Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.09.19.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Gemeiner Beinwell.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2014.09.19.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Gemeiner Beinwell.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2015 at 11:23:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)- Support --XRay talk 09:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The background is not ideal (distracting bright spots, also preventing you from making the rest of the image brighter), the arrangement of the blossoms feels chaotic and the backlight doesn't help them (they are quite dark). Many areas look blurred by noise reduction or compression, only very high contrast edges are somewhat sharp. The composition is ordinarily centered. — Julian H.✈ 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment Because of your view in terms of the background and the arrangement of the blossoms a picture of this plant could hardly get a FP. This is its natural look and environment I want to show. Also there is blurriness neither by noise reduction nor by compression(?). Certainly using F2,8 would be sharper than F16 but then I wouldn't have achieved enough DOF for this blossom cluster. The bright spots is the sky shining through the higher vegetation in the evening. The former version was to bright for me. The colours are better now. But it's OK that you don't like it. --Hockei (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like some algorithm's result to me but ultimately, it doesn't matter. The result is not sharp and other images here show that it's possible to get much sharper results. Regarding your opinion that a picture of this plant could hardly get FP status: I'm sure it's possible to find such a plant with a slightly less busy background. But even if not: There is no guarantee that every subject must be capturable such that it deserves FP status. If that's not possible, that's ok and changes nothing. In total, the vast majority of subjects is hardly material for FP photos. — Julian H.✈ 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are several pictures that I not find sharp enough and they got FP. It's your opinion. But never regarding nature ... In total, the vast majority of subjects is hardly material for FP photos. is something what I see so. The nature is no building! --Hockei (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like some algorithm's result to me but ultimately, it doesn't matter. The result is not sharp and other images here show that it's possible to get much sharper results. Regarding your opinion that a picture of this plant could hardly get FP status: I'm sure it's possible to find such a plant with a slightly less busy background. But even if not: There is no guarantee that every subject must be capturable such that it deserves FP status. If that's not possible, that's ok and changes nothing. In total, the vast majority of subjects is hardly material for FP photos. — Julian H.✈ 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support To me the limning of the plant offsets the potentially distracting background. Anymore than that, I can't say why, but I did look twice at this one while scrolling through candidates. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I see no chance anymore for this picture. 
--Hockei (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
