Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 January 2024.
  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 January 2024.
  • 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 January 23 2024 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]] 12:51, 23 January 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


January 23, 2024[edit]

January 22, 2024[edit]

January 21, 2024[edit]

January 20, 2024[edit]

January 19, 2024[edit]

January 18, 2024[edit]

January 17, 2024[edit]

January 16, 2024[edit]

January 15, 2024[edit]

January 14, 2024[edit]

January 12, 2024[edit]

January 11, 2024[edit]

January 10, 2024[edit]

January 9, 2024[edit]

January 8, 2024[edit]

January 7, 2024[edit]

January 6, 2024[edit]

January 5, 2024[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Human.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Figures of a man and a woman from the Pioneer plaque (by Gmaxwell). --Thi 14:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not created by a Commons user per description. --Plozessor 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • That is probably wrong, but files with wrong description cannot be QI either. --Plozessor (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support No offence, but please let us discuss what exactly the rules say to this special case. This is a SVG representation of a well-known (some would say: iconic) drawing. Because the SVG is a reproduction, I would expect the QI process to judge not the drawing, but the quality of the SVG representation. AFAIK the SVG has been created by a Commons user. So shoudln’t we accept this file and judge it on the base of the SVG representation – namely, whether it represents the original drawing accuratel and is of good technical quality? I would say so … --Aristeas 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Then the description is wrong. No issues with SVG representations of NASA works, but the description uses the template PD-NASA and clearly says that "This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA.". If that is wrong, fix the description and then I'd support it. --Plozessor (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good hint! Yes, then the template {{PD-NASA}} is somewhat misleading here. At least it should be amended by a hint stating that the vectorization was done by somebody else. --Aristeas 11:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

File:D-6-74-187-13_Marienstatue.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 1933 statue of Mary in Falsbrunn --Plozessor 05:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds are overexposed, sorry. --Tournasol7 05:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd appreciate discussion about this 'overexposed clouds' issue. On a slightly cloudy day, you can't take a reasonable picture of an object in the shadow without parts of the brightest sunlit clouds overexposed. This could be worked around only with HDR, but I haven't read anywhere that HDR would be a prerequisite for QI. Personally, I would consider overexposed clouds a flaw in landscape photos, but not where the subject is a small object on the ground. --Plozessor 05:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No need for HDR here, this is simply overexposed. Not only the clouds, but also some parts of the object itself are clipping. With better exposure and some s-curving the contrast could have been handled. Note: Always select the lowest possible ISO setting that still allows a blur-free photo. All digital cameras then record the largest possible contrast range. With each whole step higher ISO setting, one f-stop of contrast range is automagically lost. And this is then missing when you fiddle around with a JPG from the raw image. (Subsequent S-curving of an already "developed" JPG is only useful to a very limited extent, as this can easily lead to banding or torn tonal value gradients). --Smial 08:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial: This was taken with the "lowest possible ISO setting" that my camera offers (ISO 100), and of course I applied all settings during RAW conversion, I did NOT "fiddle around with a JPG". Still, even the contrast range of an APS-C sensor at ISO 100 might not be enough to provide high detail for an object in the shadow AND for the bright sunlit parts of clouds. With higher exposure we lose detail in the clouds, with lower exposure we lose detail in the shadows. The subject of the image is the statue (not the landscape), and QI guidelines specifically say that an image must have enough details "in the shadows", so I wanted to get the best possible representation of the statue and did not care about the clouds. --Plozessor 09:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial, @Tournasol7, I've found that I made another shot with lower exposure. Replaced the image now, please evaluate the new one (make sure you don't view the old version from cache). This has now probably less detail for the statue, but the overall exposure is better. --Plozessor 10:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Which part of the Rules do you refer to? I found "Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element." And: " In correctly exposed images, details in a significant part of image are retained. " - well in a photo with sky and clouds in the composition, these are always significant.My comment about the ISO settings was not meant as a personal criticism, but as a general help with a practical example for anyone who is happy to receive tips. --Smial 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial: Yeah, interesting, the description says "lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic" while the left column of that same row ("Exposure") lists "lost details in shadow areas" as an issue. Anyway, what do you think about the new version? --Plozessor 12:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 09:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 13:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Sundance_Film_Festival_2024_-_Layla_-_Darkwah-104A1471.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Actor Darkwah at the premiere of the movie Layla at the 40th Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah --Frank Schulenburg 01:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
     Question Shouldn't persons' hair be complete on portraits? Most of these images have the heads cut off. --Plozessor 06:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Cropping the hair at the top is a very common portait style. Of course this is a matter of taste, but IHMO we should not decline images just because they use a common style. --Aristeas 10:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I tend to disagree with the "cropping the hair at the top is a very common portait style" statement. I could not find any reference that states that, and just checking a random portrait category like [Category:2011 portrait photographs of men], there are hardly any photos with the hair cropped. --Plozessor 14:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Here are some websites of commercial photographers (almost arbitrary selection) which show that cropping the hair is common with “headshots”:
We could find many more examples. I am not saying that one should do that, I just want to emphasize that this is a common style. Best, --Aristeas 19:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Depends on how you define "common", but the majority of portraits out there do not have the hair cut off. Anyway, in this particular case, the crop is really disturbing. Might be because that person's dark skin blends with the hair, so the photo gives the impression that the head is cut off. --Plozessor 05:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is insufficient categorization and other data. No caption, no "depicts" statement in the structured data, just a category for the event, nothing at all about the person on the photo. O.k., you can probably still find this image with the information from the file name and the description. And even if cutting a part of the hair off may be common style, this crop may impair the usability of the image, at least in my opinion. E.g., I would probably refrain from using this image for a Wikipedia article of the depicted person if I could find a good alternative image without this kind of crop. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good image -- Spurzem 13:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great portrait. Cutting off the top of the head is done to keep the eys on the upper portion of the frame, which is flattering for most face types. One is of course free to dislike the result, but technically it serves a purpose. --Julesvernex2 19:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks for your attempt to explain the intention of the crop. However, the downward shift of the eyes by not cutting off some hair would have been tiny in this case. IMO this is obvious from other (commercial) photos of the same person at the same event that can be found on the web. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't find the difference negligible, particularly if the photographer needs to stick to a 3:2 aspect ratio (often a requirement for this type of images, so they can be quickly added to a pre-formatted publication). Compare it to Getty's Darkwah Sundance image ([1]), for instance. The same 3:2 aspect ratio, but with no chopped off head and placing the eyes on the one-third line. It's also a perfectly fine portrait, but personally I prefer Frank's: a more intimate close-up, better skin tones, no shadow, and it doesn't cost €475 :-). I understand that you have a different preference, that's fine. From a technical perspective, however, I don't see why this image should fail QI (apart perhaps due to the plane of focus, which is not quite on the eyes). --Julesvernex2 09:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well exposed and, given the available lighting, quite well shot. Unfortunately, the focus is on the necklace and the hair, not the eyes. The cropping is a matter of taste, in my opinion it does not contribute to a better image effect in this case. Whether the landscape format is due to any agency specifications or production processes is, in my opinion, irrelevant for commons or QIC. --Smial 12:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial. --Tagooty 09:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Aristeas 19:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Senden,_Dortmund-Ems-Kanal,_Brücke_am_Kappenberger_Damm_--_2024_--_9875.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bridge (Kappenberger Damm) over the Dortmund-Ems Canal near Senden, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany/The shot used the creative technique of intentional camera movement. --XRay 04:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Outstanding. Unfortunately, the purpose of this technology remains a mystery to me. Even with perfect control, I consider them to be incompatible with the criteria for quality images. I don't see any benefit in such a distorted view of this bridge, even when it's intended. --Milseburg 14:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Neutral Per Milseburg. Piece of art: Yes, QI: No. Also, even if ICM pictures would quality, this might not be a good example (it's tilted, the movement seems irregular). It's burned out and overcontrasted and has nothing to do with natural colors (which is ok for an artwork but not for QI.) --Plozessor 05:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Two things I can understand (even well): Criticism of the design of a photo, even if it was made with techniques such as ICM, and a certain discomfort with the evaluation. Thanks to those who give their criticism here objectively. I am aware that these pictures are much more difficult to judge and that opinions are likely to differ widely. Our rules have exceptions to the evaluation (e.g. for SVG) and not all criteria can apply to photos taken with ICM. The rules apply to FPC and QIC. Not everyone likes artistic photos, but they should also find a gap. They are an expression of creative photography and thus part of our Wikimedia Commons world. The topic can be discussed in principle, but I see no reason to do so with this image. We must also remember that in addition to creative photographers, we also have those who take realistic pictures and have other Wikimedia projects in mind. --XRay 08:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @XRay: I'd appreciate a general discussion on the Discussions page about the question: What kind of images QI is about. My personal opinion is that QI should be somehow usable to illustrate Wikipedia. This would, however, rule out this type of pictures which are not useful to illustrate anything except the artistic technology used to create them. But, maybe that would be enough? Would be interesting to hear other opinions on that. --Plozessor 10:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't want to offend anyone. To put it bluntly: if our goal here was exclusively Wikipedia, I would say goodbye. I'm passionate about photography and its diversity and possibilities. It's important to me to try things out, to develop. This also includes creative approaches. I also take the more concrete photos that are suitable for Wikipedia. Not every photo is successful. But that's not everything for me. As has already been mentioned here, the Wikipedia-only approach is outdated and we should critically revise the rules for the FPC and QIC. --XRay 11:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • First of all, the images here (including QIs) also serve all the other Wikipedia's sister projects. List: Template:Wikipedia's sister projects, so let's put out the notion that images should only be for Wikipedias. Take a look at how wide the WikiProject really is, and how many different sorts of images this requires. Second, even artistic images like ICM can be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles. --W.carter 12:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Changing my vote to neutral for now, until we get a consensus whether this type of photo qualifies for QI. Still, @XRay: is the tilt in this picture intentional? --Plozessor 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I also thought about whether it was really tilted or not. It's difficult with this type of picture. The bridge is curved and this can at least create the effect. No tripod is used. --XRay 13:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The QI rules have been formulated in a time when Commons was mostly a repository for Wikipedia illustrations – functional, tidy, and mostly very mediocre photographs (please don’t take this personally: all of my own photographs are very mediocre and boring, too). Over time Commons has matured to a general archive of free media for many purposes. If we punish creative photography, we turn away exactly our best photographers. So the QI rules certainly need an update. However IMHO we can already assess photos like this one when we follow the idea of a “quality image” idea and interpret the rules in that spirit. For a photo like this one, we may ask: Is the overall technical quality OK? Has the creative technique, here: the intentional camera movement, been selected for a subject for which it is fitting? Has the creative technique been used successfully, i.e. has it enriched the photography to express something or to give an impression which would not have been possible with a “normal” photograph? IMHO the answer is yes in this case. Best, --Aristeas 11:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment What is the content that this image wants to communicate? The image stands out clearly from the others and is therefore certainly interesting. But if such alienation becomes fashionable in the future and all possible motifs are presented in this or a similar way, a separate award should be set up for it. There seems to be more focus on art and creativity than objective quality standards. Certainly this is not what anyone looking for a quality image of this bridge needs. --Milseburg 17:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Does every picture have to convey content? And maybe someone is just looking for an abstract representation of the bridge and is happy to find these pictures here too. Who knows? --XRay 08:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, at least for me there's no doubt that your picture should be in Commons. The only question is whether it can be a QI, mainly because it's impossible to apply most of the relevant criteria to it. --Plozessor 10:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
How do you judge "exposure" for an image that is intentionally overexposed?
How do you judge "color" for an image that intentionally uses false colors?
How do you judge "focus" for an image that is out of focus intentionally?
How do you judge "blur" for an image that is intentionally blurred?
How do you judge "distortion" for an image that is intentionally distorted?
--Plozessor 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • To be honest, that sounds like a desperate search for a set of rules. I certainly remember such discussions, e.g. for image resolution in wildlife photography. Certainly some things are difficult to name. Is the shot just blurred or is it a design element? We even have categories for both: Intentionally blurred images and Blurred images. --XRay 10:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Exactly, "a set of rules" is required to decide whether something is a QI or not. Obviously the existing "rules" - exposure, color, focus, blur, etc. - are not really suitable for judging artistic images like yours. So we need some criteria: What makes an artistic image an artistic quality image? Do you have suggestions? --Plozessor 14:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this is a kind of photographic quality I would like to see more of --Kritzolina 08:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can't see anything. --Sebring12Hrs 13:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If we want to be objective, given the constraints foreseen for Q.I., the conditions should not exist because they mainly involve overcoming technical aspects. I think there needs to be an overhaul when it comes to creativity. Movement or, more precisely, blur have always been viewed with horror, as one of the mistakes to absolutely avoid. Through blurring we can create fairy-tale atmospheres or give a particular dynamism to the photos and, why not, use the camera as if it were a brush with which to spread colors on a canvas. Photography thus (in my opinion) becomes art. Photos don't just have to be documentation. I believe that xRay has the right to "create" emotions and sensations through photography that go beyond the simple subject photographed. In these cases the objective standards leave room for subjective sensations, so I don't feel like criticizing those who voted negatively, simply because they did not receive sufficient emotions or they were not convinced by the creator's work. --Terragio67 21:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I have a similar opinion as User:Plozessor. I just cannot understand what the criteria should be for evaluation of the quality of such an image. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment If you look at other pictures done with that technique, you will soon see the differences. This one has very clear lines that speak of the intent (many don't). The coloring is very interesting, nothing ist just an unclear mushy grey or brown. We can see the bridge and something I would call the idea of the bridge. This is really high quality. --Kritzolina 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture is quite pretty, but the blurring serves no technical purpose or to emphasise a particular feature of an object. A canal bridge like this is not usually travelling very fast. I don't think QIC is the right place to judge artistic expression. And even if I am of the opinion that a photo can become QI even if the photographer does not slavishly adhere to the usual, customary rules of composition, I do not feel called upon to judge artistic value. Apart from that, a photo of this type should not show any image noise (if blurred, then at least consistently) and no overexposed areas. --Smial 07:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg. --Augustgeyler 13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg and Smial. I think QI as it exists is not the place for this image. --Tagooty 09:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Clouds_at_the_edge_of_Netravati_peak_from_the_summit_of_the_mountain_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Clouds at the edge of Netravati peak from the summit of the mountain --IM3847 14:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Borderline sharpness, but ok at lower resolution --Plozessor 17:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Nearly half of the image is overexposed. Can you recover the highlights? --C messier 17:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is ok. But must agree to C messier, Whites are clipping. --Smial 11:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --C messier 21:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Risstal_03_–_Richtung_Almdorf_Eng.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rißtal (valley of the river Riss) in Tyrol, Austria. --Cayambe 09:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 09:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blue hue doesn't look natural. --Draceane 10:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • weak Oppose Indeed the sky is a bit purple, should be easy to fix in raw conversion. --Plozessor 05:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Removing my vote as I have retouched the file. --Plozessor 11:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Blue hue reduced. Better now?--Cayambe 19:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Cayambe: Unfortunately not, now it's really bad. You somehow reduced the saturation of the mountains and sky, but also of a part of the trees. Now the trees below the mountain are green at the bottom and grey at the top. You should take the original version and change purple to blue. In Photoshop you'd do that with selective color adjustment, select purple tones and adjust the tone to be more blue and less purple. --Plozessor 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Plozessor. The 'selective color adjustment' works best for the RAW file, which inadvertently I had deleted and is lost now. I was not successful in performing the purple-blue toning correction in the tiff-version in PS. Best regards,--Cayambe 11:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cayambe: @Draceane: Gave it a try myself, what do you think? --Plozessor 11:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Why and in which cases should "selective colour adjustment" actually be necessary for landscape photos? (Serious question. With this photo here, it seems to have gone thoroughly wrong, in every version.) --Smial 13:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: I guess something went wrong in raw conversion. In any case, in the original picture, all colors looked fine except for shades of blue, those appeared slightly purple. Adjusting brightness and hue for shades of blue improved the appearance. Of course it would have been better to adjust colors during raw conversion, but unfortunately the author does not have the raw file anymore. --Plozessor 14:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: @Plozessor: It still appears a bit strange, we're not used to see neither colors in the reality. It's a pity, the capture is really nice, but I cannot get over the bluish hues. --Draceane 20:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all of you :-), distant rocky mountains always appear with a bluish hue in photos... and also in TV cameras and screens, this simply because these mountains appear in reality like that. If we don't see that hue, it is because our brain corrects it to a greyish colour, similarly to the correction of the reddish hue of a white sheet of paper under a lamp with reddish light. I agree that this hue should be corrected... similarly to the perspective correction. --Cayambe 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cayambe: That can be debated (and whether the picture should be retouched to meet human perception). But in this case, no issue with blue, the original problem was that the mountains and sky were not blue but purple. --Plozessor 05:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Mon 15 Jan → Tue 23 Jan
  • Tue 16 Jan → Wed 24 Jan
  • Wed 17 Jan → Thu 25 Jan
  • Thu 18 Jan → Fri 26 Jan
  • Fri 19 Jan → Sat 27 Jan
  • Sat 20 Jan → Sun 28 Jan
  • Sun 21 Jan → Mon 29 Jan
  • Mon 22 Jan → Tue 30 Jan
  • Tue 23 Jan → Wed 31 Jan