Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colchicum hierosolymitanum 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Colchicum hierosolymitanum 1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 20:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Gidip (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment -- Cons: poor composition, lighting and quality.Fotoriety (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you give a little more detail please? Gidip (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- What detail do you desire? Wasn't my comment straight-forward enough?Fotoriety (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is poor in the lighting? In the composition? In the quality? Gidip (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Lighting: pretty straight-forward; look at the strong shadows. Such photos shouldn't display these harsh shadows. 2) Composition: you have left too much space on the left, too little on the right, the dirt then grass background is aesthetically displeasing, the 3 flowers themselves are not too pleasing in their positioning. 3) Quality: the photo is not sharp enough.Fotoriety (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. The photo was taken at twilight to produce a soft light and a long shadow which bears the shape of the flowers and is part of the composition. Since the flowers are quite far apart from each other, DOF is almost as deep as it can be to catch both the back flowers and the snail shell in the front flower. The only thing I agree with is the dirt vs. grass. It seems that my criteria for judging plant photos are quite different from the majority here. I dislike the flat, perfectly symmetrical photos of flowers shot from above that are often promoted here, for instance. Gidip (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- "It seems that my criteria for judging plant photos are quite different from the majority here. I dislike the flat, perfectly symmetrical photos of flowers shot from above that are often promoted here, for instance." -You are not alone. I always prefer a side view over photos taken from above. This is quite applicable for other subjects like animals too. But a dorsal view also has some educational value; so I prefer them as a "secondary view". (The DOF may be a problem of your lens, as I commented earlier.) JKadavoor Jee 04:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Jee. Why a problem of the lens? Maybe it's because I don't use a tripod. On second thought, there are only 103 FP of flowers, much less than the number for arthropods, which are moving and therefore harder to capture. It seems to me that the community is very harsh on promoting flower FPs. Gidip (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Macro lens with small focal lengths have very shallow DOF; they are mainly for small subjects like a stamen of a flower. You need a long lens like a 150-200mm macro for an entire plant profile like this. I assume you are using a 85mm macro; not a normal lens with some closeup filter or ex. tube. Flowers are difficult to get appreciated here; I too take many photos, never got any FP so far. :( JKadavoor Jee 09:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- But entire plants are large subjects. I had to get away a few metres even with my lens, so a longer lens wouldn't be practical here. In smaller subjects it would help. Gidip (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I mean this plant. Isn't it an entire view? JKadavoor Jee 10:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)So the subject distance here is more than one meter? Increase in subject distance will improve DOF; but reduce details. So for such views a normal tele lens may ideal. JKadavoor Jee 10:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Requesting H. Krisp's advice may help you; His mushrooms are much like your plants. I think he is using a 55mm in most of his works. JKadavoor Jee 16:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)- Thanks! Gidip (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- But entire plants are large subjects. I had to get away a few metres even with my lens, so a longer lens wouldn't be practical here. In smaller subjects it would help. Gidip (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Macro lens with small focal lengths have very shallow DOF; they are mainly for small subjects like a stamen of a flower. You need a long lens like a 150-200mm macro for an entire plant profile like this. I assume you are using a 85mm macro; not a normal lens with some closeup filter or ex. tube. Flowers are difficult to get appreciated here; I too take many photos, never got any FP so far. :( JKadavoor Jee 09:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Jee. Why a problem of the lens? Maybe it's because I don't use a tripod. On second thought, there are only 103 FP of flowers, much less than the number for arthropods, which are moving and therefore harder to capture. It seems to me that the community is very harsh on promoting flower FPs. Gidip (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- "It seems that my criteria for judging plant photos are quite different from the majority here. I dislike the flat, perfectly symmetrical photos of flowers shot from above that are often promoted here, for instance." -You are not alone. I always prefer a side view over photos taken from above. This is quite applicable for other subjects like animals too. But a dorsal view also has some educational value; so I prefer them as a "secondary view". (The DOF may be a problem of your lens, as I commented earlier.) JKadavoor Jee 04:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. The photo was taken at twilight to produce a soft light and a long shadow which bears the shape of the flowers and is part of the composition. Since the flowers are quite far apart from each other, DOF is almost as deep as it can be to catch both the back flowers and the snail shell in the front flower. The only thing I agree with is the dirt vs. grass. It seems that my criteria for judging plant photos are quite different from the majority here. I dislike the flat, perfectly symmetrical photos of flowers shot from above that are often promoted here, for instance. Gidip (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Lighting: pretty straight-forward; look at the strong shadows. Such photos shouldn't display these harsh shadows. 2) Composition: you have left too much space on the left, too little on the right, the dirt then grass background is aesthetically displeasing, the 3 flowers themselves are not too pleasing in their positioning. 3) Quality: the photo is not sharp enough.Fotoriety (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is poor in the lighting? In the composition? In the quality? Gidip (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- What detail do you desire? Wasn't my comment straight-forward enough?Fotoriety (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you give a little more detail please? Gidip (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Composition can be considered as balanced if we include the shadow as part of the subject. But not sharp enough. JKadavoor Jee 12:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
