资源。完整的版权协议要求在Commons:著作权标签
  2. 图像应对符合所有的共享资源方针和惯例,包括Commons:可辨识的人物照片
  3. 优质图像的文件名必须有意义分类必须恰当,文件页的图像描述(至少一种语言)必须准确。我们建议给图像撰写英文描述,但这不是强制性要求。
  4. 优质图像严禁广告宣传和签名。优质图像的版权和作者信息应当记录在文件页,也可以放在文件的元数据中,但不应直接出现在图像本身里。

作者
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

图片原作者必须为维基媒体用户,以确保拥有优质图像的资格。这意味着来自诸如Flicker的图片不符合资格。(需注意特色图片无此要求) 维基媒体用户制作的二维艺术品的摄影复制品符合评选资格(并应根据共享资源指引以PD-old授权)。 如果有非维基人创作的图像通过评选,应在发现错误后尽快将改图像从“优质图像”中除名。


技术要求

请参阅Commons:图像指引了解更详细的标准。

分辨率

通常情况下,点阵图(如JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF)应至少有200万像素。如果摄影对象很容易捕捉,评审者可依情况要求候选图像分辨率比200万像素更高。这是因为人们可能打印、用高分辨率显示器查看或进一步使用共享资源上的图像。矢量图(SVG)和自由版权或开源软件生成图像不受本规则的限制。

图像质量

数字图像在图像捕捉和处理的过程中可能出现种种问题,比如可避免的躁点、JPEG图像压缩、亮部与暗部图像不明晰、颜色捕捉不准确等。候选图片不应存在任何这类问题。

构图和照明

摄影主体的排布应当有助于展示图像内容。前景、背景的物件不应分散观赏者的注意力。光照、焦距也应安排恰当,让摄影主体锐利、整洁,曝光得恰到好处。

价值

我们的主要目标是鼓励在维基共享资源里上传优质图像,帮助提升各维基媒体计划和其他计划的质量。

提名方法

您只需在Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list“提名”(Nominations)一节中加入类似如下的代码:

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述  --~~~~ |}}

图片描述不应该超过几句话。请在您的新提名和已存在的提名之间保留一个空行。

如果您打算提名其他维基媒体用户的图像,请仿照下方格式,在提名中提及原创作者的用户名:

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述(作者:[[User:用户名|用户名]])--~~~~ |}}

注意:使用“优质图像提名工具(QInominator)”这个小工具可以提高提名的效率。 该工具会在所有文件页顶部加入“提名此图像为优质图像”(Nominate this image for QI)按钮。点击按钮后,该图像会被加到您的优质图像候选列中。您遴选完后,请编辑Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list,编辑框上方会出现一个绿色横幅,点击该横幅会将您候选列中的全部候选图片批量加入到编辑框里。

提名数目

每位用户一天最多提名五张图像。

注:请每提名一副图像后,尽量评审至少一副其他用户提名的图像。

评审图像

任何注册10天、编辑50笔以上的注册用户,除作者和提名者外,都可以进行评审。QICvote小工具可以加快您的评审进程。

在评审图像时,评审者应与提名者遵守同一图像指引

如何评审

如何更新状态

仔细评估图像,以完全分辨率打开,并检查其是否符合质量标准

  • 如果您认为该图像符合优质图像的标准,请将对应图像的代码从
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改为

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Promotion|简短描述 --提名者签名 |喜欢它的理由。 --~~~~}}

也就是说,将模板的/Nomination改为/Promotion,并附上您的签名。您还可以加入一些简要的评论。

  • 如果您认为该图像不符合优质图像的标准,请将对应图像的代码从
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改为

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Decline|简短描述 --提名者签名 |不喜欢它的理由。 --~~~~}}

也就是说,将模板的/Nomination改为/Decline,并附上您的签名。您还可以加入一些简要的评论,指明为何该图像不符合标准(可以引用指引里的章节标题)。 如果图像存在多个问题,请只点出2-3个最明显的问题,或者留言“多个问题”。在指明图像不达标时,请在提名人的讨论页里解释为何您认为图像不符合标准——请记得遵守规则,保持友善、鼓励他人!讨论页里的留言应详细阐述您做出“图像不达标”这一决定的原因。

注:请优先评审最早的图片提名。

宽限期与评审通过方式

自候选图像获得的第一个评审起计算,2天(48小时)内如没有反对意见,该图像将依照该评审意见自动记为合格或不合格。如果您有反对意见,只需将候选图像的状态改为“讨论”(Discuss),这样候选图像会被自动列入“共识评审”(Consensual review)一节。

执行决定

QICbot会在评审决定完成后2日内自动运作,将获选图像列入Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted中。这些图像随后会被分类并加入到合适的优质图像页面。

如果您留意到有些图像质量极为优秀,请考虑提名特色图像

人工操作说明 (仅限紧急情况下使用)

如果当选优质图片,

  1. 将图像加入优质图像页面合适的组别(可以有多个组别),以及这些组别对应的子页面。主页面应只保留3至4张最新图像。
  2. 在当选图像的文件页底部挂{{QualityImage}}模板。
  3. 将提名辞、评审结果存档到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 5月 2024
  4. {{File:当选图像文件名.jpg}}加入到用户的讨论页。

如果落选优质图片,

  1. 将提名辞、评审结果存档到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 5月 2024
  • 等待评审的图像,其评审信息用蓝色边框标示。
  • 评审者认定合格的图像,其评审信息用绿色边框标示。
  • 评审者认为不合格的图像,其评审信息用红色边框标示。

无评审结果的图像(用蓝框标注)

如果在提名开始后的8日内,候选图像没有得到任何支持/反对票,或在共识评审中未能达成共识,该图像将不会被列入优质图像中,而是从候选列表中移除、存档至Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 28 2024,并列入Category:Unassessed QI candidates

共识评审过程

共识评审(Consensual review)是指在以上步骤不足以达成共识的情况下所进行的讨论,以吸引更多人加入并给出自己的评审意见。

如何发起共识评审

如需发起共识评审,只需将代码中的/Promotion, /Decline改为/Discuss,并在评审文字后加入您的评论。机器人会在一日内将该讨论移入共识评审区。

只有处于“promoted”或“declined”状态下的讨论才能被记入共识评审中。如果评审员无法做出决定,可以只留评论但不明确表态提名通过与否。

共识评审规则

Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

刷新页面: purge this page's cache

Nominations

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]] 20:13, 28 5月 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).


May 28, 2024

May 27, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

May 24, 2024

May 23, 2024

May 22, 2024

May 21, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 17, 2024

May 16, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 5, 2024

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".



File:Santa-Anna_detail_de_Maria_Anton_Pitscheider_Menza.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Saint Ann, Mary detail, by Maria Anton Pitscheider Menza --Moroder 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Parsa 2au 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, most of the subbject is out of focus. --Benjism89 11:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF and motion blur --Jakubhal 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry even at 3 MP, and really blurry and noisy at full resolution. --Plozessor 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Again  Neutral. nice lighting, and composition. I find the image noise quite acceptable in this case, and I accept the DOF as a design element, even if it is a bit tight, but it does look blurred to me due to camera shake. --Smial 14:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Warsaw_2023_012.jpg

  • Nomination Tops Sigismund's Column & Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw --Scotch Mist 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Quality is good. But needs a more meaningful file name and on the file page a specific description of the image content instead of general information about Warsaw --Milseburg 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - the file name is essentially compliant with QI guidelines (meaningful name\frequent categorizing), the caption includes image specific information and the description, as well as providing some background history contains direct Wikipedia links to both Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle, which are also referenced in the categories. --Scotch Mist 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think so. File name and caption are too general. In the long description you have to look for Sigismund's Column for a long time and Zygmunt's Tower is not mentioned at all. The content of the image are these two. Both are necessary. Everything else just obscures what is actually important. --Milseburg 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Given the relatively recent introduction of captions perhaps there should be a wider discussion on this subject relative to whether this image is acceptable for QI? --Scotch Mist 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the file name clearly fulfils criterion 2 of the file renaming guideline Commons:File renaming. This guideline lists an example "File:Paris 319.jpg" as a meaningless or ambiguous name ("only broad location"). In addition, the English description is bad because it contains a large and confusing quantity of information about the city, not just about the subject of the photo. The Polish description is shorter, but just about the city and the photographer's gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Robert. File name should be more specific, and English description contains information that belongs into a Wikipedia article, not into the description of "what does this picture show". Also, not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think if a picture has descriptions in multiple languages, they should be identical. In this case, Polish description is totally different from the English one. I'd rename the file to something like "Sigimunds Column and Zygmunds Tower in Warsaw 2023.jpg" and replace the English description with a translation of the Polish one. --Plozessor 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment When renaming a file, the existing file name in a case like this should remain unchanged as a substring, as it is obviously a sorting criterion for the uploader. In any case, I get a sore throat when standardization fanatics think they have to remove my image numbers or other abbreviations they don't understand from the file names of my photos. Correcting spelling mistakes or short(!) additions are of course ok. However, comprehensive image descriptions belong in the image description, that's what it's there for. However, it should not contain an essay on the entire history of the city, country and ruling houses, but a brief and accurate description of the object depicted. In any case, placed at the beginning and easy to find. If you want to write a novel behind it, fine, you can. --Smial 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ & @Plozessor:​ There are several pertinent issues in this discussion:
    • File Naming: Ideally, according to the naming “guidelines” (Commons:File naming), file names should be very specific with time information and without inappropriate terms or any confusing details, all of which could lead to some very long file names indeed (many names of nominated QI files are already ‘long’ even without including the recommended “year or date”). Realistically a balance generally has to be struck with the primary override that “the uploader’s choice should be honoured”. (“Renaming” files to avoid “ambiguity” (2) may not work in practice, especially when loading tens, or possibly hundreds, of files and seeking “harmonization” (4) of those files. “When in doubt, aim for a stable more generic name.”)
    • File Names v Captions v Descriptions: Presumably the recent introduction of “Captions” was not intended to simply repeat a detailed file name, or a relatively brief description, so presumably the caption is where a short description of the image should now be entered (for QI images an “accurate description on the file page”).
    • Descriptions: Certainly in the past there have been criticisms of including historical backgrounds of photos of places, monuments, et al, but also some have expressed praise for directly including such info along with the image, often a brief summary of some of the Wikipedia info with links to other Wikipedia pages (which is generally recommended within the Wikipedia\Wikimedia environment).
    • In summary, to achieve an appropriate balance (max info\min time) that will encourage the greatest number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons it would appear that File Names, Captions, Desciptions, and importantly also Categories, should be considered together in providing the overall level of detail that will in turn encourage further interest and wider use of all images uploaded, particularly QIs. --Scotch Mist 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. Commons:File naming is not a guideline, but it also contains the following sentence: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg, Ontario hill, or Japan train station, where the location is so large that only someone who knows the area very well can identify the image." My suggestion is that you could keep much of your naming scheme by adding the subject of the image. Even though it would be best if it came first in the file name, I suppose that it would be completely acceptahle after your image number, so that it does not disrupt your file naming scheme. In addition, at least in my opinion, a description should at least clearly say what can be seen on the image. Otherwise it is just not meaningful.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Murmuration_(_agrégation)_d'un_groupe_d'étourneaux_sur_la_sebkha_de_Sijoumi.jpg

  • Nomination Murmuration (aggregation) of a group of starlings on the Sijoumi sabkhaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Like the image but would like to see a effort to reduce the vignetting, particularly on the left. --GRDN711 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    i will see tomorrow to fix the vignettage you see , particularly on the left. Thank you --Skander zarrad 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_41.jpg

  • Nomination Maiden's Sad Expression - Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose disturbing artifacts, probably water drops. Sorry. --Moroder 10:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for review although of course there are "water drops" as the statue is in a water fountain (a different scenario from photographing a sculpture in a church), but the most prominent water drop appears like a 'tear' from the sad face of the maiden creating a unique image! --Scotch Mist 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_43.jpg

  • Nomination Roof Top Sculpture at Łódź Palace --Scotch Mist 08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The head of the statue is too unsharp. --C messier 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - is the image QI level with a more appropriate title such as "Roof Top Wrought Iron Work at Łódź Palace"? --Scotch Mist 06:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wrong focus, per C Messier. --Smial 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) (otherwise: disturbing background)
  •  Oppose Focus on the handrail, instead of the statue. Unappealing composition with distracting foreground and black shadows -- Basile Morin 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg

  • Nomination View of Poznański Palace in Łódź --Scotch Mist 05:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I guess all those wires are disturbing --Moroder 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree, but there is no way to take a photo from this perspective without the wires and perhaps why we should avoid installing overhead cables where possible! --Scotch Mist 06:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Wires are there, better to have a picture from a distance with the wires than one of these distorted over-"verticalized" pictures from near the building. Picture is good. --Plozessor 04:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the file name and the description. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Leodegar_church_in_Chavaroux_(4).jpg

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint Leodegar church in Chavaroux, Puy-de-Dôme, France. --Tournasol7 04:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Too dark --Moroder 11:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 18:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, I've lightened it up a bit. --Tournasol7 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Did not see the original version, but the new one is definitely good. --Plozessor 06:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 09:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Scotch Mist 10:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 14:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Yoonit,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170867).jpg

  • Nomination Yoonit transport bike at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Background is disturbing a bit but overall quality is good for me. --Красный 03:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 06:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered background with beheaded people -- Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Sunrise_from_the_Vanjangi_hill_top.jpg

  • Nomination Sunrise from the summit of Vanjangi hills --IM3847 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. CAs an the ring-shaped light reflex on the right spoils it. --Milseburg 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a ring shaped glare on both sides. I don't know how to eliminate the rays artifact due to the shutter around the sun--Moroder 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi @Milseburg:​, @Moroder:​ Can we consider [this image] --IM3847 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks better, but I think there's an additional problem with the composition. The person with the bottles is unfavorable and dominant in the image with his legs cut off. Also slight tilted. --Milseburg 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it looks ok as it is (I would consider the halo rather an effect than a defect), but the retouched version seems ok also. Could consider slight perspective correction though, those distorted people in the foreground are looking a bit awkward. --Plozessor 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Circular line / halo at the lower corners and yellowish cast as if the white balance was wrong, or the colors oversaturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basile Morin 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Lusenberg_Josef_Moroder_Addolorata_detail.jpg

  • Nomination Our Lady of Sorrows, woodcarved polychromed statue in parish church of Urtijëi. Sculptor Josef Moroder-Lusenberg --Moroder 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp (motion blur due to low shutter speed), noisy. --Mandula 17:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The camera has a electronic stabilizer --Moroder 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The "electronic stabilizer" might not be enough for 1/4 second exposure time. But IMO the issue with this picture is not motion blur but rather lack of DOF. In any case, at full resolution it's noisy, but even at lower resolution only the face is sharp while other parts are blurry. --Plozessor 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    • The concept of this series of photos was to focus on the face of the statues since there are already good pictures of the whole statue.--Moroder 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
      • But the face is making up a too small portion of the image for that case, and when zoomed in, quality is no good (noisy and blurry). --Plozessor 06:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't understand why you so often waste the possibilities offered by your camera by using very high ISO settings instead of using a tripod for such and similar motifs. This applies to the entire series of images presented. Of course, the very high image resolution still allows the photos to be used by shrinking them down to six or eight Mpixels. However, this cannot compensate for the loss of possible contrast range. --Smial 09:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Ps: Lighting and composition are all nice. A pity.
  • A tripod is not permitted in most churches and museums. That’s the reason why I moved from the X1C to the X2C 100C --Moroder 10:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
That is of course a problem, yes. But then you can't do QI in such places that could really be considered exemplary. I'm always willing to accept compromises when it comes to noise in sports photos, where you might like to use 1/4000 of a second, or moving subjects in dark surroundings (theaters, concerts). --Smial 17:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Why a compromise for sport and not for artwork that you can reveal to people. Btw I don’t think that my photos are that bad :-( --Moroder 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Because a Madonna statue like that doesn't wriggle around or run away when you take a photo of it. I didn't describe your photo as "bad" and, as you may have noticed, I didn't reject it either. But if you're no longer allowed to mention avoidable flaws here, then I'm probably in the wrong place. --Smial 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Smial:​ Please don't take me wrong. I really like your comments, but I might not always agree, which help for a good discussion. That's one of the main reasons I like QIC --Moroder 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What strikes me is the different scale used to judge things. Almost regularly, absolutely weak images are highly praised and it is by no means rare that good or even very good images are downgraded. For some time now, this has been the reason for me not to actively participate in QIC with photos any longer and to only cast my vote sometimes. Best regards -- Spurzem 21:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem:​ As indicated by @Smial:​, sometimes I'm opposing pictures with avoidable flaws. In a sense, when it would have been easy to take a better picture. Even if the result isn't too bad overall. QI is (at least partly) about avoiding photographic defects - and a 40 MP picture with incorrect focus is "defect" while a 10 MP picture with correct focus is not, even if the 40 MP picture might look sharp when downscaled to 10 MP. --Plozessor 06:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor:​ As you said before this picture is not out of focus but it lacks of DOF. There are two reasons: the light is very low in that church but the purpose of the foto was to focus on the face of the Madonna as in a portrait --Moroder 16:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

File:SchillerGym-Hof-Panorama_einfach_20240520.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Schiller high school in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong WB? Very green. --ArildV 08:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per ArildV --Plozessor 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the review, tried to reduce the green in this picture. I hope it is better now --PantheraLeo1359531 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds on the top left do not meet QI standards. The building appears quite distorted in this representation. And I'm not sure about the file description. --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Altes_Rathaus_Bremen_-_Herolde_beim_SO-Portal_(2024).jpg

  • Nomination Heralds at the south-east side of the town hall in Bremen --JoachimKohler-HB 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Good quality, but right side is leaning in. --Tournasol7 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tournasol7. --Smial 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Peulle 11:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Боровое._Большое_Чебачье_озеро.jpg

  • Nomination The Gulf of Naples on the Great Chebachy Lake, view from one of the rocks on the shore. Burabay national park. Burabay district Akmola region, Kazakhstan. By User:Евгений Емельянов --Красный 03:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and not enough sharp for a QI. --Remontees 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Just over 6 MPixels is a bit low for a landscape shot of this type these days, I find little remnants of CA and the sharpness could be a bit better. But it's enough for a decent A4-size print, and I really have nothing to complain about in terms of colour, lighting and composition. --Smial 20:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed IMO - halo effect around the farthest mountain. Seems like a mask was added with negative dehaze or similar to give the impression of distance. BigDom 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Smial --GoldenArtists (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 14:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Egret_Flight_Reflection_Dawn_Harangi_Apr24_D72_26682.jpg

  • Nomination Medium egret (Ardea intermedia) in flight over Harangi Reservoir early morning, Suntikoppa, Coorg --Tagooty 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Amazing composition, but I'm afraid, the main subject doesn't show enough detail --MB-one 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Given the dawn lighting and motion, let's hear other opinions. --Tagooty 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately I have to agree with MB-one. The bird has very little detail and isn't really sharp. --Plozessor 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The very special lighting makes the photo appear blurrier than it is. Yes, you can definitely see weaknesses, especially on the bird's head. Overall, however, I think it's enough for a usable A4-size printout. --Smial 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Per Smial --GoldenArtists (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial --Moroder 17:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial - give photographic creativity the benefit of any doubt! --Scotch Mist 11:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 14:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Εισοδίων_της_Θεοτόκου_στο_Θίτι_DJI_0180.jpg

  • Nomination Top down view of the church of Eisodia Theotokou in Thiti, Attica. --C messier 19:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not an acceptable composition for a QI. --Remontees 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are a little dark, but the quality is good and top down views are useful. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Unfortunate lighting and too dark shadows. Thats no QI for me. -- Spurzem 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me --Moroder 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for QI --Milseburg 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The questionable composition and level of shadow leave me struggling to support the image, as is, for QI --Scotch Mist 11:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 14:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

时间表(提名后8天)

  • 一 20 5月 → 二 28 5月
  • 二 21 5月 → 三 29 5月
  • 三 22 5月 → 四 30 5月
  • 四 23 5月 → 五 31 5月
  • 五 24 5月 → 六 01 6月
  • 六 25 5月 → 日 02 6月
  • 日 26 5月 → 一 03 6月
  • 一 27 5月 → 二 04 6月
  • 二 28 5月 → 三 05 6月