Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Herbstzeitlose01.JPG

Image:Herbstzeitlose01.JPG, not featured

•  Info created by [[--Böhringer - uploaded by [[--Böhringer - nominated by [[--Böhringer -Böhringer Please correct your Info. When nominating a picture change User:Username|Username to your User-ID. Thanks --Simonizer 09:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
•  InfoColchicum autumnale Blütendetail einer Herbszeitlose mit Staubbeutel und Blütenstempel [1]
•  Support --Böhringer 09:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Very nice colors. J-Luc 13:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Many details are out of focus in that no value 1 picture. Still I'm glad we are back to English(kind of)--Mbz1 14:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

  What does "no value" mean? --LC-de 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, it means that the image is not special in any way (in my opinion)--Mbz1 17:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support really nice composition and as J-Luc said nice colors --AngMoKio 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose All that glitters is not gold. Unlovely composition & underexposed sky. --Bergwolf 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Question underexposed sky ?!? I don't understand, can you explain how you would like the sky to be exposed ? J-Luc 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition does not compensate for the shallow DoF inherent to pictures at this magnification. -- Ram-Man 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's dull, there's nothing interesting or outstanding about it. Majorly (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Jina Lee 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely photograph. This is a Commons Featured Picture, not a Wikipedia one, because instead of being encyclopedic by showing every detail in naturalistic focus and exposure, it's artistic. Beautiful colors and color contrast, composition; wonderful use of shallow depth of field. Fg2 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very, very nice. ---donald- 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support An attractive image. Good colours and nice use of shallow depth of field. It's a pity that shallow depth of field always seems to draw oppose votes here, even when done as here for artistic effect. --MichaelMaggs 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ack MichaelMaggs - Keta 09:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose DoF --Wiki mouse 20:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support (weak) colours are very nice, DOF is so-so. Lycaon 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose nothing special, very small focused part of picture and the rest is totally unclear --Karelj 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)