Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Echinocereus reichenbachii by RO.jpg

File:Echinocereus reichenbachii by RO.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 23:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Echinocereus reichenbachii by RO.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Echinocereus reichenbachii by RO.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info created by RO - uploaded by RO - nominated by Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Nice little plant, good illustration for an encyclopedia. --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Colors adapted with background. There are minor mistakes at stack, but I am aware what stacking of spines make. --Mile (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really nothing special here. It is just a nice plant, good illustration for an encyclopedia. Not enough for FP.--Jebulon (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a focus stack of six images, so the clarity of focus on the cactus is not something that's attainable with a single shot. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Very good technical achievement indeed. I don't say the contrary. I just find the subject a bit boring, sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Support While I can see Jebulon's point and indeed was originally going to !vote the same way, I took another look and realized I rather like the clarity and forms here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--Isasza (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm close to support but the crop at bottom is a bit tight... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose A bit tight at bottom, and as Jebulon. In my opinion it's tilted to right--Lmbuga (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Very good quality of the subject, I suggest tighter crop like this. Either way both of them are ordinary compositions and bottom crop of the original is too tight hence much focus to the subject is better, imho. --Laitche (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor choice of technique. The Focus stacking is not warranted and if chosen so that the light be controlled; which N'e not been the case here. The appearance is very actificiel (check the web normal images of this species). It is not assessible FP but not for VI because the subject is not well described. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Without focus stacking you could not get focus on the outside spines and the skin of the cactus. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this object is at least 10 cm. you must close the diphragme more. If you're very perfectionist you can do it in 2 images but no need to do so with 6, especially in light that varied. Test. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this specimen is less than 6 cm tall and 3.5 cm wide, and the light isn't varied; it was full sun directly behind through a diffuser, and the six shots were taken within 18 seconds of each other. You do realize this it a macro shot, right? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The focus stacks in natural light are still very disappointing, precisely because the light is unstable.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose sorry, but this is just a snapshot, no composition, wrong crop.--Hubertl 13:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)