Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 06 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

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]] 04:22, 6 June 2025 (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).


June 6, 2025

[edit]

June 5, 2025

[edit]

June 4, 2025

[edit]

June 3, 2025

[edit]

June 2, 2025

[edit]

June 1, 2025

[edit]

May 31, 2025

[edit]

May 30, 2025

[edit]

May 29, 2025

[edit]

May 28, 2025

[edit]

May 27, 2025

[edit]

May 26, 2025

[edit]

May 25, 2025

[edit]

May 24, 2025

[edit]

May 23, 2025

[edit]

May 22, 2025

[edit]

May 20, 2025

[edit]

May 19, 2025

[edit]

May 18, 2025

[edit]

May 17, 2025

[edit]

May 16, 2025

[edit]

May 8, 2025

[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:Haubentaucher_mit_Beute-20250531-RM-163022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great crested grebe on the old lake in the park of Seehof Castle --Ermell 07:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks overprocessed to me, sorry --Poco a poco 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 13:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Denoising and sharpening overdone, and even visible in A4 size. --Smial 08:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, probably denoising+sharpening as Smial said. Especially visible at the fish and at the head. --Plozessor 17:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info @Poco a poco: @Sebring12Hrs: @Smial: @Plozessor: New version uploaded. Please have a look.--Ermell 19:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Now it's not so heavily processed but the lack of sharpness becomes more obvious. I don't think you can save it. --Poco a poco 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 17:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20230107_St._Lorenz_Nürnberg_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spiraling staircases in the church St. Lorenz in Nuremberg --FlocciNivis 16:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 00:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I performed noise reduction and ask for re-evaluation of the image --FlocciNivis 17:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support New version seems ok to me. --Plozessor 17:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --KaiBorgeest 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --KaiBorgeest 22:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC))

File:AC_BD_Rathaus_Aachen_Marktturm.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination City Hall of Aachen, Germany --Grunpfnul 06:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but f/5.6 is not enough here. ISO 200 and 1/680 sec gives room for more depth of field. --Stepro 12:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    • At 8mm with f5.6, the Main Subject (Tower) is more than in Focus and Even the City hall is in Focus. If a realy midly unsharp background isn't allowed anymore… --Grunpfnul 21:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Absurd perspective. Architectural verticals here, architectural verticals there - if you also correct the perspective of a photo with an already very large 120° angle of view, the result may still be geometrically correct, but this is not an architectural photo, but a caricature. “But you got everything in the frame” is not a sign of quality. Sorry for the harsh words, they are not meant personally, but these extreme wide-angle perspectives have generally got out of hand and I find them terrible. --Smial 09:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Oh, i won't take it personally, but youself did some pc correction work like this - which wonders me, in view of your comment. I never wrote something like "i got everything in the Frame" and i respect your opinion, but then we should expand the rules of QI to "no pc needed for ultra wide angle" or "No Ultra wide angle pictures allowed on QI". Grunpfnul (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the given camera location exact? If so, was there a reason why you didn't step further back to get a more realistic perspective? --Plozessor 17:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    • @Plozessor: There are Benches and Lamp-Posts in the way, if i stepped further back. As already happened, that would surely get me an "There is XY in the view, which spills the image" - sometimes its getting strange here. Grunpfnul (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support in that case. I could not find any better image of this perspective; some "professional" pictures are even more distorted. And in all other aspects it's IMO very good. --Plozessor 03:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the building looks too distorted and unnatural. Also the spire is very blurry and looks like a lump of something. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-04-30_ALBA_Berlin_gegen_Syntainics_MBC_(Basketball-Bundesliga_2024-25)_by_Sandro_Halank–022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsche Basketball-Bundesliga 2024/25, 31st day of play: ALBA Berlin vs. Syntainics MBC (90:62) – Jānis Gailītis (coach Syntainics MBC) --Sandro Halank 16:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but not sharp although the size is really borderline --Benjism89 20:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I can count the hairs. Sharp enough for a portrait. --Stepro 12:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 2 MP picture taken with a 24 MP full-frame camera, obviously either heavily cropped or downscaled, which both is against QI guidelines. Also, though 2 MP is considered the minimum size, it would at least have to be perfect in all other aspects, which it isn't. --Plozessor 17:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 17:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof_Füssen,_Bavaria,_Germany.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bahnhof Füssen, Bavaria, Germany --Wilfredor 12:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 21:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top of the lamppost disappeared, look at the first version of your photo. And noise reduction is extreme to me. --Sebring12Hrs 00:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment You cut the lampost but it is not realisticat all and not beautiful. --Sebring12Hrs 06:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF could be acceptable for such a scene, but here, the only thing in focus is the face of the woman to the front right, everything else is OOF. And excessive NR resulting in unrealistic look, though I might not decline it due that alone. --Plozessor 17:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 17:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Viaduc_de_la_Gascarie_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Viaduct Gascarie, Rodez. --Kallerna 18:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The perspective needs to be corrected, the bridge looks like it's falling to the right. --Wilfredor 22:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO it's very interesting intentional angle shot. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Екатерина, this is typically the kind of pictures where I believe perspective correction would do more harm than good. --Benjism89 09:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Екатерина and Benjism89. --Plozessor 10:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 10:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_Basking_activity_of_Junonia_iphita_(Cramer,_1779)_-_Chocolate_Pansy_WLB_DSC_5863a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Basking activity of Junonia iphita (Cramer, 1779) - Chocolate Pansy --Sandipoutsider 13:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Need more categorization --A S M Jobaer 06:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Clearly in the species category --Jakubhal 08:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • A S M Jobaer: It's not about the amount of categories but rather about their quality and the best category I can think of for a creature is the species --Poco a poco 20:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality of the picture also seems ok for me --Jakubhal 15:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks right to me.--Peulle 07:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, proper description and categorization. --Plozessor 10:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 10:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Martina_Franca_-_Porta_di_Santo_Stefano_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Martina Franca (Apulia, Italy) - St. Stephen's city gate --Benjism89 10:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted. --Lvova 13:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The perspective correction is well done. --Tournasol7 06:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The right pillar of the gate seems leaning to the right, but the building right of it does not. Probably the gate itself is crooked. Otherwise good picture. --Plozessor 10:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 10:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Martina_Franca_-_Porta_di_Santo_Stefano_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Martina Franca (Apulia, Italy) - St. Stephen's city gate --Benjism89 10:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted. --Lvova 13:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The perspective correction is well done. --Tournasol7 06:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the perspective correction was done well. It could be much better with just a little effort. See here. I would rate this image as QI. Aside from that, I don't understand the file name. The statue above depicts Saint Martin. Why is it called Porta_di_Santo_Stefano? -- Spurzem 18:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment The photographer may not be positioned right in front and center of the door in reality. In your version, it seems that the photographer is refocused again, but is this really more realistic ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Spurzem: In many cases, I would try to position myself so that I am aligned with the building / gate I'm photographing, and then correct horizontal perpective so that the image is symmetric. But in this case, the passage under the gate is not perpendicular to the axis of the gate, so it isn't possible to align with both the gate and the passage under it. For this reason (and also because there were unaesthetic construction works right behind the gate), I chose not to align myself with the gate. As Sebring12Hrs wrote, I don't believe correcting such a large unalignment afterwards is a good idea, your version looks strange in my opinion. --Benjism89 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment And about the name of this picture : well, the name of this gate is Porta di Santo Stefano, although it's carrying the statue of another saint (which is the patron saint of the city so there are statues of saint Martin pretty much everywhere). Sorry but I don't decide on proper names :-) --Benjism89 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to perspective correction, it looks like the lower part of the gate is narrower than the upper one, which obviously does not correspond to reality. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems to me that the gate, not the picture, is leaning. --Plozessor 10:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    In the category it's not like this. Lvova 10:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes? Lvova 10:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Feldkirchen,_Gemeinde_Egling_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Feldkirchen, community of Egling in Bavaria seen from the road from Thanning --Kritzolina 09:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Blurry at the right side --Екатерина Борисова 19:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Blurry, but acceptable to me. Go to CR if you want. --Sebring12Hrs 00:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There were many discussions in past few days and I'm not delighted to have another one, but the right side here is really blurry, so let's hear what others have to say. --Екатерина Борисова 02:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks a bit grainy, especially on the right. I would have expected a bit more detail and sharpness for such an open daytime image.--Peulle 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others; quality of the right part is not adequate for the situation and camera. --Plozessor 10:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ford_Mustang_Dark_Horse_Rutesheimer_Autoschau_2025_DSC_9225.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Mustang Dark Horse at Rutesheimer Autoschau 2025 --Alexander-93 18:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Cluttered background --Jakubhal 08:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20221018_Ulmer_Tor_Memmingen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View along the Ulmer Straße to the Ulmer Tor in Memmingen --FlocciNivis 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Facades are too dark. --Sebring12Hrs 13:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I tried to fix that. Is this okay now? --FlocciNivis 17:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs, discussion has not be resolved here --Jakubhal 08:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No good lighting -- Spurzem 12:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. The actual subject - the gate - is properly lit; the dark shadows and strong contrasts are causing an interesting (for me, appealing) look. --Plozessor 10:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. However, the dark areas could be brightened up a little with curves. --Smial 11:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Every day, I'm more and more amazed at what is being rated as a quality image here. Conversely, I'm also surprised at the good photos that are being downgraded. -- Spurzem 09:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    I have the same feeling but I don't refer to the same pictures. Here FlocciNivis increased brightness. --Sebring12Hrs 10:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 22:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:20220702_Aphantopus_hyperantus_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Ringlet in the bird sanctuary Ismaninger Speichersee und Fischteiche --FlocciNivis 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support My issue here is overexposure of a flower, however there is no issue with sharpness here and I think it's still worth discussion --Jakubhal 08:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose since the flower (that the ringlet sits on) is completely blown out. Sharpness is very good though. --Plozessor 10:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I tried to fix that now. Thank you for the feedback --FlocciNivis 17:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Anti-skate_device_shaped_like_maple_leaf,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2025-05-30.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Anti-skate device shaped like maple leaf, Windsor, Ontario, 2025-05-30I --Crisco 1492 01:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The bottom is blurred in the concrete, otherwise good. --Sebring12Hrs 02:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Deliberate, as it shows the edge dropping away --Crisco 1492 11:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Opening discussion as issue has not been resolved --Jakubhal 08:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Just dropping link to general overview of object: File:Anti-skate devices shaped like maple leaf, Windsor, Ontario, 2025-05-31.jpg Crisco 1492 16:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject seems well captured. DoF not high enough to capture the concrete further away, but I don't think it's needed in this case. Cropping the bottom (and corresponding top, for balance) may be advised.--Peulle 07:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Uva_nera_da_vino_-_grappoli_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Black wine grapes – bunch -- -Anna.Massini 20:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini -Anna.Massini 20:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good quality but need more categories --A S M Jobaer 06:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Another random review. I have an issue with sharpness, but I think it is good enough. No issue with categories here --Jakubhal 08:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Jakubhal. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I am not rating a list of categories here, but a photo. -- Spurzem 12:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Jakubhal. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality/detail/noise/DoF not adequate for a picture in bright daylight. Categorization and description is very good. --Plozessor 10:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes those Samsung Galaxy A series hasn't really good cameras, and I don't think if it is really possible to take a better picture with this camera. --Sebring12Hrs 12:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- F. Riedelio 13:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:BeMoon,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170982-RR).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination BeMoon gravel bikes at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 06:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Cluttered scene with bikes merging with the background --Jakubhal 05:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree, that it's a busy scene. But the main subjects are IMO clearly distinguishable. --MB-one 16:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Landwirtschaftliche_Hochschule_6691.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Heinrich Ferdinand Eckert bust in the Landwirtschaftliche Hochschule Berlin, Germany. --Phyrexian 20:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The head is not really sharp --Jakubhal 08:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately not sharp. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Landwirtschaftliche_Hochschule_6688.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Albrecht Daniel Thaer bust in the Landwirtschaftliche Hochschule Berlin, Germany. --Phyrexian 20:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Some noise and not very sharp. Let's discuss to confirm if it is QI --Jakubhal 08:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slightly blurry and with a lot of chroma noise. Also inadequate file name. --Plozessor 10:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_dorsal_basking_activity_of_Celaenorrhinus_patula_de_Nicéville,_1889_-_Large_Spotted_Flat_WLB_DSC_9399.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing dorsal basking activity of Celaenorrhinus patula --Rijuroy89 16:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I don't want to reject it and I'm fine with it being accepted as is, but I think it is a little bit noisy and not exactly in the focus. --Lvova 15:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lvova --Jakubhal 15:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 09:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Plozessor 10:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 10:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2014-2022_Subaru_Sambar_Truck_Grand_Cab_rear (bearb Sp).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rear view of 2014 Subaru Sambar Truck Grand Cab --TTTNIS 13:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 06:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blends with the car in the background --Jakubhal 08:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, that is an unfortunate background object.--Peulle 07:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Please look to the new version. I think it is one of the better photos of cars we have here though I miss the license plate. Best regards -- Spurzem 12:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now.--Peulle 06:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 06:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lar_National_Park_by_HADI_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lar National Park, WLE Iran, HADI --Lvova 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice picture and QI IMO, but 3000x2000 pixels: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. --Lmbuga 00:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I didn't get your opinion. It is higher than needed for QI, where is the problem? --Lvova 00:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Commons:Image guidelines If you decide to submit the image at its maximum size, be sure to erase the spot (or bird) in the top center. --Lmbuga 00:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    Commons:Image guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled" --Lmbuga 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    If you say the image hasn't been resized, I'd believe it, but not to that exact size when there are two other images with the same size. --Lmbuga 01:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm not an author, so I will not submit a larger file and have no guesses how big it was, but you didn't persuade me that this >than 2mp file lost a lot of needed information (as it is mentioned as a reason in the rules). It is a good picture, no need to compare it with a some picture that could be maybe somewhere --Lvova 03:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Seriously, you vote on your own nominations ? --Sebring12Hrs 12:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. I added the implicit supporting vote by Lvova. There are lots of photos with 3000x2000 pixels in Category:Lar National Park. The camera has four times this resolution. May be the author downsized the photos or possibly took them intentionally at lower resolution. However, there is no description, only a very general category for an area of 35,765 ha and no name for the umbelliferous plant with yellow flowers or for the peak. This is insufficient IMO. Even the file name should be improved. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    @HADI: may be you can fit it? :) @Darafsh: or probably you know who can help. Lvova 12:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
     Info Sorry, there is a description, but it just says "Lar National Park, province of Teheran" in Farsi language. I overlooked this, but there is still insufficient information. BTW, pings do not work here. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment The nominator can't vote. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Before making accusations, at least try to look at the edit history. My vote was not registered as a "support" vote by me, so I should not have to listen "seriously" and get my reply crossed out because of double inattention. Lvova 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I am very sorry. This was my mistake. I am going to check the other images whether they were also nominated by you. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry Lvova !!! --Sebring12Hrs 13:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks both of you, I'm glad that we resolved this quickly :) Lvova 13:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose All these images are taken with a Nikon D5300, offering a resolution of 6.000 x 4.000 Pixel. HADI's images habe always only 3.000 x 2.000 Pixel. So it seems that he downscale them sytematicaly. The minimum resolution of 2 MB is not the point here. The Commons:Image guidelines say also "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file..." So these downscaled images don't meet the guidline. --Milseburg 13:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    I read it as a recommendation for beginners, like how-to: if your photo is not ideal, take it easy and upload without downscaling for the quality, it has value because it is a part of free knowledge, more information is better. But to read it as a prohibition and 'you have not to downscale' (if it is downscaling, not 'to print from raw in such resolution')... I'm sure that the rules are not about it because I think all of you regularly use crop, and it is also a way to lose an information for quality. I see in this an amazing desire for lack of freedom, but I can do nothing with it, just to show my astonishment. Lvova 13:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apart from the downscaling issue there's also the insict above the mountain. Also lack of description (this is a specific mountain that should be mentioend.) --Plozessor 03:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dashti_(Jashak)_Salt_Dome_by_HADI_16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jashak salt dome, WLE Iran, HADI --Lvova 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Same size as others: Nice picture and QI IMO, but 3000x2000 pixels: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. --Lmbuga 01:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The same argument against as a little bit higher - the same disagreement. "Nice picture and QI", much more than needed, no need to compare with unexistent possibilities. --Lvova 03:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Vote stroken. The nominator has no vote. --Milseburg 12:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you stroke instead of take a look into history and find there something? Crazyness. Lvova 13:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC) The voting-icon was mistakenly added and counted by Robert.--Milseburg 13:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I am sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Downsizing is a well-known bad practice, but some images are also cropped. In some cases, downsizing might be acceptable, such as when the image is a composition made from other images—but this is not one of those cases --Wilfredor 21:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears downsized. Could be eligible for support if a larger resolution version is uploaded.--Peulle 06:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lar_National_Park_by_HADI_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lar National Park, WLE Iran, HADI --Lvova 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Nice picture and QI IMO, but 3000x2000 pixels: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. --Lmbuga 01:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    The same argument against as a little bit higher - the same disagreement. "Nice picture and QI", much more than needed, no need to compare with unexistent possibilities. --Lvova 03:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still a bit too blurry IMO. In addition, categorization, description, and even the file name are too generic, especially because the coordinates of the location were not provided either. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    Robert, please, be more careful, do not decorate "support" in a situation where the rejection is disputed by the nominator. People are inattentive and rude, and as a result they suspect me of breaking the rules. Lvova 13:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    I am very sorry. You are right --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:พระธาตุดอยจอมทอง_Phra_Dhatu_Doi_Chom_Thong_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Phra That Doi Chom Thong, Thailand --Chainwit. 16:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 17:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is too low for a well-lit exterior picture, sorry. PC would have needed, as well as treating the burnt highlights --Benjism89 17:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support The chosen wide-angle perspective looks a little unfortunate, but I don't really see any reason to correct the perspective. The overexposed reflections only affect a very small part of the object and I don't find that very disturbing in this case, because overall the shiny surfaces don't look wrong. --Smial 13:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 19:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Otranto_-_Coastal_landscape_-_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Otranto (Apulia, Italy) - Coastal landscape East of town --Benjism89 10:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Very over-processed picture appearance --Lmbuga 15:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Colors and contrast are very good. The image is sharp in the foreground. May be a bit unsharp on the left trees in the background. But let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 16:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The colours may be a little too saturated, but the image sharpness is good enough considering the high resolution. The lighting almost directly from behind is not so nice because it looks similar to a flash and therefore appears ‘flat’. --Smial 23:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support As someone who lived very close to the sea for many years in the Caribbean, I can say that nature and the ocean there look different. Because of the sunlight, the colors of things appear saturated, even though they’re not --Wilfredor 21:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 06:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Trail_Vodno.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trail in Vodno, Skopje. --Kallerna 05:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry but nothing interesting --A S M Jobaer 11:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Support Interesting or not, good enough quality for QI --Jakubhal 12:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @A S M Jobaer: The fact that you find this picture uninteresting is irrelevant here. What could be relevant is if the picture was out of Commons' project scope, i.e. "providing knowledge; instructional or informative" (I don't believe it's the case here). --Benjism89 18:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC))
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support solid good quality --Kritzolina 05:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Museum_für_Naturkunde_6942.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Specimen of conjoined twins mutation in the Natural History Museum, Berlin, Germany. --Phyrexian 23:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Very nice. I'd crop a bit off the bottom to keep the ends equidistant. --Crisco 1492 00:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Crisco 1492: ✓ Done. --Phyrexian 06:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 16:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting is bad. Also, the photo could be sharper. In my opinion, it's not a high-quality image. -- Spurzem 10:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of the overexposed areas. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me and hight EV --Wilfredor 21:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness, so not a QI. And: why nominate something that fails our COM:FN guideline, as the chosen name is too broad? I'm not going to fix it, though, until the voting is over. Grand-Duc 21:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 06:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Hotel_Mercure,_Middle_Road,_Singapur,_2023-08-16,_DD_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercure Hotel, Middle Road, Singapore --Poco a poco 08:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 09:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ziv 14:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted, one cannot see here the real shape of the building -- Екатерина Борисова 01:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 07:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment New version is not perfect, but acceptable IMO, so I removed my opposing vote. -- Екатерина Борисова 12:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted --Lmbuga 16:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think distortion is acceptable in the new version. --Benjism89 18:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 19:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Place_des_Arcades_in_Sauveterre-de-R_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Place des Arcades in Sauveterre-de-Rouergue, Aveyron, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 09:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Here the perspective correction has led to the fact that the middle of the image falls back, and the left side of the building looks noticeably higher than the right. --Екатерина Борисова 02:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't see the "middle of the image fallas back" or the left building higher than the right buildings. --Sebring12Hrs 11:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the left building is higher than the right buildings, but one side of the left building is higher than another. --Lvova 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded. --Tournasol7 06:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, and white balance off. (Both is not natural as the picture was taken shortly after noon in May.) Perspective is harder to fix, and indeed it looks a bit weird because on both edges the buildings are higher than in the corner (which is in the middle). Here is a suggestion: https://ibb.co/Z12DQqkY. --Plozessor 11:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Your version looks fine! -- Екатерина Борисова 20:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
    I like it also, not only because of colors, but because of the left side of the left building, the tower and the right part of the right building. Lvova 14:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can't see anything wrong with PC here, it looks natural when the buildings are small and the photographer far from them. WB seems fine to me . But yes, as in many of your pictures Krzysztof, it looks like a storm will start in five minutes : increase exposure ! :) --Benjism89 18:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's of course a dull light day. The colors on the Plozessor image isn't a bit too much warm ? --Sebring12Hrs 12:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Even in my version, the church clock, the license plate of the grey car, and the sign above that care are still (very slightly) blue, so probably it should be evern warmer. (In the original version they are #b3c1ca, #c5cdd9, #96a0a1, all blue tones.) --Plozessor 18:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Mausoleum_of_António_Gomes_Leal,_by_Francisco_dos_Santos,_Alto_de_São_João_cemetery,_Lisbon,_Portugal_(PPL1-Corrected)_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mausoleum of António Gomes Leal, by Francisco dos Santos, Alto de São João cemetery, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 21:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • The statue looks good, but the background is very overexposed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The background is indeed bright, but not overexposed: there are no clipped highlights, neither in the original Raw file nor in the edited JPEG --Julesvernex2 08:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are lighting conditions that make a good photo impossible. Here, the shadows are too dark, and the background is grossly overexposed in places. In my opinion, this photo is by no means a quality image. -- Spurzem 10:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult light conditions with the sunlit background indeed, but IMO the photographer handled them very well. Some elements in the background are very bright but IMO not clipped. The actual subject is properly exposed and razor-sharp. --Plozessor 11:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportI agree with Plozessor. --Romzig 17:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment This reminds me of my attempt to photograph the black cat in the dark basement without any light. I definitely should have featured the picture here. ;-) Best regards -- Spurzem 06:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the complaints about the bright background are absolutely fair, so I've uploaded a new version with slightly reduced highlights (although not so much as to give the image that awful low-contrast HDR-look). A couple of points on where I personally stand on this image: i) Is the background overexposed? No. Overexposure is when parts of the image are captured as pure white (R:100%, G:100%, B:100%) because the full well capacity of some pixels was surpassed, leading to loss of information. That did not happen here; ii) Was this the best time to photograph the statue? No. A few minutes before the dappled light over the statue was probably stronger, reducing the contrast to the background. I'll have to ge there again :) --Julesvernex2 09:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment It is not true that photos are only overexposed if individual pixels have an RGB value of 0xFFFFFF. Individual color channels can also overflow, and this often leads to serious color distortions. I once uploaded an example a few years ago to illustrate the problem. Please take a look at the different file versions here: File:Unna ZIB RIMG10380.jpg --Smial 12:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
      • You're right, fair point: clipping on individual colour channels can also lead to information loss. That wasn't the case in this image, though. Your example is very interesting, thank you for uploading the individual channel clipping to the image's history. Out of curiosity, have you tried reprocessing this image with a recent demosaicing algorithm? In my experience (although it may not be applicable to an image with this amount of clipping), AI-based demosaicing algorithms (e.g., DXO, Adobe Enhance) are sometimes better at guessing the correct luminance value of overflown pixels from the values of the surrounding pixels --Julesvernex2 14:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
        •  Comment No, I have never used “AI” tools and probably never will, at least not knowingly (With phones, you no longer have any significant influence on what the built-in image degradation system puts together). The exception is neat image, which I have been using for several years. --Smial 18:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 19:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Otranto_-_Cava_di_bauxite_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Otranto (Apulia, Italy) - Lake created by an abandoned bauxite mine --Benjism89 06:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 15:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 15:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is not good --Poco a poco 15:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe not perfect, but over the bar for me. --Plozessor 04:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Anna.Massini 20:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 20:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for an A4-size print. Probably denoising somewhat overdone? --Smial 13:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 19:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Экспонаты_музея_Востока_на_ВДНХ_28.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A fragment of a Japanese lamp from the 18th century --Lvova 06:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline bottom crop. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 16:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Hochries,_Alpes_del_Chiemgau,_Alemania,_2024-10-18,_DD_17-22_PAN.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hochries, Chiemgau Alps, Germany --Poco a poco 16:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • A colored edge can be seen on the ridge near the sun. The right frame is too blurred and the transition is too clear. The horizon should not be so curved although the earth is of course a sphere. --Ermell 08:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version, thanks --Poco a poco 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 16:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I sharpened it, QI IMHO, please, let's discuss. Btw the images has 32 Mpx of resolution --Poco a poco 12:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know if this are CAs or not but there are some strange textures at the top of the trees. I added a note. --Sebring12Hrs 15:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    That was a bit of chroma noise, removed. Poco a poco 16:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It has some technical deficiencies (especially sharpness and detail), but the composition is very good and overall it is over the bar for me. It is a bit dark, but it was taken at evening so that seems realistic. --Plozessor 07:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharpness is good now but there are some stitching errors visible if you look at the horizont.--Ermell 10:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, there are stitching errors, had overlooked these. --Plozessor 03:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Will need 2 days to fix them Poco a poco 06:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Plozessor, Ermell: I'm ready to fix any stitching issues, but I cannot say for sure that there are any. In some areas, they could be but I'm not 100% sure. Could you please add notes in the areas you believe rework is required? Poco a poco 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Marked an obvious one. --Plozessor 15:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, ✓ Done Poco a poco 08:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now. --Plozessor 05:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 19:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 29 May → Fri 06 Jun
  • Fri 30 May → Sat 07 Jun
  • Sat 31 May → Sun 08 Jun
  • Sun 01 Jun → Mon 09 Jun
  • Mon 02 Jun → Tue 10 Jun
  • Tue 03 Jun → Wed 11 Jun
  • Wed 04 Jun → Thu 12 Jun
  • Thu 05 Jun → Fri 13 Jun
  • Fri 06 Jun → Sat 14 Jun