Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sawara Falsecypress Chamaecyparis pisifera Bark Horizontal.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Sawara Falsecypress Chamaecyparis pisifera Bark Horizontal.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 02:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants (Cupressaceae)
Info created, uploaded, nominated by me. -- Ram-Man 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Support Out of many bark photos, this is one of the most beautiful, with contrasting textures and colors. -- Ram-Man 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)- Support - I heartily agree. Beautiful, colorful and an excellent composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It’s certainly nice but lacks something special for me. I was hoping for a great level of detail but it’s rather unsharp at 100 percent view! I particularly don’t see any special composition as suggested by Ikan Kekek – it’s a random crop of a bark, structures being cut off on both top and bottom. It might be the best within the category given but it’s still a straightforward shot IMHO, below my personal threshold of wow to be featured. Try Valued Images instead, that’s about the best images within a given range. --Kreuzschnabel 05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I consider the composition excellent because of how my eye moves around the picture frame, and secondarily, how pleasant the varied textures are. It had to be cropped somewhere. What's important to me is the results. We simply have different taste and/or reactions to this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)- Compare the sharpness to this tack sharp 8.5MP downsampled version. This is an extremely sharp lens. The diffraction limit at f/11 is approximately 11MP. Pixel peeping is not appropriate on high resolution, small aperture images. -- Ram-Man 11:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness issues aside, to me it's just a picture of bark in its natural state. Definitely potentially a VI but it's not striking enough to me for FP> Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
